Vol. 79 Monday, 

No. 76 April 21, 2014 

Part IV 

Department of Energy 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Commercial 

Refrigeration Equipment; Final Rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

22278 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–TP–0025] 

RIN 1904–AC99 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedure for Commercial 

Refrigeration Equipment 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this final rule, the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) revises and 

reorganizes its test procedure for 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

(CRE) to clarify certain terms, 

procedures, and compliance dates to 

improve the repeatability and remove 

ambiguity from the CRE test procedure. 

In this final rule, DOE also addresses a 

number of test procedure clarifications 

that arose as a result of the negotiated 

rulemaking process for certification of 

commercial heating, ventilation, air 

conditioning, refrigeration, and water 

heating equipment. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

May 21, 2014. 

The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in this final 

rule is approved by the Director of the 

Office of the Federal Register as of May 

21, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

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

buildings/appliance_standards/

rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=80. This Web 

page will contain a link to the docket for 

this rulemaking on the regulations.gov 

site. The regulations.gov Web page will 

contain simple instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda 

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

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–6590. Email: 

commercial_refrigeration_equipment@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, GC–71, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–6111. Email: 

mailto:Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule incorporates by reference into 10 

CFR part 431 the following industry 

standards: 

(1) ANSI/ASHRAE 72–2005, 

(‘‘ASHRAE 72–2005’’), ‘‘Method of 

Testing Commercial Refrigerators and 

Freezers,’’ Copyright 2005. 

(2) ASTM E 1084–86 (Reapproved 

2009), ‘‘Standard Test Method for Solar 

Transmittance (Terrestrial) of Sheet 

Materials Using Sunlight,’’ approved 

April 1, 2009. 

Copies of ASHRAE standards may be 

purchased from the American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning Engineers, Inc., 1971 

Tullie Circle NE., Atlanta, GA 30329, or 

at www.ashrae.org/. 

Copies of ASTM standards may be 

purchased from ASTM International, 

100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, 

West Conshohocken, PA 19428, (877) 

909–2786, or at www.astm.org/. 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

III. Discussion 

A. Amendments to the Test Procedure 

1. Scope of Coverage 

a. Salad Bars, Buffet Tables, and Other 

Refrigerated Holding and Serving 

Equipment 

b. Chef Bases and Griddle Stands 

c. Existing Cases Undergoing 

Refurbishments or Retrofits 

d. Case Doors Shipped as After-Market 

Additions 

2. Definitions Pertinent to Commercial 

Refrigeration Equipment 

a. Commercial Refrigeration Equipment 

With Drawers 

b. Transparent and Solid Doors 

c. Hybrid Equipment and Commercial 

Refrigerator-Freezers 

3. Relationship Among Rating 

Temperature, Operating Temperature, 

and Integrated Average Temperature 

4. Proper Configuration and Use of 

Components or Features in the DOE Test 

Procedure 

a. Energy Management Systems 

b. Lighting 

c. Test Package Temperatures 

5. Treatment of Other Specific Equipment 

Features and Accessories During Testing 

a. Customer Display Signs/Lights 

b. Condensate Pan Heaters and Pumps 

c. Anti-Sweat Door Heaters 

d. Ultraviolet Lights 

e. Illuminated Temperature Displays and 

Alarms 

f. Condenser Filters 

g. Refrigeration System Security Covers 

h. Night Curtains and Covers 

i. Grill Options 

j. Coated Coils 

k. Internal Secondary Coolant Circuits 

l. Wedge Cases 

m. Misting or Humidification Systems 

n. Air Purifiers 

o. General Purpose Outlets 

p. Crankcase Heaters 

q. Interior/Exterior Liners 

r. Other Comments Received From 

Interested Parties 

6. Rounding of Test Results and Certified 

Ratings 

7. Testing at the Lowest Application 

Product Temperature 

a. Definition of Lowest Application 

Product Temperature 

b. Incorporation by Reference of ASHRAE 

72–2005 

8. Clarifications in Response to 

Interpretations to AHRI 1200–2010 

9. Clarification of Methodology for 

Measuring Total Display Area 

10. Compliance Date of Test Procedure 

Amendments 

B. Other Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

Comments and DOE Responses 

1. Ambient Test Temperatures 

2. Burden of Testing 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

M. Congressional Notification 

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

Title III, Part C of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), 

Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6311– 

6317, as codified), added by Public Law 

95–619, Title IV, Sec. 441(a), established 

the Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Industrial Equipment, a program 

covering certain industrial equipment, 

which includes the commercial 

refrigeration equipment that is the focus 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22279 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A–1. 

2The term ‘‘covered product’’ broadly refers to all 

types of appliances and equipment regulated by 

DOE regardless of whether they are consumer 

products or commercial and industrial equipment. 

of this final rule.1 All references to 

EPCA refer to the statute as amended 

through the American Energy 

Manufacturing Technical Corrections 

Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112–210 

(Dec. 18, 2012). 

Under EPCA, the energy conservation 

program consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) 

Federal energy conservation standards, 

and (4) certification and enforcement 

procedures. The testing requirements 

consist of test procedures that 

manufacturers of covered equipment 

must use as the basis for (1) certifying 

to DOE that their equipment complies 

with the applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted under EPCA, (42 

U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)), and (2) making 

representations about the efficiency of 

that equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) 

Similarly, DOE must use these test 

procedures to determine whether the 

equipment complies with relevant 

standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)) 

General Test Procedure Rulemaking 

Process 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth 

the criteria and procedures DOE must 

follow when prescribing or amending 

test procedures for covered equipment. 

EPCA provides, in relevant part, that 

any test procedures prescribed or 

amended under this section shall be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results that reflect energy efficiency, 

energy use and estimated annual 

operating costs of a covered product 

during a representative average use 

cycle or period of use and shall not be 

unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 

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

In addition, if DOE determines that a 

test procedure amendment is warranted, 

it must publish proposed test 

procedures and offer the public an 

opportunity to present oral and written 

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

6314(c)(2)) Finally, in any rulemaking to 

amend a test procedure, DOE must 

determine to what extent, if any, the 

proposed test procedure would alter the 

measured energy efficiency of any 

covered product or equipment 2 as 

determined under the existing test 

procedure. If DOE determines that the 

amended test procedure would alter the 

measured efficiency of a covered 

product, DOE must amend the 

applicable energy conservation standard 

accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(D)) 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6314(c)(1), no later 

than 3 years after the date of prescribing 

a test procedure pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

6314, and from time to time thereafter, 

DOE is required to conduct a 

reevaluation and determine whether to 

amend the test procedure. If DOE 

determines a test procedure should be 

amended, it shall promptly publish in 

the Federal Register proposed test 

procedures, incorporating such 

amendments and affording interested 

persons an opportunity to present oral 

and written data, views, and arguments. 

(42 U.S.C. 6314(c)(2)) 

In February 2012, DOE published a 

final rule (2012 test procedure final 

rule) prescribing new amendments to 

the test procedure for commercial 

refrigeration equipment. 77 FR 10291, 

10318–21 (Feb. 21, 2012). Pursuant to 

EPCA’s requirement in 42 U.S.C. 

6314(c), DOE has reevaluated the CRE 

test procedure and concluded that it 

should be amended to clarify a number 

of provisions regarding how aspects of 

the test are conducted, to more 

explicitly define some terms, and to 

more clearly specify the compliance 

dates for various provisions. DOE’s 

adopted amendments to the test 

procedure are presented in this final 

rule. 

B. Background 

EPCA mandates that the American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and 

Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 

Standard 117–2002, ‘‘Method of Testing 

Closed Refrigerators,’’ shall be the initial 

test procedure for the types of 

equipment to which standards are 

applicable under 42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)– 

(3). (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(A)(ii)) EPCA 

requires DOE to address whether to 

amend its test procedures if ASHRAE 

amends this standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(6)(E)–(F)) In 2005, ASHRAE 

combined Standard 72–1998, ‘‘Method 

of Testing Open Refrigerators,’’ and 

Standard 117–2002 and published the 

test method as ASHRAE Standard 72– 

2005 (ASHRAE 72–2005), ‘‘Method of 

Testing Commercial Refrigerators and 

Freezers,’’ which was approved by the 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI) on July 29, 2005. Consistent with 

EPCA’s requirement in 42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(6)(E), DOE reviewed ASHRAE 

72–2005, as well as American 

Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Standard 

1200–2006 (ARI 1200–2006), which was 

approved by ANSI on August 28, 2006. 

DOE determined that ARI 1200–2006 

included by reference the test 

procedures in ASHRAE 72–2005 and 

the rating temperatures prescribed in 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(B)) As a 

result, DOE published a final rule in 

December 2006 (2006 test procedure 

final rule) that adopted ARI 1200–2006 

as the DOE test procedure for 

commercial refrigeration equipment. 71 

FR 71340, 71357 (Dec. 8, 2006). The 

2006 test procedure final rule specified 

rating temperatures of 38 °F (±2 °F) for 

commercial refrigerators and refrigerator 

compartments, 0 °F (±2 °F) for 

commercial freezers and freezer 

compartments, and ¥15 °F (±2 °F) for 

commercial ice-cream freezers. 71 FR at 

71370 (Dec. 8, 2006). DOE also adopted 

Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM) Standard HRF– 

1–2004, ‘‘Energy, Performance and 

Capacity of Household Refrigerators, 

Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers,’’ for 

measuring compartment volumes for 

equipment covered under the 2006 test 

procedure final rule. 71 FR at 71358 

(Dec. 8, 2006). The test procedure 

established in the 2006 final rule 

became effective on January 8, 2007 (71 

FR at 71340), and its use has been 

required to demonstrate compliance 

with the current energy conservation 

standards. 

More recently, on February 21, 2012, 

DOE published the aforementioned 

2012 test procedure final rule, in which 

it adopts several amendments to the 

DOE test procedure for commercial 

refrigeration equipment. These 

amendments include updating the 

standard incorporated by reference in 

the DOE test procedure in response to 

the relevant industry organizations 

issuing updated versions. Specifically, 

DOE updated the incorporation by 

reference of Air-Conditioning, Heating, 

and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) 

Standard 1200 (I–P)–2010 (AHRI 1200– 

2010), ‘‘Performance Rating of 

Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets,’’ 

as the DOE test procedure for this 

equipment. 77 FR at 10318 (Feb. 21, 

2012). The 2012 test procedure final 

rule also includes an amendment to 

incorporate by reference the updated 

ANSI/AHAM Standard HRF–1–2008 

(AHAM HRF–1–2008), ‘‘Energy, 

Performance, and Capacity of 

Household Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers,’’ for determining 

compartment volumes for this 

equipment. 77 FR at 10318 and 10321 

(Feb. 21, 2012). These updates were 

primarily editorial in nature and aligned 

the AHRI test procedure with the 

nomenclature and methodology used in 

DOE’s 2009 standards rulemaking on 

commercial refrigeration equipment. 

The updated AHRI 1200–2010 also 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

22280 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

3Night curtains are devices made of an insulating 

material, typically insulated aluminum fabric, 

designed to be pulled down over the open front of 

the case to decrease infiltration and heat transfer 

into the case when the merchandizing 

establishment is closed. 

4Founded in 1944 as the National Sanitation 

Foundation, the organization is now referred to 

simply as NSF. 

5All of the details of the negotiation sessions can 

be found in the public meeting transcripts that are 

posted to the docket for the Working Group 

(www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013- 

BT-NOC-0023). 

references the most recent version of the 

AHAM standard, AHAM HRF–1–2008. 

In addition, the 2012 test procedure 

final rule includes several amendments 

designed to address certain energy 

efficiency features that were not 

accounted for by the previous DOE test 

procedure, including provisions for 

measuring the impact of night curtains,3

lighting occupancy sensors, and 

scheduled controls. 77 FR at 10296– 

10298 and 10319–10320 (Feb. 21, 2012). 

In the 2012 test procedure final rule, 

DOE also adopts amendments to allow 

testing of commercial refrigeration 

equipment that cannot operate at the 

rating temperature specified in the DOE 

test procedure. Specifically, the 2012 

test procedure final rule allows testing 

of commercial refrigeration equipment 

at its lowest application product 

temperature (LAPT), for equipment that 

is physically incapable of reaching the 

prescribed rating temperature. 77 FR at 

10320 (Feb. 21, 2012). The 2012 test 

procedure final rule also allows 

manufacturers to test and certify 

equipment at the more-stringent rating 

temperatures and ambient conditions 

required by NSF 4 for food safety testing. 

77 FR at 10320–10321 (Feb. 21, 2012). 

The test procedure amendments 

established in the 2012 test procedure 

final rule became effective on March 22, 

2012. 77 FR at 10292 (Feb. 21, 2012). 

The amendments are required to be 

used in conjunction with the amended 

standards established in DOE’s recently 

published energy conservation 

standards final rule (March 2014 energy 

conservation standards final rule) 

beginning on March 28, 2017. 79 FR 

17726, 17727 (Mar. 28, 2014). 

Since publication of the 2012 test 

procedure final rule, DOE has received 

a number of inquiries from interested 

parties regarding DOE regulations for 

commercial refrigeration equipment, 

including how different types of 

equipment fit into DOE’s definitions of 

commercial refrigeration equipment at 

10 CFR 431.62, and questions involving 

certain provisions of the DOE test 

procedure at 10 CFR 431.64. More 

specifically, DOE has received inquiries 

and questions regarding the 

applicability of DOE’s test procedure 

and Federal energy conservation 

standards to particular models of 

commercial refrigeration equipment, the 

proper configuration and use of certain 

components and features of commercial 

refrigeration equipment for purposes of 

testing according to the DOE test 

procedure, and the compliance date of 

the amendments specified in the 2012 

test procedure final rule. On October 28, 

2013, the U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE) issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (hereafter referred to as the 

October 2013 test procedure NOPR) to 

amend the test procedure for 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

(CRE) appearing at 10 CFR 431.64. 78 

FR 64296 (Oct. 28, 2013). In the October 

2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE 

presented proposed amendments to 

address the questions presented by 

interested parties and, where 

appropriate, proposed edits to the 

regulatory language to clarify DOE’s 

existing regulations. 78 FR at 64296 

(Oct. 28, 2013). 

On February 26, 2013, members of the 

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking 

Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) 

unanimously decided to form a working 

group to negotiate rulemaking on 

certification for commercial heating, 

ventilation, and air-conditioning 

(HVAC); commercial water heating 

(WH); and commercial refrigeration 

equipment. A notice of intent to form 

the Commercial Certification Working 

Group was published in the Federal 

Register on March 12, 2013 (Docket No. 

EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0023). 78 FR 

15653 (Mar. 12, 2013). DOE received 35 

nominations for the Working Group. On 

April 16, 2013, DOE published a notice 

of open meeting that announced the first 

meeting and listed the 22 nominees that 

were selected to serve as members of the 

Working Group, in addition to two 

members from ASRAC, and one DOE 

representative. 78 FR 22431 (Apr. 16, 

2013). The members of the Working 

Group were selected to ensure a broad 

and balanced array of stakeholder 

interests and expertise, and include 

efficiency advocates, manufacturers, a 

utility representative, and third party 

laboratory representatives. As part of 

that rulemaking process, DOE 

conducted a number of regulatory 

negotiation sessions over the course of 

the summer of 2013 involving major 

stakeholders in the CRE market.5 One 

outcome of these meetings was an 

agreement on the need to clarify aspects 

of the DOE test procedure with respect 

to the treatment of specific features of 

commercial refrigeration equipment. On 

August 30, 2013, the Working Group 

submitted a report to ASRAC containing 

recommendations on the certification 

requirements for HVAC, WH, and 

refrigeration equipment (Docket No. 

EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0023, No. 51) and 

ASRAC voted unanimously to accept 

these recommendations (Docket No. 

EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0005, No. 13). In 

the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, 

DOE also proposed clarifications of the 

treatment of those features by the DOE 

test procedure. 78 FR at 64306–64308 

(Oct. 28, 2013). 

On December 5, 2013, DOE held a 

public meeting (December 2013 NOPR 

public meeting) to present the test 

procedure amendments proposed in the 

October 2013 test procedure NOPR and 

accept comments from interested 

parties. Interested parties submitted 

comments on the ambient test 

conditions and the burden of testing and 

certification of commercial refrigeration 

equipment. DOE analyzed all of the 

comments received in response to the 

October 2013 test procedure NOPR and 

incorporated recommendations, where 

appropriate, into this test procedure 

final rule. 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

In this final rule, DOE adopts 

amendments to clarify DOE’s test 

procedure provisions, definitions, the 

treatment of specific accessories when 

testing under the DOE test procedure, 

and the applicability of the existing test 

procedure and standards to different 

types of commercial refrigeration 

equipment. Specifically, DOE is 

adopting edits to definitions currently 

incorporated into the existing DOE test 

procedure and including additional 

definitions to be incorporated into the 

existing test procedure (reorganized into 

appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 

431). DOE is also adopting edits to 

definitions and including additional 

definitions to be incorporated into the 

test procedure used to determine 

compliance with the amended energy 

conservation standards adopted for 

commercial refrigeration equipment on 

March 28, 2014 (reorganized into 

appendix B to subpart C of 10 CFR part 

431). 79 FR 17726. DOE does not believe 

that the test procedure clarifications 

adopted in this final rule will affect the 

measured energy use of any covered 

commercial refrigeration equipment as 

they relate to the applicable energy 

conservation standards. Rather, the 

additional definitions and amendments 

to the DOE test procedure for 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

would serve only to clarify existing 

nomenclature, testing provisions, 

compliance dates, and requirements for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22281 

certain features and types of commercial 

refrigeration equipment; they would not 

establish new requirements with regard 

to testing commercial refrigeration 

equipment. 

DOE notes that certification is not 

currently required for commercial 

refrigeration equipment. On December 

31, 2013, DOE published a final rule 

adopting amended regulations 

governing alternative energy 

determination methods (AEDMs), basic 

model definition, and the compliance 

dates for certification of commercial 

HVAC, refrigeration, and WH (2013 

AEDM final rule). 78 FR 79579, 79590. 

The 2013 AEDM Final Rule adopted a 

certification date of December 31, 2014, 

for self-contained, closed solid, and 

closed transparent commercial 

refrigeration equipment and a 

certification date of July 1, 2015, for all 

other commercial refrigeration 

equipment. Id. DOE also recently 

published a NOPR proposing, among 

other things, to revise and expand the 

certification requirements for 

commercial refrigeration equipment. 79 

FR 8886, 8899–8900 (Feb. 14, 2014). 

The specific proposals discussed in the 

NOPR were developed as a result of the 

negotiations and recommendations of 

the Working Group for commercial 

HVAC, WH, and refrigeration 

equipment (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT– 

NOC–0023). 

III. Discussion 

Section III.A presents all of the 

revisions to the DOE test procedure 

found at 10 CFR part 431, subpart C, 

‘‘Uniform test method for measuring the 

energy consumption of commercial 

refrigerators, freezers, and refrigeratorfreezers,’’ incorporated in this final rule, 

and discusses the comments received on 

these topics during the December 2013 

NOPR public meeting and the 

associated comment period. The 

changes adopted as a result of this final 

rule include revisions addressing the 

following: 

1. The applicability of the test 

procedure and related energy 

conservation standards to certain types 

of equipment; 

2. the definitions of ‘‘hybrid 

commercial refrigeration equipment,’’ 

‘‘commercial refrigeration equipment 

with drawers,’’ and ‘‘commercial 

refrigeration equipment with solid and/ 

or transparent doors’’; 

3. the relationship among the rating 

temperature, operating temperature, and 

integrated average temperature (IAT); 

4. the proper configuration and use of 

energy management systems, lighting 

controls, and test packages in the DOE 

test procedure for commercial 

refrigeration equipment; 

5. the treatment of various features 

and components; 

6. the rounding requirements for test 

results and certified ratings; 

7. the provision adopted in the 2012 

test procedure final rule to allow testing 

at the LAPT for equipment that cannot 

operate at the prescribed rating 

temperature for its equipment class; 

8. clarifications raised by AHRI’s 

Interpretations 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of AHRI 

1200–2010; 

9. the methodology used to determine 

total display area (TDA); and 

10. the compliance date of certain 

amendments established in the 2012 test 

procedure final rule. 

In response to the October 2013 test 

procedure NOPR, DOE received several 

comments from stakeholders that did 

not pertain to a specific test procedure 

amendment. In section III.B, DOE 

provides responses to comments 

pertaining to (1) the ambient test 

temperatures required in the DOE test 

procedure and (2) the burden of testing 

and certifying equipment as compliant 

with DOE’s energy conservation 

standards. 

A. Amendments to the Test Procedure 

This final rule incorporates the 

following changes to the test procedure 

for commercial refrigeration equipment 

in 10 CFR part 431, subpart C. 

1. Scope of Coverage 

On October 18, 2005, DOE published 

a final rule adopting EPCA’s definition 

of commercial refrigeration equipment. 

This definition includes seven 

provisions pertaining to the operational, 

functional, and design characteristics of 

the equipment that must be met for a 

piece of equipment to qualify as 

commercial refrigeration equipment. 70 

FR 60407, 60414 (Oct. 18, 2005). This 

definition forms the basis of the scope 

of coverage of DOE’s regulations for 

commercial refrigeration equipment. 

While the definition of commercial 

refrigeration equipment encompasses a 

broad cross-section of commercial 

refrigeration equipment types, DOE has 

only established energy conservation 

standards for certain types of covered 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

specified at 10 CFR 431.66, and these 

standards apply to all new equipment 

distributed into U.S. commerce. 76 FR 

at 12426 and 12437 (March 7, 2011). 

There are also several types of 

equipment that meet the definition of 

commercial refrigeration equipment for 

which DOE has not yet set energy 

conservation standards. These include, 

for example, buffet tables, salad bars, 

prep tables, and griddle stands. 

EPCA and DOE regulations require 

manufacturers of commercial 

refrigeration equipment to use the DOE 

test procedure for commercial 

refrigeration equipment to evaluate 

compliance with any applicable energy 

conservation standards and to support 

any representations as to the energy use. 

The DOE test procedure for commercial 

refrigeration equipment is set forth at 10 

CFR 431.64. 

In the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR, DOE proposed clarifications 

regarding the applicability of the current 

DOE energy conservation standards and 

test procedure to specific equipment 

categories, including the following: 

i. Salad bars, buffet tables, and other 

refrigerated holding and serving 

equipment; 

ii. chef bases and griddle stands; 

iii. existing cases undergoing 

refurbishments or retrofits; and 

iv. cases with doors shipped as aftermarket accessories. 

78 FR at 64299–64300 (Oct. 28, 2013). 

a. Salad Bars, Buffet Tables, and Other 

Refrigerated Holding and Serving 

Equipment 

Salad bars, buffet tables, and other 

refrigerated holding and serving 

equipment are types of commercial 

refrigeration equipment that store and 

display perishable items temporarily 

during food preparation or service. As 

DOE stated in the October 2013 test 

procedure NOPR, these units typically 

have specific design attributes, such as 

easily accessible or open bins that allow 

convenient and unimpeded access to 

the refrigerated products, which make 

them unique from commercial 

refrigeration equipment designed for 

storage or retailing. 78 FR at 64299–300 

(Oct. 28, 2013). In this final rule, DOE 

maintains that while salad bars, buffet 

tables, and other refrigerated holding 

and serving equipment are covered 

equipment types because they meet the 

definition of commercial refrigeration 

equipment in EPCA, the DOE test 

procedure and current Federal 

standards do not apply due to their 

unique operation. Should DOE decide to 

consider test procedures or energy 

conservation standards for salad bars, 

buffet tables, and other refrigerated 

holding and serving equipment, it 

would do so in a future rulemaking. 

b. Chef Bases and Griddle Stands 

Chef bases and griddle stands are 

designed to be placed directly under 

cooking equipment, such as a 

commercial grill. Chef bases and griddle 

stands are also designed to provide 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

22282 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

6A notation in this form provides a reference for 

information that is in the docket of DOE’s 

rulemaking to develop test procedures for 

commercial refrigeration equipment (Docket No. 

EERE–2013–BT–TP–0025, which is maintained at 

www.regulations.gov). This particular notation 

refers to a comment: (1) Submitted by Continental; 

(2) appearing in document number 14 of the docket; 

and (3) appearing on page 1 of that document. 

food-safe temperatures in extremely hot 

environments, and thus are designed 

with uniquely robust refrigeration 

systems. These refrigeration systems 

require larger compressors to provide 

more cooling capacity for the storage 

volume than equipment with 

compressors that are appropriately sized 

for more typical ambient temperatures. 

As a result, this equipment consumes 

more energy than similarly sized, 

standard CRE models. 

In the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR, DOE stated that chef bases and 

griddle stands are considered 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

according to DOE’s definition at 10 CFR 

431.62 and stated that it believes that 

chef bases and griddle stands can be 

tested using the DOE test procedure for 

commercial refrigeration equipment. 

DOE also noted that current energy 

conservation standards do not apply to 

these types of equipment and DOE did 

not consider standards for this 

equipment in its recent revision of 

energy conservation standards for 

commercial refrigeration equipment. 79 

FR 17726 (Mar. 28, 2014). DOE further 

proposed additions to 10 CFR 431.66 to 

make clear that the current energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

refrigeration equipment do not apply to 

chef bases and griddle stands. 78 FR at 

64300 (Oct. 28, 2013). To clearly 

differentiate ‘‘chef bases’’ and ‘‘griddle 

stands’’ from conventional types of 

commercial refrigeration equipment that 

are currently covered by energy 

conservation standards, DOE proposed 

to establish a definition for ‘‘chef base’’ 

and/or ‘‘griddle stand’’ based on the 

unique operation of chef bases and 

griddle stands, which are designed to 

provide food-safe temperatures in 

extremely warm environments in excess 

of 200 °F, and thus are designed with 

uniquely robust refrigeration systems. 

In response to the October 2013 test 

procedure NOPR, interested parties 

provided comments on DOE’s proposed 

definition and coverage of chef bases 

and griddle stands. Continental agreed 

with DOE’s proposed definition of ‘‘chef 

base or griddle stand,’’ stating that it 

corresponds with industry practice 

regarding types of units designed and 

marketed for harsh applications that 

should be given special consideration 

for energy consumption limits. 

(Continental, No. 14 at p. 1) 6 Traulsen 

suggested that DOE replace the term 

‘‘cooking equipment’’ with ‘‘cooking 

appliance,’’ but stated that otherwise 

found the definition of ‘‘chef base or 

griddle stand’’ to be acceptable. 

(Traulsen, No. 17 at p. 1) 

Hill Phoenix agreed with DOE that 

chef bases and griddle stands do not yet 

have energy conservation standards 

associated with them and requested that 

other, similar equipment designed to be 

placed or mounted directly under 

equipment that is designed to hold food 

at an elevated temperature be 

considered in this category. (Hill 

Phoenix, No. 13 at p. 1) Similarly, 

Southern Store Fixtures requested 

clarification on the exact definition of 

chef bases, specifically, whether this 

covered refrigeration units with food 

warming equipment on top. (Southern 

Store Fixtures, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 7 at p. 25) True 

commented that while some consumers 

may place food-warming equipment on 

top of a refrigeration unit, a majority of 

consumers will place high-temperature 

cooking equipment atop the unit, and 

manufacturers will almost always 

design equipment for the harsh case. 

(True, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 

at p. 26) Hill Phoenix also noted that 

NSF Type II equipment is designed to 

operate at elevated temperatures and 

similarly would use more energy if 

tested using the current CRE test 

procedure (than Type I equipment) and, 

as such, suggested that NSF Type II 

equipment also should fall into the 

category of equipment for which 

standards have not yet been set. (Hill 

Phoenix, No. 13 at pp. 1–2) 

DOE appreciates the agreement of 

interested parties with DOE’s proposed 

definition. With regard to replacing the 

term ‘‘cooking equipment’’ with 

‘‘cooking appliance,’’ as suggested by 

interested parties, DOE’s appliance 

standards and commercial equipment 

program generally refers to equipment 

as something designed and primarily 

found in commercial applications, 

while the term ‘‘appliance’’ refers to a 

primarily residential application. DOE 

finds that chef bases and griddle stands, 

and the associated cooking apparatus 

placed above these equipment, are 

typically used in commercial kitchens. 

As such, DOE believes the term 

‘‘cooking equipment’’ is more 

appropriate than ‘‘cooking appliance’’ 

for use in the definition of ‘‘chef bases’’ 

and ‘‘griddle stands,’’ as it is consistent 

with DOE’s designation of equipment as 

designed for commercial applications. 

Regarding the inclusion of additional 

equipment designed for use directly 

under equipment that is designed to 

hold food at an elevated temperature as 

suggested by several commenters, DOE 

believes that this equipment can be 

adequately represented in the current 

CRE equipment categories and does not 

find sufficient justification to exclude 

them with the exclusion of ‘‘chef bases’’ 

and ‘‘griddle stands.’’ The categorization 

of griddle stands was meant to 

accommodate equipment that 

experienced temperatures in excess of 

200 °F, which requires significant 

modification of the refrigeration system 

to maintain cooling in such a high 

temperature environment. DOE does not 

find that temperatures required for 

short-term holding of food are 

significantly different from the 

temperatures observed in restaurants or 

other closed cooking environments in 

which conventional commercial 

refrigeration equipment is placed. DOE 

does not believe that maintenance of 

refrigeration performance in these 

environments requires significantly 

different equipment design, as is the 

case of ‘‘chef bases’’ and ‘‘griddle 

stands.’’ In addition, DOE has not 

observed specific marketing or 

identification of commercial 

refrigeration equipment designed for use 

under food-warming and holding 

equipment. Thus, based on DOE’s 

assessment, the refrigeration system and 

design of this equipment is not 

significantly different from other types 

of commercial refrigeration equipment, 

and DOE believes that the existing DOE 

test procedure is sufficiently 

representative of field use, and 

application of the existing energy 

conservation standard appropriate for 

this equipment. 

In response to Hill Phoenix’s 

comment regarding NSF Type II 

equipment, DOE believes that NSF Type 

II equipment can be effectively 

characterized by the existing DOE test 

procedure and effectively meet the 

existing energy conservation standards. 

DOE previously considered NSF Type II 

equipment in the 2012 test procedure 

final rule and found that the compressor 

systems can effectively operate at test 

temperatures. In the 2012 test procedure 

final rule, DOE agreed with interested 

parties that testing cases at an ambient 

temperature of 80 °F, rather than the 

currently specified 75 °F, will not have 

a significant impact on energy 

consumption for cases with doors and 

recognized that the impact on open 

cases may be greater than on closed 

cases, but did not believe that 

equipment will have operation or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22283 

performance issues if tested at the 

temperatures prescribed by the DOE test 

procedure. 77 FR at 10305–10307 (Feb. 

21, 2012). DOE maintains that the 

energy consumption of a case should 

scale with ambient temperature and 

does not believe these issues will 

prevent units from being tested using 

the DOE-prescribed test temperatures or 

complying with DOE energy 

conservation standards. DOE researched 

the equipment available on the market 

and requested specific data regarding 

the existence of cases that cannot meet 

the standard or the characteristics of 

their operation. DOE did not encounter 

any data arising from this search that 

would conflict with its current 

treatment of these equipment types, and 

no commenters provided any additional 

data to support the contention that these 

equipment types cannot meet the DOE 

standards. In addition, NSF Type II 

equipment is typically placed outdoors 

and may see a wide variety of 

temperatures in the field; thus, DOE 

finds the current rating conditions of 

75 °F and 45 percent relative humidity 

appropriately representative for this 

equipment. 

c. Existing Cases Undergoing 

Refurbishments or Retrofits 

Energy conservation standards apply 

only to new equipment manufactured 

after the effective date of the applicable 

standard, and not to equipment 

undergoing retrofits or refurbishments. 

DOE stated in its certification, 

compliance, and enforcement (CCE) 

final rule, published on March 7, 2011, 

that manufacturers must certify to DOE 

that each basic model of covered 

equipment meets the applicable 

standard before distributing that 

equipment into U.S. commerce. 76 FR at 

12426 and 12437. In the October 2013 

test procedure NOPR, DOE clarified that 

its authority covers only newly 

manufactured equipment and does not 

extend to rebuilt and refurbished 

equipment. 78 FR at 64300 (Oct. 28, 

2013). 

DOE did not receive any negative 

comments in response to this 

clarification and continues to maintain 

that its energy conservation standards 

and test procedures apply to only new 

equipment and not existing equipment 

undergoing refurbishments or retrofits. 

d. Case Doors Shipped as After-Market 

Additions 

A basic model of commercial 

refrigeration equipment is tested, rated, 

and subject to specific standards based 

on the equipment class(es) to which that 

basic model belongs. For commercial 

refrigeration equipment, one of the 

features that distinguishes the current 

equipment classes for the purposes of 

applying standards is the presence of 

doors (i.e., open or closed). In the 

October 2013 test procedure NOPR, 

DOE proposed that when a model of 

commercial refrigeration equipment is 

offered for sale with doors as an 

optional accessory, regardless of how 

the unit is shipped, such unit must be 

tested and certified as equivalent to a 

basic model shipped with doors preinstalled. DOE also requested comment 

on whether, if this same model is 

offered for sale as a model without 

doors, it should be tested and rated with 

no doors installed and meet the 

corresponding energy conservation 

standards for open case equipment. 

In response to the October 2013 test 

procedure NOPR, the Northwest Energy 

Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) commented 

that it believed equipment that can 

optionally be sold with doors or without 

should be tested and certified in each 

configuration. (NEEA, No. 16 at p. 1) 

DOE did not receive any negative 

comments on this proposal. 

DOE agrees with NEEA that 

commercial refrigeration equipment that 

can optionally be sold with doors or 

without doors should be treated as 

separate basic models in separate 

equipment classes and should be tested 

both with doors and without doors. This 

is consistent with the definition of basic 

models, which is based on features that 

affect the energy use of a covered piece 

of equipment as established in DOE’s 

CCE final rule, and requires individual 

models that would fall into different 

equipment classes to be certified 

separately. 76 FR at 12429 (March 7, 

2011) (see 10 CFR 431.62). 

2. Definitions Pertinent to Commercial 

Refrigeration Equipment 

DOE currently categorizes commercial 

refrigeration equipment by equipment 

classes based on several general 

characteristics of a given basic model. 

10 CFR 431.62 provides definitions that 

assist manufacturers in determining 

which equipment class and associated 

energy conservation standard applies to 

a given basic model of commercial 

refrigeration equipment. However, 10 

CFR 431.62 does not provide explicit 

guidance on how to classify commercial 

refrigeration equipment with drawers or 

how to differentiate between a unit with 

transparent doors and a unit with solid 

doors. In the October 2013 test 

procedure NOPR, DOE proposed 

definitions and clarifications regarding 

the treatment of commercial 

refrigeration equipment with drawers 

and commercial refrigeration equipment 

with transparent and/or solid doors. 78 

FR at 64300–03 (Oct. 28, 2013). DOE 

also proposed clarification with regard 

to the definitions for and categorization 

of hybrid equipment and commercial 

refrigerator freezers. 78 FR at 64303 

(Oct. 28, 2013). These proposals, 

comments submitted by interested 

parties, and DOE’s response to 

submitted comments are presented in 

the subsequent sections. 

a. Commercial Refrigeration Equipment 

With Drawers 

DOE’s definition of commercial 

refrigerator, freezer, and refrigeratorfreezer specified at 10 CFR 431.62 

includes a requirement that the 

equipment ‘‘[h]as transparent or solid 

doors, sliding or hinged doors, a 

combination of hinged, sliding, 

transparent, or solid doors, or no 

doors.’’ Based on this definition, DOE 

interprets the term ‘‘door’’ to mean any 

movable component of the CRE unit 

that: 

1. When closed, separates the interior 

refrigerated space from the ambient air; 

and 

2. when opened, provides access to 

the refrigerated products inside the CRE 

unit. 

Based on this definition, in the 

October 2013 test procedure NOPR, 

DOE presented its view that drawers are 

treated as equivalent to doors for 

purposes of DOE’s regulatory program, 

including compliance with DOE’s 

energy conservation standards. 

Likewise, DOE believes drawers are 

treated as doors when conducting the 

DOE test procedure. 78 FR at 64300–01 

(Oct. 28, 2013). 

To demonstrate the comparable 

operation of models of commercial 

refrigeration equipment with drawers as 

compared to similar models with 

traditional doors, in the October 2013 

test procedure NOPR, DOE presented 

the test results for several CRE units 

with drawers from multiple 

manufacturers using the current DOE 

test procedure and compared their 

performance to nearly identical units 

with hinged doors (belonging to the 

vertical closed solid, or VCS, equipment 

family) from the same manufacturer 

product lines. As a result of the testing, 

DOE found that the units with drawers 

performed similarly to the hinged-door 

units to which they were compared. 

DOE also presented the effect of draweropening distances for CRE units with 

drawers and found minimal variation in 

measured total daily energy 

consumption (TDEC) at different drawer 

opening distances. 78 FR at 64301 (Oct. 

28, 2013). DOE believes these test 

results confirm that the door-opening 

requirements in the DOE test procedure 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

22284 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

apply to basic models of commercial 

refrigeration equipment with drawers, 

just as they do for CRE units with other 

types of hinged or sliding doors, and 

that the current energy conservation 

standards prescribed for commercial 

refrigeration equipment are equally 

applicable to CRE units with drawers. 

To clarify how DOE’s regulatory 

scheme applies to basic models of CRE 

units with drawers, in the October 2013 

test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to 

add language to the definition section at 

10 CFR 431.62, defining doors as being 

inclusive of drawers, and requested 

comment on its proposed definition. 78 

FR at 64301 (Oct. 28, 2013). 

Several interested parties commented 

on DOE’s proposed definition of door to 

include drawers, the applicability of the 

DOE test procedure to units with 

drawers, and DOE’s coverage of units 

with drawers in general. DOE presents 

the comments received by interested 

parties and DOE’s response in the 

following sections. 

Definition of Door 

In the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR, DOE defined door at 78 FR 

64301 (Oct. 28, 2013). 

DOE received several comments and 

suggestions from interested parties 

regarding its proposed definition for 

doors. Continental commented that 

DOE’s definition of ‘‘door’’ should not 

include drawers. Continental stated that 

it is counter-intuitive to define a 

‘‘drawer’’ as a subset of a ‘‘door’’ and 

this would result in confusion and 

misinterpretation and suggested that, 

instead, DOE change the usage of the 

term ‘‘door’’ in applicable procedures to 

‘‘door or drawer.’’ (Continental, No. 14 

at p. 1) AHRI did not agree with DOE’s 

proposed definition of ‘‘door’’ to be 

inclusive of drawers and instead 

suggested that DOE create separate 

definition for drawers or amending the 

current definition for ‘‘doors’’ by 

replacing ‘‘door’’ with the term ‘‘door/ 

drawer.’’ (AHRI, No. 15 at p. 3) 

NEEA, AHRI, Southern Store Fixtures, 

and True commented that DOE’s 

definition of doors would include night 

curtains and recommended that DOE 

include a specific exclusion of night 

curtains in the definition of doors. 

(NEEA, No. 16 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 15 at 

p. 4; Southern Store Fixtures, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 32; True, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 

37) Several interested parties, including 

NEEA, Traulsen, True, Southern Store 

Fixtures, and Unified Brands, 

recommended that DOE remove the 

‘‘use of tools’’ clause from the 

definition, as most drawers and some 

doors are intended to be removed 

without the use of tools. (NEEA, No. 16 

at p. 2; Traulsen, No. 17 at p. 2; True, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 

37; Southern Store Fixtures, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 37; 

Unified Brands, No. 9 at p. 1) 

DOE appreciates the suggestions of 

interested parties regarding changes and 

improvements to DOE’s proposed 

definition for door. DOE agrees with 

interested parties that a night curtain 

would have met the definition of ‘‘door’’ 

proposed in the October 2013 test 

procedure NOPR. This was not DOE’s 

intent, as night curtains are intended to 

be treated as an energy-saving feature 

for open cases. DOE also adopted a 

specific definition for night curtain in 

the 2012 test procedure final rule. 77 FR 

at 10318 (Feb. 21, 2012). To clarify that 

night curtains are not to be treated as 

doors for the purposes of testing using 

the DOE test procedure or complying 

with DOE’s energy conservation 

standards, in this final rule DOE is 

adding language to the definition of 

‘‘door’’ to exclude night curtains. 

DOE also acknowledges comments 

submitted by interested parties 

regarding the requirement that a door be 

‘‘affixed such that it is not removable 

without the use of tools.’’ DOE’s intent 

with the proposed clause was to exclude 

temporary insulating panels or other 

devices that are not doors, but may be 

placed on open cases periodically to 

limit energy consumption when the case 

is not in use for merchandizing. DOE 

agrees with commenters that some doors 

and drawers are intended to be 

removable without the use of tools for 

the ease of cleaning, product loading, or 

other utility features, and that these 

cases should still be treated as closed 

cases with doors. Therefore, in the 

definition of ‘‘door’’ adopted in this 

final rule, DOE is removing the ‘‘use of 

tools’’ provision. Upon further 

consideration, DOE found the statement 

to be superfluous. This does not include 

night curtains or other panels that are 

not in place when the case is being used 

for merchandising. 

Regarding the inclusion of drawers in 

DOE’s definition of ‘‘door,’’ DOE 

acknowledges the concerns of interested 

parties that referring to drawers as doors 

in the test procedure for commercial 

refrigeration equipment may be 

confusing and non-intuitive. However, 

DOE’s test procedure for commercial 

refrigeration equipment only addresses 

the treatment of ‘‘doors’’ and does not 

explicitly reference the treatment of 

‘‘drawers.’’ This terminology is 

established in ASHRAE Standard 72– 

2005, the method of test referenced in 

AHRI 1200–2010, the test procedure 

incorporated by reference as the 

foundation of DOE’s test procedure for 

commercial refrigeration equipment. 

Given that the nomenclature in these 

referenced test standards is not the sole 

purview of DOE, DOE believes the most 

straightforward method for clarifying 

that the treatment of drawers should be 

identical to the treatment of doors for 

the purposes of conducting the DOE test 

procedure and compliance with DOE’s 

energy conservation standards is to 

continue to define door as inclusive of 

drawers, as proposed in the October 

2013 test procedure NOPR. 78 FR at 

64301 (Oct. 28, 2013). However, if the 

ASHRAE Standard Project Committee 

were to revise ASHRAE Standard 72– 

2005 to include drawers specifically, 

DOE could review and incorporate the 

revised test standard, if appropriate, to 

further eliminate confusion. DOE 

understands that this may occur in a 

forthcoming version of ASHRAE 

Standard 72, anticipated to be published 

in 2014. Until such a revised test 

standard is available, DOE will also 

incorporate language into the test 

procedure at 10 CFR 431.64 to specify 

that drawers are to be treated as 

identical to doors when conducting the 

DOE test procedure. 

Applicability of the DOE Test Procedure 

to Commercial Refrigeration Equipment 

With Drawers 

Several interested parties commented 

that the current DOE test procedure for 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

does not provide sufficient clarity 

regarding how to test units with 

drawers. Specifically, commenters 

identified (1) the type and configuration 

of drawer pans, (2) the location and 

number of simulators and test packages 

in the drawers, (3) how to determine 

interior refrigerated volume of a 

drawered unit, and (4) how far a drawer 

should be opened during testing as areas 

of ambiguity when applying the existing 

DOE test procedure to CRE models with 

drawers. (Unified Brands, No. 9 at p. 2; 

Traulsen, No. 17 at p. 2; National, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 

42) Unified Brands and Traulsen 

commented that, depending on the 

design of the drawer unit, moving the 

test simulators in and out of the 

refrigerated compartment may cause 

variation in the integrated average 

temperature (IAT), which could drive 

increased energy consumption, and 

added that testing of commercial 

refrigeration equipment with doors does 

not require test simulators to be 

removed from the refrigerated 

compartment. (Unified Brands, No. 9 at 

p. 2; Traulsen, No. 17 at p. 2) 

Specifically, National opined that when 

calculating total volume of a drawered 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22285 

unit, there should be considerations for 

drawer pan capacity. Additionally, 

National urged DOE to center the 

definition of a unit’s volume on the 

amount of product that the unit can 

hold. (National, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 7 at p. 42) 

Unified Brands commented that it is 

inappropriate for a drawer to be 

included as equivalent to a door for the 

purposes of testing and compliance with 

the DOE test procedure and energy 

conservation standards because when a 

drawer is opened, the entire contents of 

the drawer are removed from the 

interior volume of the cabinet and 

exposed to the ambient conditions. In 

addition, Unified Brands stated that it 

manufactures drawer units in which the 

drawer is fully insulated refrigerated 

space and the cabinet is mostly 

structural. Unified Brands further 

commented that drawer units are often 

designed with additional refrigeration 

capacity beyond that of a similarly sized 

door unit due to the unique air flow and 

refrigeration challenges that drawers 

provide. (Unified Brands, No. 9 at pp. 

1–2) 

Lastly, Unified Brands commented 

that current CRE models may require as 

many as 12 separate drawer openings, 

requiring 12 door-opening apparatus, 

the electronic capability to control all of 

the openers, and a significant amount of 

space. Unified Brands added that testing 

equipment with drawers also increases 

burden by increasing the complexity of 

the test and increasing the risk 

associated with managing thermocouple 

wires to prevent thermocouple 

displacement and breakage. (Unified 

Brands, No. 9 at pp. 2–3) Unified Brands 

was also concerned that multiple 

thermocouple wires may prevent the 

drawer gaskets from sealing properly, 

resulting in increased energy use. 

(Unified Brands, No. 9 at p. 2) 

Based on comments received by 

interested parties, DOE reviewed its test 

procedure for commercial refrigeration 

equipment with regards to specific 

requirements necessary to accommodate 

or clarify the application of the CRE test 

procedure to equipment with drawers. 

The DOE test procedure for commercial 

refrigeration equipment adopts specific 

sections of the Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers Standard for 

Energy, Performance and Capacity of 

Household Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers and Freezers (AHAM HRF–1– 

2004) as the protocol for determining 

refrigerated compartment volume for 

compliance with the current standards 

and specific sections of AHAM HRF–1– 

2008 for measuring refrigerated 

compartment volume to determine 

compliance with the amended standards 

adopted in the March 2014 energy 

conservation standard final rule. 79 FR 

17726 (Mar. 28, 2014). DOE reviewed 

these methods for determining 

refrigerated compartment volume and 

finds them sufficient for determining 

internal refrigerated volume for 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

with drawers. 

With regard to the comment from 

Unified Brands about a model of 

commercial refrigeration equipment in 

which the drawers are insulated and the 

outer case acts more as a support, DOE 

researched this type of commercial 

refrigeration equipment and reviewed 

the applicable methods for calculating 

refrigerated or frozen compartment 

volume. DOE specifically references 

section 3.21, ‘‘Volume,’’ of AHAM HRF 

1–2004 and section 3.30, ‘‘Volume,’’ of 

AHAM HRF 1–2008. Both of these 

sections contain definitions for ‘‘fresh 

food compartment volume’’ and ‘‘freezer 

compartment volume,’’ which are 

defined as the portion of the total 

refrigerated volume above or below 

32 °F, respectively. The total refrigerated 

volume is a combination of these two 

compartment volumes. Based on these 

definitions, DOE believes that only the 

volume that is purposefully refrigerated 

for food display or storage is to be 

included in the refrigerated volume 

calculation. Thus, in the case of a 

drawered CRE model in which only the 

drawers are insulated and directly 

cooled, only the interior volume of the 

drawers would be included in the 

calculation of refrigerated volume, not 

the entire volume of the cabinet 

housing. DOE believes that this is clear 

in the existing protocol specified in 

AHAM HRF 1–2004 and AHAM HRF 1– 

2008 and further clarification is not 

necessary on this matter. 

Regarding test simulator locations, 

filler package placement, and pan 

configuration for CRE models with 

drawers, DOE reviewed the ASHRAE 

Standard 72–2005, which is the 

industry standard referenced by the 

DOE test procedure, to determine the 

sufficiency of existing guidance for 

placing test simulators and filler 

packages in commercial refrigeration 

equipment with drawers. ASHRAE 

Standard 72–2005 specifically addresses 

CRE models with shelves and without 

shelves and, in general, specifies that 

test simulators shall be placed at the 

right end, front and back, and the left 

end, front and back. Test simulators are 

also to be placed intermittently across 

the face of CRE model at shelf standard 

breaks or with specific spacing in the 

case of CRE models without shelving. 

Since CRE models with drawers 

typically do not have shelves, these 

models will be treated as CRE models 

without shelves. Therefore, applying the 

requirements for CRE models without 

shelves to CRE models with drawers, it 

is logical that test simulators should be 

placed in the front and back corners of 

the drawer and, depending on the width 

of the drawer, 36- to 48-inch intervals 

across the width of the drawer in the 

front and back, as is the case for 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

without shelves. DOE does not see a 

problem applying the requirements for a 

CRE model without shelves in ASHRAE 

Standard 72–2005 to a CRE model with 

drawers, which qualifies as a CRE 

model without shelves, and believes 

placing test simulators in this manner 

will accurately and representatively 

capture the internal temperature of the 

equipment. 

With regard to filler package 

placement, ASHRAE Standard 72–2005 

specifies that the remaining usable 

space where test simulators are not 

required shall be loaded with filler 

packages or filler material so as to 

occupy between 70 and 90 percent of 

the refrigerated volume and to 

uniformly occupy the space from the 

front to the rear. Again, DOE does not 

anticipate issues in applying these 

requirements to CRE models with 

drawers just as they are applied to CRE 

models with doors. In the case of CRE 

models with drawers, each drawer 

should be filled with filled packages or 

filler material up to the load limit. DOE 

acknowledges that it is theoretically 

possible that the drawers could hold 

less than 70 percent of the net 

refrigerated volume if the entire cabinet 

was refrigerated. However, DOE notes 

that this would be an inefficient design 

choice and DOE does not see a 

significant utility associated with 

having significant amounts of unusable 

refrigerated volume. Therefore, DOE 

does not believe accommodation is 

necessary for such situations. If a 

manufacturer produces a case that 

cannot meet the requirements of 70 

percent packing, that manufacturer must 

apply for a test procedure waiver. 

As to the pan configuration necessary 

for testing CRE models with drawers, 

DOE understands that CRE with drawers 

often consist of a sliding frame that 

accommodates the placement of 

standard size pans typically used by the 

food service industry for holding food. 

DOE acknowledges that theoretically 

many configurations of pans could be 

placed in a commercial refrigerator or 

freezer with drawers. DOE’s test 

procedure requires that the model be 

configured with a pan configuration that 

allows for the maximum packing of 

filler packages as specified by the test 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

22286 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

7http://windows.lbl.gov/software/window/

window.html. 

procedure, but not exceeding 90 percent 

of the refrigerated volume. To clarify 

this requirement, DOE is adopting 

language to specify that commercial 

refrigeration equipment with drawers 

should be configured with the drawer 

pans that allow for the maximum 

packing of test simulators and filler 

packages without exceeding 90 percent 

of the refrigerated volume. 

In response to the Unified Brands 

comment regarding the burden of 

conducting the test procedure for 

commercial refrigeration equipment on 

equipment with drawers, DOE does not 

believe that the requirements are 

significantly more complex than those 

for testing commercial refrigeration 

equipment with doors. Numerous dooropening apparatus are also required for 

multi-compartment doored cases, and 

thermocouples must also be configured 

so as to measure test simulators in the 

internal refrigerated volume. DOE 

acknowledges that incrementally more 

thermocouple wire may need to be 

attached to thermocouples placed in test 

simulators in drawers, to ensure 

sufficient slack is available for the 

drawer to fully open and fully close 

without disturbing the thermocouple 

placement within the test simulator. 

However, DOE does not believe that 

providing this additional length of 

thermocouple wire is a significant 

additional burden, given many test 

simulators may already be equipped 

with excess thermocouple wire. 

General Treatment of Drawers as 

Equivalent to Doors 

In response to the October 2013 test 

procedure NOPR, DOE also received 

several comments from interested 

parties regarding the appropriateness of 

treating drawers as equivalent to doors 

for the purposes of testing under DOE’s 

test procedure for commercial 

refrigeration equipment and compliance 

with DOE’s energy conservation 

standards in general. DOE presents 

these comments and DOE’s response in 

this section. 

Traulsen commented that units with 

drawers typically hold less product by 

mass and volume than an identical unit 

with doors only and questioned how 

this will affect the IAT and the 

infiltration of air during the door/

drawer opening period. (Traulsen, No. 

17 at p. 2) According to Unified Brands, 

many drawer units are specifically 

designed for drawers and do not have a 

door unit of similar construction for 

comparison and, prior to assuming 

similarity between door and drawer 

units, a statistically significant sample 

of product designs should be tested and 

validated. (Unified Brands, No. 9 at pp. 

1–2) 

DOE’s test data, presented in the 

October 2013 test procedure NOPR, 

does not suggest that drawers are 

significantly different from doors in 

terms of applying the DOE test 

procedure or the thermodynamic 

requirements. 78 FR at 64301 (Oct. 28, 

2013). Lacking additional data 

contradicting DOE’s test data, DOE is 

maintaining its position that drawers are 

to be treated as equivalent to doors for 

the purposes of conducting the DOE test 

procedure and complying with DOE’s 

energy conservation standards. 

b. Transparent and Solid Doors 

In reviewing the CRE test procedure, 

DOE identified opportunities for 

clarification within the definitions and 

classifications of commercial 

refrigeration equipment with solid doors 

versus those with transparent doors. In 

the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, 

DOE proposed several new definitions 

for transparent, closed solid, and closed 

transparent to clarify the test procedure 

requirements at 10 CFR 431.64 to ensure 

appropriate equipment categorization. 

78 FR at 64301–64303 (Oct. 28, 2013). 

Definition of Transparent 

The DOE test procedure for 

commercial refrigeration equipment, as 

amended by the 2012 test procedure 

final rule, incorporates by reference 

AHRI 1200–2010. 77 FR at 10318 (Feb. 

21, 2012). AHRI 1200–2010 defines total 

display area (TDA) as ‘‘the sum of the 

projected area(s) for visible product 

expressed in [square feet]’’ and provides 

procedures for calculating the TDA of 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

with panels, end enclosures, doors, or 

other envelope components that have 

some transparent area(s). Appendix D of 

AHRI 1200–2010 provides further 

guidance and examples to clarify the 

calculation of TDA. The appendix also 

defines a transparent material as that 

which allows at least 65 percent light 

transmittance. Therefore, based on 

AHRI 1200–2010, a transparent door 

would be one partially or entirely 

composed of a material that allows 

greater than or equal to 65 percent light 

transmittance. 

In the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR, DOE proposed a definition for 

‘‘transparent’’ based on an unambiguous 

measurement of the light transmission 

properties of a material in accordance 

with ASTM Standard E 1084–86 

(Reapproved 2009), ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Solar Transmittance 

(Terrestrial) of Sheet Materials Using 

Sunlight,’’ at normal incidence. 78 FR at 

64301–64302 (Oct. 28, 2013). 

In response to DOE’s proposed 

definition of ‘‘transparent,’’ several 

interested parties provided comments 

and suggestions for adopting an 

appropriate definition for commercial 

refrigeration equipment applications. 

Continental stated that DOE’s proposed 

definition of ‘‘transparent’’ introduces 

unnecessary complexity and suggested 

that a simple dictionary-type definition 

as ‘‘able to [be] seen through’’ would be 

sufficient for nearly all applications for 

covered commercial refrigeration 

equipment. Continental added that DOE 

has the right and obligation to challenge 

a manufacturer’s claim if DOE believes 

it does not meet a basic definition of the 

terminology or the intent of the 

standard. (Continental, No. 14 at p. 1) 

NEEA, True, and Hussmann were 

concerned that DOE’s proposed 

threshold of 65 percent light 

transmittance might inadvertently 

exclude some types of Low-E, high 

performance glass, which can have 

visible transmittance as low as 45 

percent. (NEEA, No. 16 at p. 2; True, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 

53; Hussmann, No. 11 at p. 1) NEEA and 

Hussmann recommended DOE consider 

lowering the threshold for determining 

whether a material is transparent or not, 

and suggested that DOE possibly refer to 

the WINDOWS 5 model, developed by 

Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory,7 that was used in the 

engineering analysis. (NEEA, No. 16 at 

p. 2; Hussmann, No. 11 at p. 1) 

True and Southern Store Fixtures 

noted that self-serve counter display 

cases may be fitted with see-through 

mirror-finish, or glass reflective panels, 

which would affect the transparency of 

the doors depending on the 

measurement angle and direction. 

(Southern Store Fixtures, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 53; True, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 

55) 

True also noted that the majority of 

losses through transparent doors were a 

result of the difference in insulation 

capacities between the glass door and 

the solid door, and that only a small 

portion of the losses were due to light 

entering through transparent doors. 

True therefore opined that treating a 

glass door as solid, irrespective of its 

transparency, was inaccurate. (True, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 

51) 

DOE appreciates the suggestions by 

commenters. In response to 

Continental’s concern regarding the 

potential complexity of a quantitative 

method for determining a transparent 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22287 

8The comment submitted by Traulsen referenced 

‘‘read-in’’ style units. DOE believes Traulsen meant 

to reference ‘‘reach-in’’ style units and has amended 

the submitted comment to reflect this. 

material, rather than a definition based 

on the intent or application of the 

material, DOE notes that the method to 

determine transparency of a material is 

not mandatory for equipment 

classification or testing. In the October 

2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE noted 

that determination of the light 

transmittance of a transparent material 

is not required in all cases to classify a 

basic model of commercial refrigeration 

equipment as equipment with 

transparent doors and clarified that 

manufacturers may continue to specify 

equipment as belonging to a transparent 

equipment class (e.g., vertical closed 

transparent or horizontal closed 

transparent) or a solid without testing 

because, in most cases, it will be 

obvious whether a material is 

transparent or not; therefore, testing 

would not be necessary to verify the 

classification of a material as 

transparent or not. 78 FR at 64302 (Oct. 

28, 2013). Thus, incorporation of a 

quantitative test procedure is not 

anticipated to add to the complexity and 

burden of conducting the DOE test 

procedure for most models of 

commercial refrigeration equipment. 

DOE agrees with Continental that 

DOE has the obligation and the right to 

challenge the classification of certain 

materials as transparent. However, there 

may be cases in which the material is 

not obviously transparent or solid, such 

as basic models with special decals or 

opaque glass. DOE prefers to use a 

quantitative, objective method to 

determine transparency of a material 

and subsequent equipment 

classification, which will also provide 

certainty to the regulated industry. 

Therefore, DOE is adopting in this final 

rule a definition of ‘‘transparent’’ based 

on the evaluation of that material in 

accordance with ASTM Standard E 

1084–86 (Reapproved 2009). 

In response to the comments from 

NEEA, True, and Hussmann expressing 

concern about the inclusion of Low-E 

and high-performance glass as a 

‘‘transparent’’ material when such 

fenestration products may have visible 

transmittance values as low as 45 

percent, DOE researched available highperformance glass door products for 

commercial refrigeration equipment to 

determine an appropriate threshold for 

light transmittance. While some Low-E 

glass with reflective coatings designed 

for extremely sunny environments can 

have visible transmittance values as low 

as 0.2 (meaning 20 percent transparent), 

DOE finds that it is unlikely commercial 

refrigeration equipment would 

incorporate such material since this 

equipment is not typically installed in 

extremely sunny environments. In 

addition, such a low visible 

transmittance value would significantly 

diminish the ability of consumers to see 

through the glass to the contents inside 

the unit, which is the intent of 

including transparent material in a 

given CRE design. Therefore, DOE is 

adopting a threshold for determining a 

transparent material of 45 percent light 

transmittance as determined in 

accordance with ASTM Standard E 

1084–86 (Reapproved 2009). 

Regarding comments by True and 

Southern Store Fixtures, DOE 

acknowledges that some glass may be 

available with a mirrored finish to 

prevent viewing or light transmittance 

when viewed from one side of the glass, 

but not the other. DOE does not intend 

to treat such glass as solid, as it provides 

the function of transparent material (i.e., 

being able to see through to the internal 

contents of the case) when viewed from 

one side of the glass. In the equipment 

described by commenters, this would be 

when viewed at an angle of incidence 

normal (90 degrees) to the plane of the 

case and from the exterior. DOE believes 

that reflective glass would fully meet 

the definition of ‘‘transparent’’ when 

tested at normal incidence and in the 

intended direction of viewing. 

Therefore, to clarify the orientation of 

glass when testing using ASTM 

Standard E 1084–86 (Reapproved 2009), 

DOE is incorporating language into the 

definition of ‘‘transparent’’ to specify 

that the material is to be tested at 

normal incidence and in the intended 

direction of viewing. 

Definition of Equipment With 

Transparent Doors Versus Solid Doors 

In the energy conservation standards 

specified at 10 CFR 431.66, DOE refers 

to equipment families using the terms 

‘‘closed solid’’ and ‘‘closed transparent’’ 

(for example, vertical closed solid (VCS) 

and vertical closed transparent (VCT)). 

In the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR, DOE proposed definitions for 

‘‘closed transparent’’ and ‘‘closed solid’’ 

to clarify what factors differentiate a 

CRE basic model as a transparent-door 

model or a solid-door model. DOE based 

its proposed definitions on a percentage 

of outer surface area of all doors that are 

transparent. Specifically, DOE proposed 

that if 75 percent or more of the outer 

surface area of all doors on a CRE unit 

is transparent, that unit would be 

considered closed transparent. 

Conversely, DOE proposed that ‘‘closed 

solid’’ would refer to CRE equipment 

with doors, and in which more than 75 

percent of the outer surface area of all 

doors is not transparent. 78 FR at 64318 

(Oct. 28, 2013). As DOE presented at the 

December 2013 test procedure NOPR 

public meeting, DOE intended for the 

definition of ‘‘closed solid’’ to include 

equipment in which more than 25 

percent of the outer surface area of all 

doors on a unit are not transparent, and 

notes that the inclusion of the 75 

percent figure in the October 2013 test 

procedure NOPR was a typographical 

error. 

DOE received several comments from 

interested parties in response to the 

categorization of closed transparent 

versus closed solid equipment families 

proposed in the October 2013 test 

procedure NOPR. Hill Phoenix, AHRI, 

and Hussmann commented that a case 

that has a transparent door on the front 

and a solid door on the side or back, 

where approximately 50 percent of the 

door surface area is transparent and 

approximately 50 percent of the door 

surface area is solid, was not adequately 

addressed by DOE’s proposed 

definitions. Hill Phoenix, AHRI, and 

Hussmann further suggested that a CRE 

model where 25 percent or more of the 

outer surface area of all doors on the 

unit are transparent should be treated as 

a transparent case and that any case that 

has more than 75 percent of the door 

area as solid should be subject to the 

closed solid energy conservation 

standards. (Hill Phoenix, No. 13 at p. 2; 

AHRI, No. 15 at p. 4; Hussmann, No. 11 

at p. 2) 

Continental commented that DOE’s 

proposed definitions do not correlate 

with the way commercial refrigeration 

systems are typically designed for units 

with transparent doors. Continental 

further commented that if more than 25 

percent of the doors on a unit are 

transparent, the refrigeration systems 

are commonly ‘‘upsized’’ to provide the 

increased cooling capacity required. 

Thus, Continental suggested that DOE’s 

definition should align with industry 

practice and adopt a 25 percent 

threshold or, at most, a 32 percent level. 

(Continental, No. 14 at p. 2) 

Traulsen recommended that the 

definition of ‘‘closed transparent’’ refer 

to CRE models in which 75 percent or 

more of the transparent area of the doors 

on the customer side of the pass-through 

or the operator/customer side of the 

reach-in 8 style unit is transparent, and 

‘‘closed solid’’ be defined as equipment 

in which more than 75 percent of the 

outer surface area of all the doors on 

each side of the unit is not transparent. 

Traulsen added that transparent doors 

and the design and operation of closed 

transparent equipment carry a higher 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

22288 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

9ENERGY STAR is a joint program of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency and DOE that 

establishes a voluntary rating, certification, and 

labeling program for highly energy efficient 

consumer products and commercial equipment. 

Information on the program is available at 

www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=home.index. 

10U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

ENERGY STAR® Program Requirements for 

Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers: Eligibility 

Criteria; Version 2.1. Effective January 1, 2010. (Last 

accessed August 15, 2013.) http://www.energystar.

gov/ia/partners/product_specs/program_reqs/

Commercial_Refrigerator_and_Freezer_Program_

Requirements.pdf?dae6-ef7c. 

11See Continental Refrigerator, Comments on 

Specification for Commercial Refrigerators and 

Freezers, Version 2.0 Draft 3. Dated January 7, 2009. 

Available at: https://www.energystar.gov/ia/

partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/

refrig/Continental_Comments.pdf?f45c-2369. 

Beverage-Air Corporation, Beverage-Air Comments 

re: ENERGY VERSION 2.0—DRAFT 3, Dated 

January 8, 2009. Available at: https://www.

energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/

revisions/downloads/refrig/Beverage-Air_

Comments.pdf?f45c-2369. Anonymous, Comments 

on Draft 2. Dated September 15, 2008. Available at: 

https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_

development/revisions/downloads/refrig/

Anonymous_Comments.pdf?f45c-2369. True 

Manufacturing, Comments on Draft 2. Dated 

September 17, 2008. Available at: https://www.

energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/

revisions/downloads/refrig/True_Comments.pdf

?f45c-2369. Traulsen, Comments on Draft 1. Dated 

April 18, 2008. Available at: https://www.

energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/

revisions/downloads/refrig/Traulsen_Comments.

pdf?f45c-2369. 

energy penalty and DOE should be 

cautious of creating definitions that 

classify equipment with transparent 

doors as closed solid equipment. 

Traulsen further recommended ignoring 

other doors on the backside of the unit 

when classifying closed transparent 

equipment, similar to the treatment of 

pass-through-type equipment in 

ASHRAE Standard 72–2005, where only 

doors on the one side of the passthrough should be operated during the 

test. (Traulsen, No. 17 at p. 2) 

Hussmann suggested that DOE further 

clarify what ‘‘the outer surface area of 

the door’’ is and whether it includes 

mullions and door frames. (Hussmann, 

No. 11 at p. 2) 

Alternatively, Zero Zone offered that 

the ENERGY STAR® 9 program uses 

definitions that describes a number of 

additional details about glass door 

equipment and recommended that DOE 

should consider these definitions. For 

example, Zero Zone stated that it 

manufactures a CRE model with 

transparent doors on the front and solid 

doors on the back, and that the ENERGY 

STAR definitions would classify such a 

case as a glass door cabinet and DOE’s 

proposed definitions would qualify 

such as case as a solid door cabinet. In 

addition, Zero Zone suggested that DOE 

perform an engineering analysis to 

assess the impact and feasibility of 

reduced energy conservation standard 

levels for closed transparent equipment 

with a small percent of transparent area. 

(Zero Zone, No. 18 at pp. 1–2) 

In response to comments regarding 

the fraction of transparent surface area 

of all outer doors on a given CRE model 

that differentiates closed transparent 

equipment from closed solid equipment, 

DOE acknowledges comments from 

interested parties regarding the 

increased energy use associated with 

closed transparent equipment due to the 

increased thermal conductance of glass 

as compared to insulated case walls and 

other design and operation features. In 

determining the fraction of transparent 

door surface area to qualify a basic 

model of commercial refrigeration 

equipment as equipment with 

transparent doors, DOE proposed a 

transparent surface area higher than 50 

percent to ensure that only doors with 

a majority of transparent surface area 

were considered transparent doors. 78 

FR at 64302 (Oct. 28, 2013). However, 

DOE finds the suggestions of Traulsen, 

Hill Phoenix, AHRI, and Hussmann— 

that equipment with transparent doors 

on one side of the cabinet and solid 

doors on another be treated as 

transparent equipment—reasonable and 

consistent with DOE’s intended 

application of closed transparent 

equipment. That is, equipment with 

only one transparent door and the 

remaining sides consisting of solid 

insulated case wall and similar 

equipment with two doors, one that is 

transparent and one on another side that 

is solid, should be treated equivalently 

for the purposes of testing and 

compliance with DOE energy 

conservation standards. However, DOE 

finds the suggestion of Traulsen to 

address only the customer-side of a CRE 

model to be inconsistent and 

impractical to implement given the 

variety of door configurations that could 

be present on other sides of the CRE 

unit. DOE believes it is most appropriate 

to address the outer surface area of all 

the doors that may be present on any of 

the sides of a CRE model when 

determining whether the equipment 

belongs in the closed solid or closed 

transparent equipment family. 

Regarding Hussmann’s request that 

DOE provide additional clarity as to the 

definition of ‘‘outer surface area,’’ DOE 

used the term ‘‘outer surface area’’ to 

refer to the surface area on only one side 

of a door. DOE acknowledges that solid 

and transparent doors installed on 

commercial refrigeration equipment are 

physically three-dimensional objects, 

with surface area measurements on each 

of six sides: Four edges and two faces. 

DOE used the term ‘‘outer surface area’’ 

to refer to the side of the door facing out 

of, rather than into, the cabinet. In 

response to Hussmann’s comment 

inquiring whether the outer surface area 

of the door included mullions and door 

frames, DOE is clarifying that the outer 

surface area to be accounted for is that 

of the door itself, as defined in section 

III.A.2.a, as a unique component of the 

CRE model. In this case, the door 

consists of the door frame and any 

transparent area that represents the 

‘‘moveable panel’’ that ‘‘facilitates 

access to the refrigerated space.’’ This 

would not include mullions, which are 

fixed portions of the CRE model’s 

envelope on which the doors are 

mounted. DOE has specified how to 

determine the applicability of 

transparent equipment families to a 

given model in section 1.2 of each 

appendix. 

In response to Zero Zone’s suggestion 

that DOE consider the ENERGY STAR®

definitions for solid door cabinet, glass 

door cabinet, and mixed solid/glass 

door cabinet, DOE reviewed the 

definitions in the ENERGY STAR 

‘‘Version 2.1 Program Requirements for 

Commercial Refrigerators and 

Freezers’’ 10 (Version 2.1 Program 

Requirements), as well as associated 

stakeholder comments received during 

the development of the ENERGY STAR 

Version 2.1 Program Requirements in 

developing the proposed definitions for 

closed solid and closed transparent.11

The primary difference between the 

ENERGY STAR classification scheme 

and that proposed by DOE is the 

treatment of CRE models with mixed 

solid and transparent doors on at least 

one side of the unit. In DOE’s proposal, 

cases with mixed solid and transparent 

doors would be treated as either solid or 

transparent cases, based on the outer 

surface area of the doors, whereas 

ENERGY STAR treats this equipment in 

a separate equipment category. 

DOE believes the definitions proposed 

in the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR are straightforward and would 

unambiguously address equipment 

categorization. 78 FR at 64318 (Oct. 28, 

2013). In addition, setting the threshold 

for transparent surface area of all outer 

doors at greater than 25 percent makes 

it unlikely that equipment with 

substantial amounts of transparent area 

will be categorized in the closed solid 

equipment family. For example, 

equipment that has one door that is halftransparent and half-solid would be 

treated as ‘‘closed transparent’’ and 

would have to meet the energy 

conservation standard for the 

appropriate equipment class based on 

its volume or TDA. As a result, DOE 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22289 

does not anticipate issues associated 

with equipment with small transparent 

areas that cannot meet the applicable 

energy conservation standard. Also, 

these definitions are consistent with the 

equipment categorization methodology 

DOE uses to establish standards for 

covered equipment. As such, DOE 

believes defining terms that are used 

directly in the description and 

determination of equipment classes for 

commercial refrigeration equipment is 

the most clear, unambiguous method for 

defining and categorizing equipment as 

closed transparent or closed solid, and 

DOE does not see a need to establish a 

unique equipment category for mixed 

solid/transparent equipment. 

c. Hybrid Equipment and Commercial 

Refrigerator-Freezers 

At 10 CFR 431.62, DOE defines a 

commercial hybrid refrigerator, freezer, 

or refrigerator-freezer as having two or 

more chilled and/or frozen 

compartments that are in two or more 

different equipment families, contained 

in one cabinet, and sold as a single unit. 

In the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR, DOE proposed to replace the 

definition of ‘‘commercial hybrid 

refrigerator, freezer, and refrigeratorfreezer’’ with a definition of 

‘‘commercial hybrid,’’ and introduce a 

new definition of ‘‘commercial 

refrigerator-freezer’’ to clarify DOE’s 

definitions and equipment categories. 

78 FR at 64303–64304, 64318 (Oct. 28, 

2013). 

In response to the definitions 

proposed in the October 2013 test 

procedure NOPR, DOE received 

comments from interested parties 

regarding DOE’s definition for 

commercial hybrid and the applicability 

of the definition of commercial hybrid 

to certain equipment. Continental 

commented that the proposed definition 

of ‘‘commercial hybrid’’ should specify 

that the ‘‘two compartments’’ are 

separated by an insulated partition to 

isolate them for different storage 

applications, as this would limit 

confusion with multiple section 

cabinets, which may have non-insulated 

partitions or ducting between them 

purely for air distribution, shared 

throughout the entire unit. (Continental, 

No. 14 at p. 2) 

True noted that DOE’s definition did 

not explicitly state that dual 

temperature units were separated by a 

vertical partition, and therefore might 

include solid-shelf units. (True, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 71) 

Similarly, National expressed confusion 

over the application of the DOE rule in 

cases where two sections of a unit were 

at different temperatures, but potentially 

use the same evaporator coil or share air 

between the two spaces. (National, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 

75) National commented that some twodoor units are built with airflow down 

the middle and panels with louvers to 

distribute air. (National, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 7 at p. 79) 

Hussmann agreed with DOE’s 

proposed definitions of commercial 

hybrid and commercial refrigeratorfreezer, but requested clarification on 

how to classify or handle a piece of 

equipment that contains at least one 

section or compartment that is not 

covered by the DOE test procedure (e.g., 

salad bars and buffet tables). 

(Hussmann, No. 11 at p. 2) Royston 

noted that in many hybrid units such as 

salad bars, it was unclear what 

percentage of the unit would be 

considered refrigerated. (Royston, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 

82) 

In response to Continental’s 

suggestion that DOE consider specifying 

that the compartments in a commercial 

hybrid refrigerator, freezer, or 

refrigerator freezer be separated by an 

insulated partition or be thermally 

isolated from one another, DOE agrees 

that the intent of the commercial hybrid 

equipment provisions is to address 

equipment with thermally distinct 

compartments from different equipment 

families (e.g., vertical closed transparent 

and vertically closed solid). As such, 

DOE is adopting language to specify that 

commercial hybrid equipment is 

equipment consisting of two or more 

thermally separated refrigerated 

compartments that are in two or more 

different equipment families that is sold 

as a single unit. 

In regard to clarification on how to 

classify or handle a piece of equipment 

that contains at least one section or 

compartment that is not covered by the 

DOE test procedure (e.g., salad bars and 

buffet tables), DOE clarifies that this 

type of equipment is not hybrid 

equipment because it does not consist of 

two or more different equipment 

families. Only the compartment(s) of the 

piece of commercial refrigeration 

equipment that is covered by one of 

DOE’s existing equipment classes is 

included in DOE’s equipment family 

definitions. The compartment that is not 

covered by DOE’s existing standards for 

commercial refrigeration equipment is 

not included in DOE’s equipment family 

definitions and, thus, such a unit would 

not meet the definition of commercial 

hybrid. Using the example presented in 

Hussmann’s comment, consider a 

commercial refrigerator that contains 

one compartment that falls into the 

vertical closed solid equipment family 

and a thermally separate compartment 

that offers accessible refrigerated bins 

for the purposes of preparing 

sandwiches or holding buffet items. As 

presented in section III.A.1.a, sandwich 

prep tables and buffet tables are not 

currently regulated under DOE’s 

existing energy conservation standards 

or subject to DOE’s test procedure for 

commercial refrigeration equipment. As 

such, this CRE model would be covered 

under DOE’s existing energy 

conservation standards as a commercial 

refrigerator in the vertical closed solid 

equipment family based on the 

refrigerated volume of only the 

refrigerated compartment comprising 

the vertical closed solid commercial 

refrigerator. This CRE model would be 

tested under the DOE test procedure for 

commercial refrigeration equipment as a 

commercial refrigerator, and the 

compartment containing the sandwich 

prep or buffet table bins would be 

disabled and not included in the 

determination of energy consumption 

for that equipment. If the same 

refrigeration system serves both 

compartments and the refrigeration of 

the sandwich/buffet compartment 

cannot be disabled, manufacturers may 

apply for a test procedure waiver for 

such equipment if the measured energy 

use would not be representative of the 

commercial refrigerator, freezer, or 

refrigerator-freezer portion of the CRE 

basic model. 

3. Relationship Among Rating 

Temperature, Operating Temperature, 

and Integrated Average Temperature 

Currently, the table at 10 CFR 

431.66(d)(1) describing the energy 

conservation standards for equipment 

other than hybrid equipment, 

refrigerator-freezers, and wedge cases 

refers to the ‘‘rating temperature’’ and 

‘‘operating temperature’’ of equipment, 

and the table describing the applicable 

test procedure for covered equipment at 

10 CFR 431.64(b)(3) refers to the term 

‘‘integrated average temperature.’’ DOE 

defines ‘‘integrated average 

temperature’’ as ‘‘the average 

temperature of all the test package 

measurements taken during the test.’’ 10 

CFR 431.62. 

In the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR, DOE proposed explicit 

definitions for ‘‘rating temperature’’ as 

the IAT at which a model of commercial 

refrigeration equipment should be 

evaluated in accordance with the DOE 

test procedure, and ‘‘operating 

temperature’’ as the range of IATs at 

which the unit of commercial 

refrigeration equipment is capable of 

operating. In addition, DOE noted that 

while the operating temperature range 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

22290 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

of equipment is used to establish the 

appropriate equipment class for CRE 

basic models based on the standards 

table at 10 CFR 431.66(d)(1), only the 

definition of ‘‘ice-cream freezer’’ 

explicitly identifies the appropriate 

operating range (i.e., at or below ¥5 °F). 

10 CFR 431.62 Therefore, DOE also 

proposed definitions of ‘‘commercial 

refrigerator’’ and ‘‘commercial freezer’’ 

that reference the operating temperature 

range of each category of equipment. 78 

FR at 64303–64304, 64318 (Oct. 28, 

2013). 

In response to DOE’s proposed 

definitions for commercial refrigerator, 

commercial freezer, and commercial 

refrigerator-freezer, Continental 

commented that the use of the term 

‘‘capable of’’ introduced confusion and 

does not accurately reflect industry 

practices. Continental offered the 

example of a piece of equipment that is 

designed and marketed as a refrigerator, 

but includes an oversized refrigeration 

system that may be necessary to hold 

products at temperatures near 32 °F that 

would allow the refrigerator to be 

capable of operating below 32 °F in 

some applications, although it is not 

intended to be operated that way. As 

such, Continental suggested that DOE 

define the commercial refrigerator 

operating range as ‘‘all refrigerated 

compartments in the unit are designed, 

marketed or intended for operating at or 

above 32 °F.’’ (Continental, No. 14 at p. 

2) Similarly, Hussmann suggested DOE 

replace ‘‘capable of operating’’ with 

‘‘designed, marketed, or intended to be 

operated by the manufacturer.’’ 

(Hussmann, No. 11 at p. 2) 

DOE acknowledges comments from 

interested parties, but notes that DOE 

prefers to have an objective method for 

determining coverage of equipment 

under DOE’s equipment classes. DOE 

believes that relying on how a piece of 

equipment is ‘‘designed, marketed, or 

intended to be used’’ provides too much 

flexibility for manufacturers to specify 

how a CRE basic model is ‘‘intended to 

be used,’’ without consideration of how 

the equipment actually can be used. As 

such, DOE maintains that, for selfcontained equipment and remote 

equipment with thermostats, DOE will 

establish the operating range of 

equipment based on the operating 

temperatures the commercial 

refrigeration equipment is capable of 

maintaining. DOE will determine the 

operating range of covered equipment 

based on the maximum and minimum 

thermostat set points. However, DOE 

acknowledges that, for equipment with 

an operating temperature range that is 

primarily in, for example, the 

commercial refrigerator operating 

temperature range (i.e., at or above 

32 °F), but has a minimum operating 

temperature in the commercial freezer 

range slightly below 32 °F (e.g., 30 °F), it 

may not be appropriate to require such 

equipment to be certified as both a 

commercial refrigerator and a 

commercial freezer. DOE believes that 

equipment should be categorized in the 

equipment class most representative of 

the operating temperature range of that 

equipment. As such, DOE is adopting a 

tolerance on the minimum and 

maximum IAT that categorizes 

equipment as a commercial refrigerator, 

commercial freezer, or commercial ice 

cream freezer. DOE believes a tolerance 

of ±2 °F would allow sufficient 

flexibility that equipment with an 

operating temperature range that is 

substantially representative of one 

equipment class, but with a minimum 

or maximum operating temperature that 

extends slightly into the operating 

temperature range of another equipment 

class, is not required to be certified in 

both equipment classes. This tolerance 

is also consistent with the tolerance on 

the rating temperatures for the relevant 

equipment classes. Therefore, in this 

final rule, DOE will establish in 10 CFR 

431.66 operating temperature ranges of 

greater than or equal to 32 °F (±2 °F) for 

commercial refrigerators, less than 32 °F 

(±2 °F) for commercial freezers, and less 

than or equal to ¥5 °F (±2 °F) for ice 

cream freezers. 

DOE acknowledges that for remote 

equipment the operating range of 

equipment could be much broader, as it 

is based on the operating parameters of 

the compressor system much more than 

the case design. Manufacturers may 

design a case that could optimize 

performance for operation as a freezer, 

but customers would be able to adjust 

the compressor operating characteristics 

to operate the case at refrigerator 

temperatures, even though it is not 

intended to be used that way. As such, 

in this test procedure final rule DOE 

adopts additional language to clarify 

that for remote condensing equipment, 

the operating temperature range is based 

on the range of IATs at which a piece 

of commercial refrigeration equipment 

is marketed, designed, or intended to be 

used. DOE does not see the need to 

establish such a definition for selfcontained equipment with thermostats 

and will maintain the definition of 

‘‘operating temperature’’ proposed in 

the NOPR based on the IATs at which 

a piece of commercial refrigeration 

equipment is capable of operating. 

Traulsen recommended changing all 

referenced temperature thresholds from 

32 °F to 25 °F, since some equipment, 

including meat refrigerators, is intended 

to be operated as low as 25 °F. 

(Traulsen, No. 17 at p. 3) 

In response to Traulsen’s 

recommendation regarding establishing 

equipment categories based on 

operating ranges of greater than or equal 

to 25 °F for commercial refrigerators, 

below 25 °F for commercial freezers, and 

a combination of the two for commercial 

refrigerator-freezers, DOE believes that 

32 °F is a more appropriate temperature 

threshold for differentiating chilled 

from frozen food storage equipment. 

Equipment that can operate at 25 °F is 

functionally a freezer, since food is 

primarily composed of liquid water and 

water freezes at 32 °F. In addition, an 

operating temperature threshold of 32 °F 

was determined in the 2009 CRE energy 

conservation standards final rule and 

has been in place historically for the 

purposes of compliance with those 

standards since January 1, 2012. 74 FR 

1092, 1099–1100 (Jan. 9, 2009). DOE 

notes that the equipment mentioned by 

Traulsen, which operates both at or 

above 32 °F and below 32 °F, would 

qualify as both a commercial refrigerator 

and a commercial freezer and would 

have to be certified in both equipment 

categories. To the extent that the 

equipment was not able to reach the 

rating temperature for commercial 

freezers of 0 °F, the equipment would be 

tested at its LAPT for certification as a 

freezer. 

In the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR, DOE recognized that some basic 

models may have operating 

characteristics that include an operating 

temperature range that spans multiple 

equipment classes, and proposed 

language to clarify that equipment 

meeting the definition of multiple 

equipment classes when operated as 

intended by the manufacturer would 

have to be tested and certified as each 

of these equipment classes to 

demonstrate compliance with DOE’s 

energy conservation standards. 78 FR at 

64304 (Oct. 28, 2013). 

Zero Zone and AHRI disagreed with 

DOE’s proposal that the equipment 

capable of operating in two or more 

operating temperature ranges be tested 

and certified as complying with both 

equipment classes. Zero Zone and AHRI 

suggested that these cases be tested and 

certified at their lowest published 

operating temperature, which would be 

reflective of the highest energy use 

mode. (Zero Zone, No. 18 at p. 2; AHRI, 

No. 15 at p. 4) Zero Zone added that if 

DOE requires equipment to be tested at 

all the published operating temperature 

ranges, more-complex controls may be 

required to reduce energy so the 

equipment can meet the energy 

conservation standards for both 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22291 

12ASHRAE 72–2005, section 6.1.1, 

‘‘Accessories,’’ as incorporated by reference into the 

DOE test procedure at 10 CFR 431.64. 

equipment categories, and suggested 

that DOE consider the increased cost of 

these controls compared to the benefits 

to consumers. Zero Zone added that, in 

general, remote freezers can be operated 

inefficiently as a refrigerator by 

customer settings on the remote 

condensing unit, but added that it does 

not condone such operation. As such, 

Zero Zone suggested DOE use the term 

‘‘marketed operating temperature’’ to 

avoid having equipment potentially 

tested at two different temperature 

classes because it can be operated at two 

or more temperature class operating 

ranges even though it is not designed for 

use in these operating temperature 

ranges. (Zero Zone, No. 18 at p. 2) 

In contrast, NEEA supported DOE’s 

proposal that equipment intended to 

operate in multiple equipment classes 

be tested and certified in each 

equipment class to demonstrate 

compliance with DOE’s energy 

conservation standards because NEEA 

believed it will allow a level playing 

field for manufacturers to produce 

energy compliant refrigeration 

equipment. (NEEA, No. 16 at p. 2) 

DOE considered comments submitted 

by interested parties regarding the 

potential for commercial refrigeration 

equipment classified into two 

equipment categories. Zero Zone and 

AHRI both suggested that equipment 

instead be deemed compliant based on 

testing and certification in the morestringent configuration or most energyconsuming mode. Zero Zone also 

discussed the example of a dual 

temperature unit that can operate as a 

commercial refrigerator or a commercial 

freezer. DOE notes that, while the 

freezer configuration would represent 

the most energy-consuming mode, 

determining the more-stringent standard 

level is less straightforward. Although 

the freezer configuration may use more 

energy, the energy conservation 

standard level for the refrigerator 

configuration may in fact be more 

stringent. This would especially be true 

if the operating range of the case was 

such that the CRE model could not be 

tested at the rating temperature of 0 °F 

for freezers. For example, in the case of 

a piece of commercial refrigeration 

equipment that has an operating 

temperature range of 10 to 50 °F, the 

unit can operate as a refrigerator, at or 

above 32 °F, or be converted to operate 

as a freezer, but only down to 10 °F. 

Thus, the unit cannot operate at the 

rating temperature for freezers of 0 °F 

and would be certified at the 

equipment’s LAPT of 10 °F. However, 

the equipment, when tested at the 

LAPT, would still be subject to the same 

energy conservation standard and, as 

such, the freezer energy conservation 

standard would be much easier to meet. 

In addition, rating the equipment as a 

freezer may or may not accurately 

represent the use of the equipment in 

the field. That is, dual temperature 

equipment may spend considerable 

operating hours as a refrigerator and less 

significant operating hours as a freezer. 

This may be the case in a commercial 

kitchen, for example, where freezer 

space is necessary at the beginning of 

the week when new product arrives, but 

is converted to refrigerator space over 

the course of the week as food is 

prepared and stored for more immediate 

use. DOE does not find it tenable that 

dual temperature equipment operating 

inefficiently as a refrigerator most of the 

time could be compliant with DOE’s 

energy conservation standards due to its 

certification as a commercial freezer 

only. 

DOE acknowledges Zero Zone’s 

concern that equipment that can operate 

as a refrigerator or a freezer may require 

more-complex controls to meet DOE’s 

energy conservation standards as both a 

refrigerator and a freezer. However, 

based on the difficulty in determining 

the ‘‘more-stringent’’ standard and the 

potential for certification of otherwise 

non-compliant equipment, DOE believes 

that this incremental burden is justified 

to ensure compliance with DOE’s energy 

conservation standards. Further, DOE 

notes that equipment that can operate as 

both a refrigerator and a freezer 

competes directly with equipment in 

both categories and, as such, must be 

certified to meet the energy 

conservation standard for both 

equipment categories to provide a fair 

and level playing field when selling this 

equipment in the market. 

In this test procedure final rule, DOE 

continues to require that self-contained 

equipment or remote condensing 

equipment with thermostats capable of 

operating at IATs that span multiple 

equipment categories be certified and 

comply with DOE’s regulations for each 

applicable equipment category. 

Similarly, DOE adopts requirements for 

remote condensing equipment without a 

thermostat that specify that if a given 

basic model of CRE is marketed, 

designed, or intended to operate at IATs 

spanning multiple equipment 

categories, the CRE basic model must be 

certified and comply with the relevant 

energy conservation standards for all 

applicable equipment categories. 

4. Proper Configuration and Use of 

Components or Features in the DOE 

Test Procedure 

In response to several inquiries from 

interested parties regarding the proper 

configuration and use of certain 

components or features specified in the 

DOE test procedure, DOE proposed 

specific provisions in the October 2013 

test procedure NOPR for the treatment 

of energy management systems and case 

lighting when conducting the DOE test 

procedure. 78 FR at 64304–64306 (Oct. 

28, 2013). In addition, DOE also 

addressed and clarified the appropriate 

temperatures of test packages when 

loaded into the test unit. 78 FR at 64306 

(Oct. 28, 2013). These proposals, 

comments received by interested 

parties, and DOE’s responses are 

summarized in the subsequent sections. 

a. Energy Management Systems 

The DOE test procedure specifies that 

all devices that would normally be used 

in the field must be installed and 

operated in the same manner during the 

test unless such installation and 

operation is inconsistent with any 

requirement of the test procedure.12

Such devices include energy 

management systems. In the October 

2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE 

presented its interpretation of energy 

management systems as electronic 

devices that control specific systems in 

commercial refrigeration equipment to 

save energy, for example, automatic 

controls that are capable of turning off 

cabinet lights on a predetermined 

schedule or in response to an external 

variable, increasing the temperature 

setting of the thermostat (in refrigerators 

that store non-perishable items) during 

non-merchandizing hours, or activating 

and deactivating anti-sweat heaters, pan 

heaters, or defrost heaters. 78 FR at 

64304 (Oct. 28, 2013). 

In the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR, DOE further proposed that, if 

normal field installation or operation of 

any device would be inconsistent with 

any test procedure requirement, then 

the specific function of that device that 

causes inconsistency with the DOE test 

procedure provisions must be disabled 

for the duration of the test. In addition, 

if the device is designed for multiple 

functions, only those functions of the 

device that cause inconsistency with the 

DOE test procedure requirements must 

be disabled. 78 FR at 64321 (Oct. 28, 

2013). 

DOE did not receive any comments 

from interested parties on its proposal 

regarding treatment of energy 

management systems during the DOE 

test procedure and, as such, is adopting 

the proposal presented in the October 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

22292 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

2013 test procedure NOPR with no 

modifications. 

b. Lighting 

The DOE test procedure specifies that 

all devices that would normally be used 

in the field must be installed and 

operated in the same manner during the 

test. 10 CFR 431.64. Specifically, due to 

language and provisions in ARI 1200– 

2006 (as incorporated by reference in 

the 2006 test procedure final rule) and 

AHRI 1200–2010 (as incorporated by 

reference in the 2012 test procedure 

final rule and this test procedure 

update) regarding case lighting, DOE 

believes that the energy consumption 

associated with lights installed on a 

model of commercial refrigeration 

equipment are intended to be captured 

during testing. In addition, the DOE test 

procedure requires that all standard 

components, such as shelves, end 

enclosures, lights, anti-condensate 

heaters, racks, and similar items that 

would normally be used during 

shopping or working periods, shall be 

installed and used as recommended by 

the manufacturer, which DOE interprets 

to mean that if lighting is installed on 

the case, the lighting should be operated 

as intended to be used in the field. 

However, due to the variety of types of 

lighting controls and schemes available 

on the market, the existing provisions 

for ‘‘accessories’’ may prove insufficient 

to yield consistent results during 

testing. Therefore, in the 2012 test 

procedure final rule, DOE established 

specific periods in the test during which 

these variable lights may be turned off 

or dimmed to account for energy savings 

due to installed occupancy sensors or 

scheduled lighting controls. 77 FR at 

10319–10320 (Feb. 21, 2012). 

In the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR, to clarify the treatment of 

lighting under DOE’s test procedure, 

DOE proposed to specify in Appendix A 

to Subpart C that all lighting must be 

energized to the maximum illumination 

level for the duration of testing for 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

except for closed solid models of 

commercial refrigeration equipment that 

include automatic controls that disable 

case lighting when the door is closed, 

the use of which is specified by the 

manufacturer instructions. DOE also 

proposed to specify in Appendix B to 

Subpart C, which will be required for 

equipment testing on or after the 

compliance date of any amended energy 

conservation standards, that case 

lighting shall be energized to its 

maximum illumination level except for 

when a model of commercial 

refrigeration equipment is equipped 

with lighting occupancy sensors and/or 

scheduled controls, or when the a 

model is outfitted with other 

permanently installed, automatic energy 

management systems that control case 

lighting. 78 FR at 64305–64306 (Oct. 28, 

2013). 

Zero Zone commented that they agree 

with DOE’s proposed exception for solid 

door models that utilize an automatic 

control to disable case lighting when the 

door is closed. However, Zero Zone did 

not believe DOE’s treatment of manual 

case lighting adjustment, such as light 

switches, is consistent with its 

treatment of manually deployable night 

curtains for open cases. (Zero Zone, No. 

18 at p. 3) In addition, Zero Zone was 

concerned that an open case model with 

several lighting options would be tested 

with all lights installed for the test 

procedure, but the customer may choose 

to have a select amount of the lights on 

in the operation of the installed case. 

Zero Zone inquired if each lighting 

scheme in the open case model would 

be considered a base model and tested 

separately. (Zero Zone, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 7 at pp. 153–154) True 

commented that certain occupancy 

sensors with a learning curve built into 

them would not be able to be accurately 

tested since there is no activity near the 

unit during testing. True added that 

they can be programmed to override the 

sensor if needed. (True, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 7 at pp. 155–156) 

DOE acknowledges Zero Zone’s 

comment regarding the consistency of 

the DOE test procedure as it relates to 

the treatment of manual lighting 

controls and manual night curtains. 

DOE addressed this issue in the 2012 

test procedure final rule, in which DOE 

stated that night curtains represent an 

incremental cost and explicit energy 

management feature that must be 

uniquely specified on commercial 

refrigeration equipment, making it 

unlikely that customers would purchase 

a case with night curtains and not 

employ them. By contrast, manual light 

switches may be installed for a variety 

of energy- or utility-related reasons and 

typically come standard on a baseline 

unit of commercial refrigeration 

equipment. As such, DOE finds it less 

likely that customers will employ 

manual light switches to adjust case 

lighting during unoccupied periods 

with any regularity. 77 FR at 10299– 

10300 (Feb. 21, 2012). DOE continues to 

maintain that the incremental cost of 

night curtains and dedicated use as an 

energy-efficiency feature make them 

unique from manual light switches and 

justify different treatment in the DOE 

test procedure. 

In response to Zero Zone’s comment 

regarding the variety of lighting options 

available for installation on a given 

model of commercial refrigeration 

equipment, DOE notes that these 

different lighting schemes will have an 

impact on the measured daily energy 

consumption of the case. As such, each 

light option could be treated as an 

individual basic model and be tested 

and certified as such. However, to the 

extent that manufacturers do not wish to 

account for the reduced energy 

consumption associated with reduced 

lighting configurations, all lighting 

configurations may be grouped into a 

CRE basic model. In this case, the CRE 

basic model would be tested and 

certified based on the lighting 

configuration with the maximum 

lighting energy usage and all individual 

models certified under that basic model 

would receive that rating. 

In response to True’s comment 

regarding lighting controls that are 

triggered by occupancy sensors, these 

lighting controls should currently be 

tested with all the controlled lighting 

turned on to the maximum illumination 

level and the occupancy sensor disabled 

to determine whether the model 

complies with existing energy 

conservation standards, as reflected in 

Appendix A. Beginning on the 

compliance date of any amended energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

refrigeration equipment, manufacturers 

shall use the prescribed test provisions 

for cases with lighting occupancy 

sensors included in Appendix B. 

c. Test Package Temperatures 

The ASHRAE 72–2005 method of test, 

as referenced by ARI 1200–2006 and 

AHRI 1200–2010, and thus incorporated 

by the DOE test procedure at 10 CFR 

431.64, provides specific instruction at 

section 6.2 as to the loading of test 

simulators and filler packages. ASHRAE 

72–2005 also requires temperature 

stabilization before the formal test 

period begins, as detailed in section 7.4. 

After steady-state operation is reached, 

the unit must then operate for another 

period of 12 hours without any 

adjustment to the controls before it is 

deemed to be stabilized and the testing 

can begin. These established 

stabilization requirements are designed 

to ensure that the product simulators 

and test packages are cooled to the test 

temperature prior to initiation of the test 

period and data collection, and the unit 

of commercial refrigeration equipment 

under test is not operating in a pulldown application during any part of the 

DOE test procedure. 

In response to inquiries received by 

interested parties, DOE presented 

clarification of these stabilization 

requirements in the October 2013 test 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22293 

procedure NOPR, but did not find that 

the test procedure required more 

explicit clarification. 78 FR at 64306 

(Oct. 28, 2013). DOE did not receive any 

comments from interested parties on its 

proposal regarding treatment of test 

package temperatures during the DOE 

test procedure and, as such, is adopting 

the proposal presented in the October 

2013 test procedure NOPR with no 

modifications. 

5. Treatment of Other Specific 

Equipment Features and Accessories 

During Testing 

During the negotiated rulemaking for 

certification of commercial heating, 

ventilation, air conditioning, 

refrigeration, and water heating 

equipment, stakeholders raised a 

number of issues regarding the 

treatment during the DOE test procedure 

of specific features, components, and 

accessories that may be in place on 

certain basic models of commercial 

refrigeration equipment. In the October 

2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE 

presented proposals that resulted from 

the negotiations regarding the treatment 

of specific features, components, and 

accessories. 78 FR at 64306–64308 (Oct. 

28, 2013). The specific proposals and 

the resultant amendments adopted in 

this final rule are discussed in the 

following sections. 

a. Customer Display Signs/Lights 

Manufacturers stated that some 

customers, when ordering commercial 

refrigeration equipment, may wish to 

add additional exterior signage, outside 

of the body of the refrigerated cabinet, 

to certain units of a given model to 

advertise the product inside. This 

lighting and signage is optional and is 

not integral to the cabinet. Further, this 

auxiliary signage does not illuminate 

product inside the body of the cabinet. 

During the negotiations, stakeholders 

inquired regarding how this lighting or 

signage should be treated during testing. 

In the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR, DOE proposed that under the 

DOE test procedure, all lighting that is 

integral to the refrigerated cabinet or 

illuminates the product contained 

within must be operational during the 

test, and DOE proposed to add clarifying 

language in the regulatory text to 

address customer display signs/lights. 

Under DOE’s proposal, supplemental 

lighting that exists solely for the 

purposes of advertising or drawing 

attention to the case and is not integral 

to the case would not be operated 

during testing under the DOE test 

procedure. 78 FR at 64306 (Oct. 28, 

2013). 

DOE did not receive any comments 

from interested parties on its proposal 

regarding treatment of customer display 

signs/lights during the DOE test 

procedure and, as such, is adopting the 

proposal presented in the October 2013 

test procedure NOPR with no 

modifications. 

b. Condensate Pan Heaters and Pumps 

Commercial refrigeration equipment 

captures water from the air entering the 

cabinet during operation by causing the 

water to condense and then freeze on 

the evaporator coil of the equipment. 

During a defrost cycle, this frost is 

melted and the meltwater produced 

must be removed from the unit. In many 

types of equipment, this meltwater is 

collected in a pan beneath the unit. 

Some models of commercial 

refrigeration equipment come equipped 

with electric resistance heaters that 

evaporate this water out of the pan and 

into the ambient air. Other models may 

come equipped with pumps that send 

meltwater to an external drain. 

In the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR, DOE proposed that, during the 

DOE test procedure, these electric 

resistance heaters and condensate 

pumps must be installed and 

operational during the entire test (as per 

section 6.1.1, ‘‘Accessories,’’ of 

ASHRAE 72–2005) and clarified that the 

‘‘entire test’’ includes stabilization 

(including pull-down), steady-state, and 

performance testing periods. Prior to the 

start of the stabilization period, as 

defined by ASHRAE 72–2005, the 

condensate pan should be dry, and 

during the entire test following the start 

of the stabilization period, any 

condensate moisture generated should 

be allowed to accumulate in the pan as 

it would during normal operation, with 

no manual removal of water at any time 

during the entire test. DOE proposed 

that if a manufacturer offers a given 

basic model for sale with an available 

condensate pan heater or pump, the 

manufacturer must make 

representations of the performance of 

the basic model as tested with the 

feature in place, and DOE proposed 

clarifying language in the regulatory text 

to address condensate pan heaters and 

pumps. 78 FR at 64306 (Oct. 28, 2013). 

In response to DOE’s proposal in the 

October 2013 test procedure NOPR, 

AHRI, Hussmann, and Zero Zone 

commented that condensate pan heaters 

should not be required to be tested for 

remote equipment, since they are not 

accounted for in the energy 

conservation standard engineering 

analysis. (AHRI, No. 15 at p. 3; 

Hussmann, No. 11 at p. 4; Zero Zone, 

No. 18 at p. 2) AHRI commented that 

condensate pan heaters or pumps are 

usually added in the field to fulfill 

specific needs of commercial customers 

and are typically installed on less than 

5 percent of the total remote cases sold 

within the U.S. AHRI further 

commented that it is unreasonable to 

require manufacturers to test potentially 

all remote equipment with condensate 

pan heaters to certify its basic models to 

DOE, if those models may be sold with 

condensate pan heaters in some specific 

applications. (AHRI, No. 15 at p. 3) 

Hussmann corroborated that remote 

equipment shipped with condensate 

pan heaters represents less than 1 

percent of case volume for Hussmann 

and stated its belief that the discussions 

during the negotiated rulemaking 

(Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC– 

0023) were primarily surrounding selfcontained equipment. (Hussmann, No. 

11 at p. 4) 

Zero Zone added that if case 

manufacturers are deterred from 

supplying condensate pan heaters, end 

users will work around this by buying 

condensate pans from third parties that 

typically are not Underwriters 

Laboratories (UL) Recognized or UL 

Listed and do not come with protective 

covers. (Zero Zone, No. 18 at pp. 2–3) 

DOE acknowledges the opinions of 

interested parties and agrees that 

condensate pan heaters and pumps are 

not common on remote equipment. As 

such, DOE agrees that determination of 

daily energy consumption for remote 

cases with condensate pan heaters may 

not be the most representative 

configuration. Thus, DOE is adopting 

language in this final rule applying the 

requirements for testing with 

condensate pan heaters and pumps in 

place for self-contained equipment only. 

DOE notes that whether or not 

condensate pan heaters were included 

in DOE’s engineering analysis and 

energy modeling to support standard 

development is not dispositive as to 

what features are included and 

accounted for when testing a given basic 

model of commercial refrigeration 

equipment. DOE models a 

representative model for each 

equipment class, but manufacturers may 

deviate from that assumed 

representative model in any number of 

ways, including the addition of features 

and accessories that improve the utility 

of cases in specific applications, such as 

condensate pan heaters and pumps. 

c. Anti-Sweat Door Heaters 

Many transparent-door cases come 

equipped with anti-sweat electric 

resistance heaters that serve to 

evaporate any water that condenses on 

the transparent surface of the door 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

22294 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

during operation. In some instances, 

manufacturers may equip their cases 

with higher-powered anti-sweat heaters 

in anticipation of potential adverse 

operating conditions. 

In the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR, DOE proposed that anti-sweat 

heaters should be operational during 

testing under the DOE test procedure 

and proposed adding clarifying 

language in the regulatory text to 

address anti-sweat door heaters. Models 

with a user-selectable setting must be 

tested with the anti-sweat heaters 

turned on and set to the maximum 

usage position and models featuring an 

automatic, non-user adjustable 

controller that turns on or off based on 

environmental conditions must be 

tested with the controller operating in 

the automatic state. Additionally, DOE 

proposed that, if a unit is not shipped 

with a controller from the point of 

manufacture, and is intended to be used 

with a controller, the manufacturer must 

make representations of the basic model 

based on the rated performance of that 

basic model as tested when equipped 

with a controller intended by the 

manufacturer for use with the unit. 78 

FR at 64306–64307 (Oct. 28, 2013). 

NEEA stated that it supports DOE’s 

proposal that anti-sweat heaters be in 

operation during testing unless controls 

are shipped with the unit and can be 

turned off by these controls during 

testing. (NEEA, No. 16 at pp. 2–3) DOE 

did not receive any negative comments 

from interested parties on its proposal 

regarding treatment anti-sweat door 

heater in the DOE test procedure and, as 

such, is adopting the proposal presented 

in the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR with no modifications. 

d. Ultraviolet Lights 

Some manufacturers equip certain 

models of commercial refrigeration 

equipment with ultraviolet lights, which 

can be operated by end users to 

neutralize pathogens and ensure case 

cleanliness. Manufacturers inquired as 

to how these will be addressed by the 

DOE test procedure. In the October 2013 

test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed 

that ultraviolet lights should not be 

turned on during the test procedure and 

proposed adding regulatory text to 

clarify this position. 78 FR at 64307 

(Oct. 28, 2013). 

DOE did not receive any comments 

from interested parties on its proposal 

regarding treatment of ultraviolet lights 

during the DOE test procedure and, as 

such, is adopting the proposal presented 

in the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR with no modifications. 

e. Illuminated Temperature Displays 

and Alarms 

Manufacturers may equip some 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

models with illuminated displays that 

provide visual information to the 

equipment operator regarding, for 

example, the temperature inside the 

refrigerated case or if the case 

temperature falls outside of a specified 

range. DOE understands these items to 

be features integral to the design of the 

given model and proposed that they 

should be enabled during the test as 

they would be during normal field 

operation. In the October 2013 test 

procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to add 

clarifying language in the regulatory text 

to address illuminated temperature 

displays and alarms. 78 FR at 64307 

(Oct. 28, 2013). 

DOE did not receive any comments 

from interested parties on its proposal 

regarding treatment of illuminated 

temperature displays and alarms during 

the DOE test procedure and, as such, is 

adopting the proposal presented in the 

October 2013 test procedure NOPR with 

no modifications. 

f. Condenser Filters 

Manufacturers may offer models 

equipped with non-permanent filters 

over a model’s condenser coil to prevent 

particulates such as flour from blocking 

the condenser coil and reducing airflow. 

In the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR, DOE proposed that these filters 

should be removed during the DOE test 

procedure and proposed to add 

clarifying language as part of the 

regulatory text. 78 FR at 64307 (Oct. 28, 

2013). 

DOE did not receive any comments 

from interested parties on its proposal 

regarding treatment of condensate filters 

during the DOE test procedure and, as 

such, is adopting the proposal presented 

in the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR with no modifications. 

g. Refrigeration System Security Covers 

Manufacturers may offer for sale with 

a basic model an option to include 

straps or other devices to secure the 

condensing unit and prevent theft or 

tampering. In the October 2013 test 

procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that 

these security devices should be 

removed during testing under the DOE 

test procedure and proposed to add 

clarifying language as part of the 

regulatory text to clarify this provision. 

78 FR 64307 (Oct. 28, 2013). 

DOE did not receive any comments 

from interested parties on its proposal 

regarding treatment of refrigeration 

system security covers during the DOE 

test procedure and, as such, is adopting 

the proposal presented in the October 

2013 test procedure NOPR with no 

modifications. 

h. Night Curtains and Covers 

Night curtains and night covers are 

defined at 10 CFR 431.62 as a device 

that is deployed temporarily to decrease 

air exchange and heat transfer between 

the refrigerated case and the 

surrounding environment. In the 

October 2013 test procedure NOPR, 

DOE stated that the proper treatment of 

these components during the DOE test 

procedure is discussed in the current 

text of the DOE test procedure, 10 CFR 

431.64, as amended by the 2012 DOE 

test procedure final rule. DOE also 

added these provisions at section 1.2.10 

in Appendix B and proposed adding 

language to clarify that night curtains 

may not be used when testing under 

Appendix A. 78 FR at 64307 (Oct. 28, 

2013). 

DOE did not receive any comments 

from interested parties regarding 

treatment of night curtains and covers 

during the DOE test procedure and, as 

such, is adopting the proposal presented 

in the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR with no modifications. 

i. Grill Options 

Manufacturers may offer for sale with 

a basic model optional grills that are 

used to direct airflow in unique 

applications, such as when a unit is 

mounted close to a rear wall and the 

airflow needs to be directed upwards. In 

the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, 

DOE proposed that, if present, nonstandard grills should be removed 

during testing under the DOE test 

procedure and proposed to add 

clarifying language as part of the 

regulatory text. 78 FR at 64307 (Oct. 28, 

2013). 

DOE did not receive any comments 

from interested parties on its proposal 

regarding treatment of grill options 

during the DOE test procedure and, as 

such, is adopting the proposal presented 

in the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR with no modifications. 

j. Coated Coils 

Coated coils, generally specified for 

use in units that will be subjected to 

environments in which acids or 

oxidizers are present, are treated with 

an additional coating (such as a layer of 

epoxy or polymer) as a barrier to protect 

the bare metal of the coil from 

deterioration through environmental 

contact. In the October 2013 test 

procedure NOPR, DOE presented its 

belief that the existing DOE test 

procedure accurately accounts for the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22295 

performance of all types of coils, 

including those with coatings, and that 

no additional accommodations or 

clarifications are needed in the test 

procedure. Commercial refrigeration 

equipment with coated coils shall be 

tested in accordance with the DOE test 

procedure, as specified at appendices A 

and B to subpart C of 10 CFR part 431. 

78 FR at 64307 (Oct. 28, 2013). 

DOE did not receive any comments 

from interested parties regarding 

treatment of coated coils during the 

DOE test procedure and, as such, is 

adopting the proposal presented in the 

October 2013 test procedure NOPR with 

no modifications. 

k. Internal Secondary Coolant Circuits 

The use of internal, secondary, 

working fluid that is cooled by a remote 

condensing unit is a proprietary design 

that purportedly allows for greater 

control of unit temperature, and may 

present other attributes desirable to a 

customer. In the October 2013 test 

procedure NOPR, DOE stated that it 

found no evidence indicating that this 

design could not be tested using the 

DOE test procedure as written, as the 

operation of equipment with internal 

secondary coolant circuits would be 

effectively the same as that of a standard 

remote condensing case from the 

perspective of the test procedure. 78 FR 

at 64307 (Oct. 28, 2013). 

DOE did not receive any comments 

from interested parties regarding 

treatment of internal secondary coolant 

circuits during the DOE test procedure 

and, as such, is adopting the proposal 

presented in the October 2013 test 

procedure NOPR with no modifications. 

l. Wedge Cases 

Wedge cases are models of 

commercial refrigeration equipment that 

fit between two other cases to fill a gap 

(such as in a corner) in a continuous 

case lineup. They may require air 

spillover from adjacent cases to meet the 

manufacturer’s design temperatures. 

During the negotiation proceedings, 

manufacturers inquired as to how 

wedge cases should be treated under the 

DOE test procedure. 

DOE considered the coverage and 

testing of wedge cases in the 2009 

energy conservation standards final 

rule. 74 FR 1092, 1102–1103 (Dec. 9, 

2009). Based on that assessment, DOE 

understands that wedge cases meet the 

definition of commercial refrigeration 

equipment and fall into existing CRE 

equipment classes. In the October 2013 

test procedure NOPR, DOE stated that it 

is unaware of any technical attributes 

that prevent wedge cases from being 

tested using the DOE test procedure, or 

that the DOE test procedure is not 

representative of the energy use of a 

given basic model of wedge case. 78 FR 

at 64307 (Oct. 28, 2013). 

DOE did not receive any comments 

from interested parties regarding 

treatment of wedge cases during the 

DOE test procedure and, as such, is 

adopting the proposal presented in the 

October 2013 test procedure NOPR with 

no modifications. 

m. Misting or Humidification Systems 

Manufacturers may offer for sale with 

a basic model optional misting or 

humidification systems, which dispense 

a water mist used to maintain the 

optimal quality of products. These are 

commonly used with cases containing, 

for example, fresh produce, meat, or 

seafood. In the October 2013 test 

procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that, if 

present, these systems should be 

inactive during testing under the DOE 

test procedure and proposed to add 

clarifying language as part of the 

regulatory text. 78 FR at 64307–64308 

(Oct. 28, 2013). 

DOE did not receive any comments 

from interested parties on its proposal 

regarding treatment of misting or 

humidification systems during the DOE 

test procedure and, as such, is adopting 

the proposal presented in the October 

2013 test procedure NOPR with no 

modifications. 

n. Air Purifiers 

Manufacturers may offer for sale 

purifying systems to remove 

contaminants from air recirculated 

within the interior of a refrigerated case. 

In the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR, DOE proposed that air purifiers 

should be inactive during testing under 

the DOE test procedure and proposed to 

add clarifying language as part of the 

regulatory text. 78 FR at 64308 (Oct. 28, 

2013). 

DOE did not receive any comments 

from interested parties on its proposal 

regarding treatment of air purifiers 

during the DOE test procedure and, as 

such, is adopting the proposal presented 

in the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR with no modifications. 

o. General Purpose Outlets 

Some commercial refrigeration 

equipment may be offered for sale with 

integrated general purpose electrical 

outlets, which may be used to power 

additional equipment such as scales or 

slicers. In the October 2013 test 

procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that, 

during testing under the DOE test 

procedure, no external load should be 

connected to the general purpose outlets 

contained within a unit and proposed to 

add clarifying language as part of the 

regulatory text. 78 FR at 64308 (Oct. 28, 

2013). 

DOE did not receive any comments 

from interested parties on its proposal 

regarding treatment of general purpose 

outlets during the DOE test procedure 

and, as such, is adopting the proposal 

presented in the October 2013 test 

procedure NOPR with no modifications. 

p. Crankcase Heaters 

Some models of self-contained 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

feature electric resistance heaters 

designed to keep the compressor warm 

in order to maintain the refrigerant 

contained within at optimal conditions 

when the unit is operating at low 

ambient temperatures. In the October 

2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE 

proposed that, if present, crankcase 

heaters should be operational during the 

test. Under this proposal, if a control 

system, such as a thermostat or 

electronic controller, is used to 

modulate the operation of the crankcase 

heater, it should be used as intended per 

the manufacturer’s instructions. DOE 

proposed to add clarifying language 

regarding testing units with crankcase 

heaters. 78 FR at 64308 (Oct. 28, 2013). 

DOE did not receive any comments 

from interested parties on its proposal 

regarding treatment of crankcase heaters 

during the DOE test procedure and, as 

such, is adopting the proposal presented 

in the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR with no modifications. 

q. Interior/Exterior Liners 

Manufacturers may offer for sale a 

variety of different interior or exterior 

liner materials with a given CRE basic 

model. These liners, by virtue of 

differences in thickness, composition, 

and other physical attributes, could 

change the insulative properties of the 

case walls and thus alter the energy 

consumption of the case. The test 

procedure estimates the heat loss from 

the refrigerated space to the 

surroundings by measuring the amount 

of energy needed to maintain the 

refrigerated space at the given rating 

temperature. In the October 2013 test 

procedure NOPR, DOE presented its 

belief that the DOE test procedure 

adequately accounts for variability in 

the energy consumption of models with 

different liner types just as it accounts 

for the energy performance of models 

with varying levels of insulation. 

Therefore, DOE did not propose any 

additional measures to accommodate 

these equipment features. 78 FR at 

64308 (Oct. 28, 2013). 

DOE did not receive any comments 

from interested parties on its proposal 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

22296 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

regarding treatment of interior/exterior 

liners during the DOE test procedure 

and, as such, is adopting the proposal 

presented in the October 2013 test 

procedure NOPR with no modifications. 

r. Crankcase Pressure Regulators 

During the 2013 Working Group 

meetings, stakeholders mentioned that 

they sometimes equip the compressors 

of self-contained commercial 

refrigeration units with devices called 

crankcase pressure regulators. The 

function of these devices is to maintain 

optimal gas pressure within the 

compressor crankcase in instances 

where the voltage input to the 

compressor may not be uniform. This 

often is the case, for example, in rural 

locations where the transmission system 

may experience interruptions or 

fluctuations resulting in line voltage 

drops. Working Group members agreed 

unanimously that manufacturers should 

offer an identical model without this 

feature for the purposes of testing. DOE 

plans to address this through guidance. 

s. Other Comments Received From 

Interested Parties 

In response to the October 2013 test 

procedure NOPR, DOE received several 

additional comments pertaining to its 

treatment of accessories generally. Zero 

Zone agreed with DOE’s 

accommodations of some specific 

accessories and features proposed in the 

October 2013 test procedure NOPR. 

However, Zero Zone questioned why 

DOE did not make allowances for 

customers with high ambient humidities 

and allow the use of higher anti-sweat 

heat for those applications. Zero Zone 

recommended that, to be consistent, 

DOE should require testing with the 

options it plans to exclude in this 

rulemaking, and if the equipment can’t 

pass the energy standard with these 

options installed, customers need to 

modify their stores to avoid the need for 

the equipment modifications. (Zero 

Zone, No. 18 at p. 3) 

The government of the People’s 

Republic of China (China) 

recommended that all non-core energyconsuming accessories, such as lighting 

associated with short-term opening and 

closing of the refrigerator door, 

networking and standby, or operation of 

the deodorizing system, should be left 

out and not included in the 

measurement of daily energy 

consumption. (China, No. 10 at p. 2) In 

addition, China recommended that, if a 

manufacturer included in their product 

literature information that the operation 

of some functions was auxiliary to the 

effective operation of the refrigeration 

equipment, their energy consumption 

would account for a small proportion of 

total energy consumption and could be 

excluded from the calculation of total or 

combined daily energy consumption. 

(China, No. 10 at p. 4) 

In response to Zero Zone’s comment 

regarding accounting for the use of antisweat heaters at high humidities in the 

DOE test procedure, DOE notes that its 

test procedure is meant to represent an 

average cycle of use. The ambient 

temperatures required in the DOE test 

procedure are 75 °F and 45 percent 

relative humidity. These ambient 

conditions apply to all equipment and 

are meant to be representative of the 

typical installation conditions for most 

commercial refrigeration equipment. 

DOE does not believe that the additional 

complexity and burden associated with 

testing at additional or different ambient 

temperature conditions for some 

equipment is justified to capture 

additional use of anti-sweat heaters. 

DOE notes that, as presented in section 

III.A.5.c, this final rule establishes 

provisions that anti-sweat door heaters 

that do not have automatic controls 

should be energized when testing in 

accordance with the DOE test procedure 

and that energy use due to anti-sweat 

door heaters that have automatic 

controls will be captured based on the 

control algorithm associated with the 

automatic control scheme. 

In response to China’s comment 

regarding the treatment of non-core or 

auxiliary accessories, DOE believes that, 

to a large extent, the provisions adopted 

in this section address the appropriate 

treatment of specific non-core and 

auxiliary accessories. DOE notes that, to 

ensure consistent and repeatable testing, 

it is beneficial to adopt specific test 

provisions for the treatment of specific 

accessories. The proposals adopted in 

this test procedure final rule address 

specific accessories agreed upon as a 

result of negotiations between DOE and 

interested parties. DOE does not believe 

adopting more-general provisions for 

the treatment of ‘‘non-core’’ accessories, 

as suggested by China, is necessary. In 

addition, DOE believes such ambiguous 

provisions may result in 

misinterpretation and lack of 

consistency in implementation of the 

test procedure. Therefore, DOE is not 

adopting provisions for testing of 

accessories other than those proposed in 

the October 2013 test procedure NOPR. 

78 FR at 64306–08 (Oct. 28, 2013). 

6. Rounding of Test Results and 

Certified Ratings 

The current DOE test procedure, 

which incorporates by reference 

provisions from ARI 1200–2006 and 

AHRI 1200–2010, requires that the 

calculated daily energy consumption 

(CDEC), for remote condensing 

equipment, and the total daily energy 

consumption (TDEC), for self-contained 

refrigeration equipment, be expressed in 

terms of kilowatt-hours (kWh) per day 

and must be stated in increments of 0.01 

kWh per day. This is consistent with the 

number of significant figures expressed 

in the energy conservation standards 

listed at 10 CFR 431.66. 

DOE’s requirements for calculating 

test results and certified ratings for 

covered commercial refrigeration 

equipment are found at 10 CFR 431.64 

and 10 CFR 429.42, respectively. The 

DOE test procedure currently requires 

that results for CDEC or TDEC resulting 

from testing a single unit be rounded to 

0.01 kWh per day. In the case where the 

reported value is derived from testing, at 

least two or more units should be tested 

pursuant to 429.42 and the appropriate 

sampling statistics must be applied in 

order to develop the represented value. 

DOE is adopting in this final rule 

provisions to clarify that the represented 

value should also be rounded to the 

nearest 0.01 kWh per day after 

application of the sampling statistics. 

For commercial refrigeration equipment 

rated using an AEDM, the certified 

rating must be derived pursuant to 

429.70 and rounded to 0.01 kWh per 

day. 

In the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR, DOE proposed to clarify 10 CFR 

431.64 by specifying that all 

calculations in the DOE test procedure 

must be carried out using raw, measured 

values, and the results from the testing 

of a single unit of a given basic model 

should be expressed in 0.01 kWh per 

day. DOE also proposed to update the 

language at 10 CFR 429.42 to reflect the 

same rounding requirements, namely 

that certified ratings be expressed in 

0.01 kWh per day increments. 78 FR at 

64308 (Oct. 28, 2013). 

In response to this proposal, Traulsen 

suggested that, in lieu of leaving an 

ambiguous rounding factor that may 

result in inconsistencies between 

manufacturers or reporting entities, DOE 

require all calculations to be carried out 

to the third decimal point and rounding 

to the second decimal point for the 

purposes of certification and 

compliance with DOE’s energy 

conservation standards. (Traulsen, No. 

17 at p. 3) Southern Store Fixtures 

commented that the rounding of test 

results and the raw data, per ASHRAE 

Standard 72, is carried to one decimal 

point and should be consistent with this 

test procedure. (Southern Store Fixtures, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 

165) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22297 

In response to Southern Store 

Fixtures’ comment regarding values in 

ASHRAE 72–2005 that are carried to the 

first decimal point, DOE notes that 

pressure and temperature measurements 

are specified to the first decimal point 

and reporting these values to the third 

decimal point may be inappropriate. 

However, these values are not used 

directly in the calculation of TDEC or 

CDEC, and the number of significant 

digits past the decimal is not relevant. 

For these quantities, the number of 

significant digits to be carried through 

calculations is dictated by the number 

of significant digits in the value as a 

whole, and at least three significant 

digits are expected for all these 

quantities. 

In this final rule, DOE is not 

modifying the proposal presented in the 

October 2013 test procedure NOPR, and 

is adopting in this test procedure final 

rule language that all calculations in the 

DOE test procedure must be carried out 

using raw, measured values and the 

results from the testing of a single unit 

of a given basic model should be 

expressed in 0.01 kWh per day. 

7. Testing at the Lowest Application 

Product Temperature 

In the 2012 test procedure final rule, 

DOE establishes provisions for testing 

equipment that is not capable of 

achieving the prescribed rating 

temperature for its respective equipment 

class: 38 °F (±2 °F) for commercial 

refrigerators, 0 °F (±2 °F) for commercial 

freezers, and ¥15 °F (±2 °F) for icecream freezers. 77 FR at 10320 (Feb. 21, 

2012). This equipment includes, for 

example, floral cases and ice storage 

cases, which do not have operating 

temperatures that are low enough to 

meet their respective rating temperature 

requirements. The 2012 test procedure 

amendments specify that such 

equipment must be tested at its LAPT, 

instead of the specified rating 

temperature for its given equipment 

class. 77 FR at 10320 (Feb. 21, 2012). 

DOE regulations at 10 CFR 431.62 

define LAPT as the integrated average 

temperature closest to the specified 

rating temperature for a given piece of 

equipment achievable and repeatable 

such that the IAT of a given unit is 

within ±2 °F of the average of all IAT 

values for that basic model. For cases 

with thermostats, this will be the lowest 

thermostat set point. 

a. Definition of Lowest Application 

Product Temperature 

In the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR, DOE clarified the definition and 

intent of the LAPT for equipment that 

cannot maintain the prescribed rating 

temperature. 78 FR at 64308–09 (Oct. 

28, 2013). That is, DOE specified the 

LAPT is the lowest temperature at 

which a given basic model is capable of 

operating, and equipment rated under 

the LAPT provisions must be tested in 

accordance with all the requirements of 

the DOE test procedure, except that the 

rating temperature for this equipment 

will be the LAPT and the IAT measured 

during the test will be within ±2 °F of 

the LAPT instead of within ±2 °F of the 

prescribed rating temperature for that 

equipment class. DOE acknowledged 

that the lowest operating temperature 

for a given unit may vary slightly for 

specific units tested under a given basic 

model due to manufacturing tolerances, 

refrigerant charge, or other minor 

differences among units of a given CRE 

basic model. However, the LAPT should 

be specified such that, if DOE were to 

select a representative unit of this model 

randomly to test for compliance 

purposes, DOE would be able to test the 

unit by setting the unit to operate as 

cold as possible and achieve an 

integrated average temperature that is 

±2 °F of the LAPT. 78 FR 64308–09 (Oct. 

28, 2013). 

In response to DOE’s proposed 

clarification of LAPT in the October 

2013 NOPR, interested parties had 

several suggestions regarding the 

definition of LAPT. Traulsen 

recommended the following 

clarification to the LAPT definition: The 

term ‘‘LAPT’’ is attained by adjusting 

the unit thermostat to the lowest 

operating temperature where the ‘‘IAT’’ 

is maintained at a condition of ±2 °F 

over the duration of the test procedure. 

The LAPT value is equal to or greater 

than the rating temperature based on 

refrigeration system capacity or lowest 

possible thermostat set point. (Traulsen, 

No. 15 at p. 3) Hussmann recommended 

that DOE change the definition of LAPT 

for remote equipment without a 

thermostat from ‘‘adjusted dew point’’ 

to ‘‘dew point,’’ since that is what is 

controlled in a test environment. 

Hussmann also stated that it believed 

the LAPT should not be below the 

manufacturer’s lowest specified 

operating temperature and that testing 

of the LAPT as the ‘‘temperature 

achieved with the adjusted dew point 

temperature (as defined in AHRI 

Standard 1200 (I–P)-2010) set to 5 

degrees colder than that required to 

maintain the manufacturers lowest 

specified operating temperature’’ will 

only result in an unsuccessful, 

unrepeatable, non-steady state test due 

to excessive ice build-up on the 

evaporator coil. (Hussmann, No. 11 at p. 

3) 

DOE appreciates the 

recommendations submitted by 

interested parties regarding the 

definition and specification of LAPT. 

Specifically, DOE believes that 

Traulsen’s recommended language is 

generally incorporated into the existing 

definition and procedure proposed in 

the October 2013 test procedure NOPR. 

Further, DOE notes that the term 

‘‘LAPT’’ should be defined so as to 

describe the characteristics and 

specification of the lowest IAT a CRE 

basic model is capable of achieving, 

rather than the procedure for 

determining LAPT, which is described 

in the relevant section of 10 CFR 431.64. 

DOE also notes that the LAPT for a 

given CRE basic model does not have to 

be ‘‘maintained’’ throughout the test 

procedure, but rather the IAT resulting 

from conducting the test procedure 

should be within ±2 °F of the specified 

LAPT. 

In addition, in response to 

Hussmann’s recommendation regarding 

the LAPT provisions for remote 

equipment that does not have a 

thermostat, DOE agrees with Hussmann 

that it may be more appropriate to 

specify the dew point, as opposed to the 

adjusted dew point for remote 

equipment. AHRI 1200–2010 defines the 

dew point as the refrigerant vapor 

saturation temperature at a specified 

pressure. This corresponds typically to 

the temperature in the evaporator. 

Conversely, the adjusted dew point is 

defined in AHRI 1200–2010 as a 

temperature lower than the actual dew 

point to account for suction line 

pressure losses and represents the 

saturated suction temperature at the 

compressor. This is more representative 

of the refrigerant temperature entering 

the compressor and is the value used to 

specify compressor performance for the 

purposes of determining the CDEC for 

remote cases in AHRI 1200–2010. AHRI 

1200–2010 further specifies the adjusted 

dew point as 2 °F lower than the 

evaporator dew point for commercial 

refrigerators and 3 °F lower than the 

evaporator dew point for commercial 

freezers, when applying standardized 

assumptions regarding condensing rack 

performance (see Table 1 in section 5, 

‘‘Rating Requirements for Remote 

Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets,’’ of 

AHRI 1200–2010). While the dew point 

and the adjusted dew point are 

dependent on one another, DOE 

acknowledges that the dew point 

controls the internal refrigerated 

temperature directly and is what is 

directly controlled in a test 

environment. DOE notes that specifying 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

22298 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

the dew point, rather than the adjusted 

dew point, as 5 degrees below that 

required to maintain the manufacturer’s 

lowest specified operating temperature 

will not change the resultant LAPT 

value for remote equipment, as the two 

values are dependent on one another. 

Specifically, the adjusted dew point is 

specified as 3 °F lower than the dew 

point for commercial freezers and icecream freezers and 2 °F lower than the 

dew point for commercial refrigerators. 

In response to Hussmann’s comment 

that specifying the adjusted dew point 

as 5 degrees colder than that required to 

maintain the manufacturer’s lowest 

specified operating temperature will 

result in internal refrigerated 

temperatures that may be lower than the 

manufacturer’s lowest specified 

operating temperature, which could 

lead to ice buildup on the evaporator 

coil, DOE acknowledges that this may 

be a concern but notes that this may be 

an issue for only a small number of 

basic models. If a model is not able to 

operate consistently at a temperature 5 

degrees below the dew point required to 

maintain the manufacturer’s lowest 

specified operating temperature, a 

manufacturer must request a test 

procedure waiver. 

DOE notes that it adopted such 

language in the 2012 test procedure 

final rule to ensure that the achieved 

LAPT represented a conservative rating 

for remote equipment. DOE believed 

this was necessary because the internal 

refrigerated temperature for remote 

equipment is so variable and dependent 

on the remote condensing rack capacity 

and operation. 77 FR at 10305 (Feb. 21, 

2012). DOE is reluctant to revise the 

LAPT for remote equipment without a 

thermostat as the dew point required to 

achieve the necessary integrated average 

temperature inside the case for that 

basic model. As recommended by 

Hussmann, this approach would allow 

manufacturers to specify virtually any 

temperature as the LAPT for a given 

CRE basic model, including a 

temperature not representative of the 

lowest temperature the CRE model can 

achieve. As such, DOE is adopting 

language that continues to establish the 

LAPT for remote equipment without a 

thermostat based on specifying the dew 

point as 5 degrees below the 

temperature required to maintain the 

lowest specified operating temperature 

of that equipment. 

b. Incorporation by Reference of 

ASHRAE 72–2005 

Although ASHRAE 72–2005 is 

currently evoked as the DOE method of 

test through DOE’s incorporation by 

reference of ARI 1200–2006 and AHRI 

1200–2010 as the test procedure for 

commercial refrigeration equipment, 

DOE has never specifically incorporated 

by reference ASHRAE 72–2005. Due to 

the explicit reference of ASHRAE 72– 

2005 in the proposed definition of LAPT 

in the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by 

reference ASHRAE 72–2005 at 10 CFR 

431.63. 78 FR at 64309 (Oct. 28, 2013). 

In response to DOE’s proposal to 

incorporate by reference ASHRAE 72– 

2005, ASHRAE recommended that DOE 

update the reference of ANSI/ASHRAE 

72–2005 to the 2013 edition of this 

standard. (ASHRAE, No. 8 at p. 1) DOE 

notes that, at this time, a new edition of 

ASHRAE 72 is not available. DOE is 

aware that ASHRAE 72 is intended to be 

published soon, but DOE is not electing 

to delay publication of this final rule to 

accommodate ASHRAE’s publication 

timeline. When a new edition of 

ASHRAE 72 is available, DOE will 

review the revised test protocol and 

consider amending DOE’s test 

procedure to reference the updated 

ASHRAE 72 version, as appropriate. 

8. Clarifications in Response to 

Interpretations to AHRI 1200–2010 

The 2012 test procedure final rule 

amends the DOE test procedure for 

commercial refrigeration equipment to 

reference AHRI 1200–2010 as the 

method of test to be used as of the 

compliance date of the amended 

standards established published in the 

March 2014 energy conservation 

standards final rule. 77 FR at 10295– 

10296 (Feb. 21, 2012); 79 FR 17726, 

17734 (Mar. 28, 2014). 

In the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR, DOE discussed five 

interpretations to AHRI 1200–2010 that 

AHRI had recently published. AHRI 

issued interpretations 1 through 4 to 

AHRI 1200–2010 to clarify the method 

for calculation of TDA. Interpretation 5 

to AHRI 1200–2010 clarifies the 

approach for testing commercial 

refrigeration equipment with two 

independent refrigeration sections. 78 

FR at 64309–64310 (Oct. 28, 2013). In 

the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, 

DOE presented its belief that the TDA 

should be measured as the ‘‘projected 

visible area’’ and discussed how 

Interpretations 1, 3, and 4 were 

consistent with this method. 

Specifically, Interpretation 1 specifies 

that TDA should not include any 

transparent areas where the view is 

blocked by solid features, Interpretation 

3 describes how to treat silk screens and 

other semi-transparent coverings on 

transparent doors or panels, and 

Interpretation 4 provides guidance to 

determine the area and length of 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

with curved fronts. DOE did not 

propose further clarification of the DOE 

test procedure beyond the definition of 

‘‘transparent’’ proposed in section 

III.B.2.a of the October 2013 test 

procedure NOPR, believing that the 

existing test instructions contained in 

ARI 1200–2006, AHRI 1200–2010, and 

the DOE test procedure were sufficient 

to specify clearly how to calculate TDA 

for cases with solid features covering 

portions of projected area or for cases 

with non-rectangular geometries. 78 FR 

at 64310 (Oct. 28, 2013). However, DOE 

found Interpretation 2, which includes 

solid features in the calculation of TDA 

such as door frames and mullions, to be 

inconsistent with DOE’s method of 

calculating TDA. DOE’s proposed 

method, comments received by 

interested parties, and DOE’s responses 

are laid out in more detail in section 

III.A.9. 

DOE also reviewed Interpretation 5, 

which clarifies the method for 

evaluating commercial refrigeration 

equipment with more than one 

refrigerated section, and found that 

AHRI’s Interpretation 5 is consistent 

with the DOE test procedure for these 

systems, as specified at 10 CFR 

431.66(d)(2)(i), which explains how to 

test commercial refrigeration equipment 

with more than one refrigerated 

compartment or section. 78 FR at 64310 

(Oct. 28, 2013). 

In response to DOE’s discussion of the 

AHRI interpretations in the October 

2013 test procedure NOPR, China 

recommended adding clarifying 

language to specify how to calculate the 

TDA for curved front cases and 

suggested that the TDA for these cases 

be based on the effective projected area. 

(China, No. 10 at p. 3) 

DOE acknowledges China’s suggestion 

that the DOE test procedure provide 

more-explicit guidance for how to 

calculate TDA for cases with unique, 

non-rectangular geometries. DOE notes 

that AHRI Interpretation 4 lays out 

clearly the approach for doing so. DOE 

discussed this approach in the October 

2013 test procedure NOPR and 

determined that it was consistent with 

the DOE test procedure and did not 

need clarification. 78 FR at 64310 (Oct. 

28, 2013). However, based on China’s 

request, DOE notes that some interested 

parties may find additional clarification 

useful. As such, DOE is adopting 

additional clarification in the DOE test 

procedure for cases with curved front 

geometries. 

DOE notes that, on October 1, 2013, 

ANSI approved a revised edition of the 

AHRI 1200 test procedure, AHRI 1200– 

2013, which incorporates a new graphic 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22299 

13 In the 2012 test procedure final rule, DOE 

adopted a specific date (January 1, 2016), which 

was the anticipated compliance date for any 

standards amended as a result of the ongoing CRE 

energy conservation standards rulemaking (Docket 

No. EERE–2010–BT–STD–0003). However, DOE 

discussed in the preamble to the 2012 test 

procedure final rule that the intent was to require 

compliance with the test procedure amendments 

adopted in that final rule consistent with the 

compliance of any new or amended standards. 77 

FR 10292, 10295, 10308–9, 10318–21 (Feb. 21, 

2012). 

to Appendix D describing the 

measurement of TDA for cases with 

curved-fronts and adds language 

clarifying the calculation of the height 

dimension (Dh). Specifically, AHRI 

1200–2013 specifies that the dimension 

L shall be taken as the arc length of the 

curves section of visible product area. 

AHRI 1200–2013 also adopted language 

to Appendix D that reads ‘‘when 

measuring Dh, only the visible 

dimension shall be considered. Opaque 

door frames, light shades, nontransparent silk screens, and the like 

that impede visibility shall be excluded 

from the measurement.’’ AHRI 1200– 

2013 did not make any other changes to 

the methods, nomenclature, or layout of 

AHRI 1200, and is otherwise consistent 

with ARI 1200–2006 and AHRI 1200– 

2010, the test procedures currently 

incorporated by reference into the DOE 

test procedure. 

In the 2012 test procedure final rule, 

DOE incorporated by reference AHRI 

1200–2010 as the test procedure for 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

manufactured on or after the 

compliance date of the amended energy 

conservation standards adopted in the 

March 2014 energy conservation 

standards final rule.13 77 FR at 10295, 

10308–09, 10318–21 (Feb. 21, 2012); 79 

FR 17726, 17734 (Mar. 28, 2014). DOE 

also maintained the incorporation by 

reference of ARI 1200–2006 for 

equipment certified prior to March 28, 

2017. 77 FR at 10318–10320 (Feb. 21, 

2012). In the 2012 test procedure final 

rule, DOE discussed the changes made 

between ARI 1200–2006 and AHRI 

1200–2010 as including both editorial 

and technical changes to (1) the 

equipment class nomenclature used 

within the test procedure; (2) the 

integrated average rating temperature for 

ice-cream freezers; and (3) the method 

of normalizing and reporting units for 

equipment energy consumption. 77 FR 

at 10296 (Feb. 21, 2012). AHRI 1200– 

2013 differs from AHRI 1200–2010 in 

adopting (1) a new definition of 

‘‘transparent surface,’’ which is a 

surface with a minimum of 65 percent 

light transmission or 65 percent clear 

surface; (2) a new statement in 

Appendix D specifying that when 

calculating Dh only the visible 

dimension shall be considered; and (3) 

an additional figure, Figure D18, 

providing clarification regarding the 

calculation of TDA for radius cases with 

transparent sides. 

DOE finds the amendments adopted 

in AHRI 1200–2013 to be generally 

consistent with the DOE test procedure 

for commercial refrigeration equipment, 

except DOE finds the need for 

additional clarity surrounding the 

description of how TDA is to be 

calculated for radius cases the definition 

of ‘‘transparent surface.’’ For radius 

cases, DOE maintains that TDA shall be 

calculated as the projection of visible 

product, as described in section III.A.9. 

To clarify the method for calculating 

TDA for equipment with curved-front 

geometries, DOE is adopting a new 

figure specifying the dimensions Dh, L, 

and area Ae are to be determined as 

planar projections of the area of visible 

product when viewed at an angle 

normal to the transparent area for radius 

cases. Regarding the definition of 

‘‘transparent surface,’’ as discussed in 

section III.A.2.b, DOE adopts a 

definition of ‘‘transparent’’ based on a 

light transmittance of 45 percent when 

measured in accordance with ASTM 

Standard E 1084–86 (Reapproved 2009). 

9. Clarification of Methodology for 

Measuring Total Display Area 

DOE uses TDA to determine the 

applicable performance standard for 

remote condensing commercial 

refrigeration equipment with 

transparent doors or no doors. 

Appendix D of ARI 1200–2006 and 

AHRI 1200–2010, as incorporated by 

reference by DOE at 10 CFR 431.63, 

provides a definition and instructions 

on determining TDA. AHRI 1200–2013 

provides the same definition and 

instructions, and specifies that when 

calculating Dh, only the visible 

dimension shall be considered, an 

additional figure, Figure D18, provides 

clarification regarding the calculation of 

TDA for radius cases with transparent 

sides. Appendix D of ARI 1200–2006, 

AHRI 1200–2010, and AHRI 1200–2013 

defines TDA as follows: 

‘‘Total Display Area (TDA) is the sum of 

the projected area(s) for visible product.’’ 

Moreover, Appendix D provides a 

general equation for calculating the 

‘‘projected area(s),’’ in the form of: 

TDA = Dh*L + Ae, 

Where: 

Ae = Projected area from visible product 

through end walls 

Dh = Dimension of projected visible product 

L = Length of Commercial Refrigerated 

Display Merchandiser 

Figures D1 through D16 of Appendix 

D of ARI 1200–2006, AHRI 1200–2010, 

and AHRI 1200–2013 provide 

instructions on the measurement of Dh, 

L, and Ae for various geometries of 

commercial refrigerated display 

merchandisers. These figures show that 

TDA includes only those areas through 

which displayed product is visible for 

the Ae and Dh dimension, irrespective of 

the presence of other transparent areas 

through which product cannot be 

viewed. As Interpretations 1, 3, and 4 of 

AHRI 1200–2010 and the amendments 

adopted in AHRI 1200–2013 make clear, 

the converse is also true—areas of the 

product zone that cannot be viewed as 

part of a direct projection through a 

transparent area are not to be included 

in any measurement of Dh. The term 

‘‘direct projection’’ refers to the view at 

an angle perpendicular to the plane of 

product presentation (facing area). ARI 

1200–2006, AHRI 1200–2010, and AHRI 

1200–2013 all define the third variable, 

‘‘L’’, as the ‘‘length of commercial 

refrigerated display merchandiser.’’ 

However, Appendix D contains no 

figures or illustrations instructing a user 

how to perform this measurement. 

In the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR, DOE discussed the calculation of 

TDA for various CRE models and, at the 

public meeting presented figures, to 

illustrate the concept that the 

measurement of TDA in practice should 

be consistent with its definition as the 

‘‘dimension of projected visible 

product.’’ (DOE, No. 3 at pp. 68–71) 

DOE clarified that this included the 

dimension L, which corresponds to the 

total length of the transparent area of the 

merchandiser through which product 

can be seen; areas of opaque material 

that overhang the product zone and well 

as areas of transparent material that do 

not project upon a zone occupied by 

product, should not be included in this 

length. To clarify the calculation of 

TDA, DOE proposed to add clarifying 

text and figures to the test procedure 

explaining that the measurement of 

TDA should be representative of the 

‘‘dimension of projected visible 

product’’ and that no opaque materials 

or areas of transparent material through 

which product cannot be viewed should 

be included in the calculation of TDA. 

78 FR at 64310–64312 (Oct. 28, 2013). 

In response to DOE’s proposal to 

clarify the method of calculating TDA, 

DOE received several comments from 

interested parties objecting to DOE’s 

interpretation and offering suggestions 

for other methods of calculating the 

dimension L when determining TDA of 

a CRE basic model with transparent 

doors or no doors. AHRI, Hill Phoenix, 

Hussmann, and Zero Zone disagreed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

22300 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

with DOE’s definition of the length of a 

commercial refrigerated display 

merchandiser and stated that industry 

has always treated the length ‘‘L’’ as the 

‘‘length of the commercial refrigerated 

display merchandiser’’ from inside wall 

to inside wall, disregarding the presence 

of non-transparent mullions and door 

frames. AHRI, Hill Phoenix, Hussmann, 

and Zero Zone further believed, and 

provided quantitative justification to 

support, that DOE must have used case 

length in the engineering analysis for 

the 2009 and the current rulemaking. 

(Docket No. EERE–2012–BT–STD–0003) 

The commenters stated it is impossible 

to have a typical 30-inch by 67-inch 

door have 13 square feet of TDA without 

including the mullions and door frames 

and provided analysis to support this 

viewpoint. The commenters added that 

using TDA as DOE described in the 

October 2013 test procedure NOPR 

instead of case length would reduce the 

standard level by 10 to 12.5 percent. 

(AHRI, No. 15 at pp. 1–3; Hill Phoenix, 

No. 13 at pp. 2–6; Hussmann, No. 11 at 

pp. 3–4; Zero Zone, No. 18 at pp. 3–4) 

Hussmann expressed concern that 

changing the method for calculating 

TDA without changing the standards 

would unfairly penalize manufacturers. 

(Hussmann, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 7 at p. 190) 

Arneg and Zero Zone commented that 

the TDA is dependent on the distance 

the observer is located from the door 

and their orientation of viewing. (Arneg, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 

196; Zero Zone, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 7 at pp. 196–198) 

To be consistent with current industry 

practice and DOE’s energy conservation 

standard rulemaking analysis (Docket 

No. EERE–2010–BT–STD–0003), AHRI, 

Hill Phoenix, and Hussmann suggested 

that DOE use the interior refrigerated 

length, calculated from inside wall to 

inside wall, except for when a case has 

greater than 5 inches of non-transparent 

area. For CRE models with more than 5 

inches of non-transparent length in the 

dimension L, the commenters 

recommended that DOE use total length 

of transparent area plus 5 inches. (AHRI, 

No. 15 at pp. 1–3; Hill Phoenix, No. 13 

at pp. 2–6; Hussmann, No. 11 at p. 4) 

Zero Zone recommended that DOE 

adjust the energy conservation standard 

to account for the reduction in TDA 

associated with not including the door 

frames and mullions in the calculation 

of TDA. If DOE elects not to adjust the 

energy conservation standard 

commensurate with the change in 

calculation of TDA, Zero Zone 

recommended that DOE not alter the 

calculation of TDA from that assumed 

in the engineering analysis for the 

ongoing energy conservation standard 

rulemaking (Docket No. EERE–2010– 

BT–STD–0003) and noted that the 

market place will sort out the value and 

utility of equipment that has more or 

less visible product. (Zero Zone, No. 18 

at p. 4) Zero Zone suggested that DOE 

incorporate a TDA-dependent 

component in the formula for energy, 

and another component considering 

non-TDA space or volume, noting that 

this is a unique design, although 

something similar has been done for ice 

cases. (Zero Zone, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 7 at pp. 206–207) 

Traulsen suggested using volume to 

calculate energy consumption for glass 

door remotes, effectively bypassing the 

TDA discussion, or suggested leaving 

TDA as a square-footage calculated wallto-wall, top to bottom while ignoring the 

depth dimension. (Traulsen, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at pp. 209– 

211) 

Southern Store Fixtures expressed 

concern that setting the precedent of 

eliminating mullions could result in the 

elimination from the calculation of TDA 

of other components in the refrigerated 

space that occupy space not containing 

merchandise. Southern Store Fixtures 

asserted that this could eventually cause 

the calculation to become complicated 

and burdensome for manufacturers. 

(Southern Store Fixtures, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at pp. 207– 

208) 

Hussmann, True, and Zero Zone 

agreed that, for the majority of cases 

observed in the field, calculating L 

using the length of the interior 

refrigerated volume or the continuous 

length of the transparent doors 

(including mullions and doorframes) 

would be the same. (Hussmann, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at pp. 217– 

218; True, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 7 at p. 218; Zero Zone, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at pp. 219– 

220) 

In response to the suggestions offered 

by interested parties, DOE finds that 

calculating TDA to include portions of 

non-transparent area is inconsistent 

with the stated definition of TDA. 

However, DOE acknowledges that 

defining TDA as strictly the total length 

of transparent area may be inconsistent 

with the method used by industry to 

calculate TDA today. As a compromise, 

DOE is adopting in this final rule, a 

method for calculating the TDA of CRE 

basic models that is representative of 

the dimension through which product 

can be viewed, but which 

accommodates small non-transparent 

areas that are part of the doors 

themselves and are typically included 

in the calculation of TDA by 

manufacturers today. With regards to 

the calculation of TDA for the vertical 

closed transparent case modeled in 

DOE’s engineering analysis supporting 

the March 2014 energy conservation 

standards final rule, DOE notes that the 

case modeled represents a typical multideck refrigerated merchandiser with five 

doors of 13 square feet each, for a TDA 

of 65 square feet (see appendix 5A of the 

technical support document for March 

2014 energy conservation standards 

rulemaking final rule, Docket No. EERE– 

2010–BT–STD–0003). DOE based its 

calculation of representative door TDA 

upon the continuous length of 

transparent area of the CRE model, 

which included mullions and door 

frames, but excluded any additional 

case wall present on the front face of the 

unit. In other words, DOE included the 

entire length of the transparent doors, 

including minor non-transparent areas, 

in its calculation of case TDA. DOE 

notes that, for the case modeled, the 

interior length of the refrigerated 

volume would be the same as the 

continuous length of transparent area 

when measured from door edge to door 

edge. DOE emphasizes that the model is 

meant to be representative of the energy 

use of a given type of commercial 

refrigeration equipment, and not to 

represent all the different design options 

available for any given model within an 

equipment category. 

DOE agrees with interested parties 

that if the dimension L were determined 

strictly as the length of transparent area, 

not including any non-transparent 

mullions or door frames, the difference 

may be on the order of 10 percent. 

However, to respond to the concerns of 

interested parties, DOE is not adopting 

such a strict definition of L, but rather 

a ‘‘continuous’’ length of transparent 

area to be consistent with the 

continuous dimension of Dh. DOE 

believes that, to be consistent with the 

definition and intent of TDA, the 

dimension L should represent the 

continuous length of transparent area, as 

proposed in the October 2013 test 

procedure NOPR. 78 FR at 64321 (Oct. 

28, 2013). However, DOE acknowledges 

that some unique case designs may 

feature large sections of case wall or 

other non-transparent area between 

sections of transparent area and agrees 

with interested parties that some 

threshold is necessary to ensure only 

materials with a significant majority of 

transparent area are included in the 

dimension L (e.g., transparent doors 

with thin door mullions or other nontransparent hardware). DOE has 

reviewed the suggestion, submitted by 

interested parties that 5-inches or less of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22301 

non-transparent length be allowed in 

the measurement of L. DOE finds that a 

threshold of 5-inches or less is not 

sufficient to accommodate the nontransparent lengths for a large number of 

transparent-door CRE models with more 

than 3 doors. In addition, DOE notes 

that a fixed threshold of 5-inches for 

cases, regardless of the size of the case 

and the length of the dimension ‘‘L’’ 

does not treat all cases equivalently. 

However, DOE acknowledges that the 

concept of a threshold for nontransparent area, as suggested by 

interested parties, prevents cases with 

significant portions of non-transparent 

area between transparent doors or cases 

with transparent doors significantly 

inset from the case end walls from 

calculating an unrepresentatively high 

TDA, as would be the case if only 

interior refrigerated case length was 

used. As such, DOE believes a more 

consistent approach would be to apply 

a threshold of non-transparent area that 

may be included in the dimension ‘‘L’’ 

based on a percentage of the interior 

refrigerated case length that is not 

transparent. DOE is adopting in this 

final rule a threshold of 10 percent of 

non-transparent area that may be 

included in the dimension L. DOE 

believes this will more equitably treat 

the variety of case designs available on 

the market. DOE also notes that the 10 

percent threshold is less stringent than 

the 5-inch threshold recommended by 

manufacturers. That is, a threshold of 10 

percent accommodates greater amounts 

of non-transparent area in the 

dimension ‘‘L’’ for a majority of CRE 

models. In addition, a threshold of 10 

percent is consistent with the modeling 

performed in the CRE energy 

conservation standard rulemaking 

(Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–STD– 

0003). 

For those cases with greater than 10 

percent of non-transparent area in the 

interior refrigerated length of the CRE 

model, DOE agrees with the general 

approach recommended by interested 

parties that the dimension L should be 

determined as the total length, along the 

axis of the merchandiser, of portions 

through which product can be viewed 

from an angle normal to the transparent 

area (i.e., the projected linear 

dimension(s) of visible product) plus 10 

percent, to provide equitable treatment 

of cases with different door 

configurations. 

Therefore, in this final rule, DOE 

adopts instructions for calculating TDA 

that define L as the interior length of the 

CRE model, provided no more than 10 

percent of that length consists of nontransparent material. For those cases 

with greater than 10 percent of nontransparent area, L shall be determined 

as the projected linear dimension(s) of 

visible product plus 10 percent of nontransparent area. 

DOE believes this instruction is 

consistent with and clarifies current 

industry practice and the existing 

provisions of the DOE test procedure 

and, as such, believes that this 

amendment should not change the 

measured energy consumption of 

covered equipment. Therefore, DOE is 

adopting these amendments in both 

Appendix A, which is the test 

procedure required for equipment 

testing to demonstrate compliance with 

current energy conservation standards, 

and Appendix B, which will be required 

for testing on March 28, 2017, consistent 

with the compliance date of the 

amended energy conservation standards 

established in the March 2014 energy 

conservation standards final rule. 79 FR 

17726, 17727 (Mar. 28, 2014). 

10. Compliance Date of Test Procedure 

Amendments 

In this final rule, DOE also 

reorganizes the test procedure 

requirements at 10 CFR 431.64 so that 

they are easier to understand, and 

updates the compliance date to be 

consistent with the compliance date of 

the amended standards established in 

the March 2014 energy conservation 

standards final rule. 79 FR 17726, 17727 

(Mar. 28, 2014). 

EPCA prescribes that if any 

rulemaking amends a test procedure, 

DOE must determine to what extent, if 

any, the proposed test procedure would 

alter the measured energy efficiency of 

any covered equipment as determined 

under the existing test procedure. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)) Further, if DOE 

determines that the amended test 

procedure would alter the measured 

efficiency of covered equipment, DOE 

must amend the applicable energy 

conservation standard accordingly. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)) 

In the 2012 test procedure final rule, 

DOE stated that some test procedure 

amendments will change the measured 

energy consumption of some covered 

equipment. 77 FR at 10295 and 10309 

(Feb. 21, 2012). Specifically, DOE 

determined the provisions to 

accommodate testing of night curtains 

and lighting occupancy sensors and 

controls altered the measured energy 

consumption of covered equipment. 77 

FR at 10309 (Feb. 21, 2012). As such, 

DOE established in the 2012 test 

procedure final rule that use of the 

amended test procedure for compliance 

with DOE energy conservation 

standards or representations with 

respect to energy consumption of 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

would be required on the compliance 

date of the revised energy conservation 

standards established in the March 2014 

energy conservation standards final 

rule. 77 FR at 10309 (Feb. 21, 2012); 79 

FR 17726, 17727 (Mar. 28, 2014). 

To improve clarity, in the October 

2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE 

proposed to reorganize the language at 

10 CFR 431.64 into Appendices A and 

B. In the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR, Appendix A contained the test 

procedure for commercial refrigeration 

equipment established in the 2006 test 

procedure final rule and Appendix B 

included the amended test procedure 

established in the 2012 test procedure 

final rule that will be required to be 

used on March 28, 2014, consistent with 

the compliance date of the amended 

standards established in the March 2014 

energy conservation standards final 

rule. 78 FR at 64318–64325 (Oct. 28, 

2013); 79 FR 17726, 17727 (Mar. 28, 

2014). 

In response to DOE’s proposal, 

Hussmann stated that is does not 

understand why DOE cannot allow 

energy-saving features adopted in the 

2012 test procedure final rule to 

demonstrate compliance with current 

energy conservation standards. 

(Hussmann, No. 11 at p. 3) Hussmann 

further stated that it believes that the 

provision allowing manufacturers to 

rate equipment conservatively that were 

tested at a temperature lower than the 

required 38 ± 2 °F provided the basic 

model still meets the applicable energy 

conservation standard should be 

included in Appendix A (effective 30 

days after publication of a final rule in 

the Federal Register) as well as 

Appendix B. Hussmann added that this 

will reduce testing burden for 

manufacturers without sacrificing 

efficiency. (Hussmann, No. 11 at p. 3) 

Zero Zone commented that it agreed 

with DOE’s proposed approach to test 

remote cases under the LAPT and 

suggested that the test method should be 

included as part of Appendix A and 

immediately become part of DOE’s test 

procedure. (Zero Zone, No. 18 at p. 3) 

With regard to permitting early use of 

the test procedure amendments 

established in the 2012 test procedure 

final rule, DOE acknowledges 

Hussmann’s request and notes that DOE 

has published guidance establishing 

that, while manufacturers need not 

comply with a new or amended test 

procedure prior to the compliance date 

established for that test procedure, 

manufacturers may voluntarily use 

amended test procedures to rate and 

certify their products prior to the 

compliance date if they also comply 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

22302 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

14NSF International. ‘‘NSF/ASNI 7—2009: 

Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers.’’ Ann 

Arbor, MI. http://www.nsf.org/business/food_

equipment/standards.asp. 

with energy conservation standards 

based on that test procedure. See 

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

appliance_standards/pdfs/tp_faq_2012- 

06-29.pdf. DOE cannot permit amended 

test procedure provisions that affect the 

measured energy consumption to be 

used to demonstrate compliance with 

energy conservation standards that were 

not set based on that test procedure. 

Specifically, the provisions adopted in 

Appendix B in this final rule may be 

used prior to the compliance date 

established in this final rule as long as 

the equipment also demonstrates 

compliance with the amended standards 

established in the March 2014 energy 

conservation standards final rule, which 

used that test procedure as a basis. 79 

FR 17726, 17734 (Mar. 28, 2014). 

Manufacturers may not use the test 

procedure established in Appendix B to 

demonstrate compliance with existing 

energy conservation standards. 

In response to Hussmann’s request to 

include allowances for conservatively 

rating commercial refrigerators at 

temperatures lower than the specified 

rating temperature of 38 ± 2 °F in 

Appendix A as well as Appendix B, 

DOE acknowledges that, in addition to 

testing and certification to comply with 

DOE’s energy conservation standards, 

commercial refrigeration equipment that 

is marketed to hold perishable food 

items must also be classified and 

certified by NSF/ANSI–7, ‘‘Commercial 

Refrigerators and Freezers’’ (hereafter 

referred to as NSF–7), a food safety 

standard issued by NSF.14 NSF–7 

establishes two classes for commercial 

display cases: Type I, which is tested at 

ASHRAE Standard 72 standard ambient 

conditions (75 °F dry bulb and 64 °F wet 

bulb temperature), and Type II, which is 

tested at higher ambient conditions 

(80 °F dry bulb and 68 °F wet bulb 

temperature). These two test conditions 

are also reported in terms of dry bulb 

temperature and percentage relative 

humidity. Type I corresponds to 75 °F 

and 55 percent relative humidity, and 

Type II corresponds to 80 °F and 60 

percent relative humidity. NSF–7 also 

requires Type I and Type II equipment 

to be tested such that the average 

temperature of each test package 

containing an individual temperature 

sensor does not exceed 41 °F and no 

single temperature sensor exceeds a 

reading of 43 °F at any time during the 

test. NSF–7 does not specify a required 

average temperature for all test sensors 

or the measurement of energy 

consumption during the test. On the 

other hand, DOE does require an 

integrated average test temperature of 

38 °F ± 2 °F. However, manufacturers 

have reported that they test cases at 

lower IATs than that specified by DOE 

to ensure the NSF–7 requirements are 

met. In the 2012 test procedure final 

rule, DOE establishes provisions that 

allow manufacturers to optionally test 

equipment at internal or ambient 

conditions more stringent than the 

prescribed DOE rating temperatures and 

conditions for that equipment class, to 

reduce the repetitive test burden of 

testing at both DOE and NSF–7 

conditions. 77 FR at 10305–07 (Feb. 21, 

2012). 

DOE believes that accommodating 

Hussmann’s request and including the 

provisions regarding certification of 

equipment at conservative IATs in both 

Appendix A and Appendix B won’t 

affect the measured energy consumption 

of covered equipment or the stringency 

of the applicable energy conservation 

standard, as the provision is voluntary 

and thus is not required for equipment 

testing. In addition, DOE believes that 

allowing manufacturers to implement 

this conservative rating approach as of 

30 days after publication of a final rule 

in the Federal Register will significantly 

reduce the burden associated with 

testing equipment that must be certified 

to both DOE’s energy conservation 

standards and NSF’s food safety 

standard. Therefore, DOE is adopting 

optional provisions to allow 

manufacturers to conservatively rate 

equipment at internal or ambient 

temperatures more stringent than the 

rating temperature or ambient 

conditions prescribed for their 

equipment class, provided the basic 

model still meets the applicable energy 

conservation standard, in both 

Appendix A and Appendix B. DOE 

notes that all other test procedure 

requirements must be satisfied to ensure 

a valid test; only the IAT and rating 

conditions may be adjusted. 

In response to Zero Zone’s 

recommendation that DOE include the 

provisions for testing equipment that 

cannot be tested at the specified rating 

temperature at the LAPT in Appendix A 

in addition to Appendix B, DOE is 

incorporating the LAPT provisions into 

both Appendix A and Appendix B as 

part of this final rule. 

B. Other Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

Comments and DOE Responses 

In response to the October 2013 test 

procedure NOPR, DOE received 

comments from interested parties 

regarding several issues that pertain to 

the CRE test procedure, but not to 

specific provisions or amendments. 

Specifically, DOE received comments 

on the ambient temperatures used for 

testing commercial refrigeration 

equipment at standard rating conditions 

and the burden of testing. 

1. Ambient Test Temperatures 

DOE’s test procedure for commercial 

refrigeration equipment establishes 

standard rating conditions for testing 

covered equipment of 75 °F and 55 

percent relative humidity. Commercial 

refrigeration equipment that is marketed 

to hold perishable food items is 

classified and certified by NSF/ANSI–7, 

‘‘Commercial Refrigerators and 

Freezers’’ (hereafter referred to as NSF– 

7), a food safety standard issued by NSF. 

NSF–7 establishes two classes for 

commercial display cases: Type I, which 

is tested at ASHRAE Standard 72 

standard ambient conditions (75 °F dry 

bulb and 64 °F wet bulb temperature), 

and Type II, which is tested at higher 

ambient conditions (80 °F dry bulb and 

68 °F wet bulb temperature). These two 

test conditions are also reported in 

terms of dry bulb temperature and 

percentage relative humidity. Type I 

corresponds to 75 °F and 55 percent 

relative humidity, and Type II 

corresponds to 80 °F and 60 percent 

relative humidity. NSF–7 also requires 

Type I and Type II equipment to be 

tested such that the average temperature 

of each test package containing an 

individual temperature sensor does not 

exceed 41 °F and no single temperature 

sensor exceeds a reading of 43 °F at any 

time during the test. NSF–7 does not 

specify a required average temperature 

for all test sensors or the measurement 

of energy consumption during the test. 

On the other hand, DOE does require an 

integrated average test temperature of 

38 °F ± 2 °F. However, manufacturers 

have reported that they test cases at 

lower IATs than that specified by DOE 

to ensure the NSF–7 requirements are 

met. 

Continental commented that 

commercial refrigeration equipment is 

designed primarily to keep food safe in 

harsh conditions and added that most 

commercial kitchens have multiple 

pieces of heat-generating cooking 

equipment near the refrigeration 

equipment and ambient temperatures 

much higher than 75 °F. Continental 

suggested that DOE utilize ambient test 

temperatures and allowable energy 

consumption levels cognizant of public 

health and safety. (Continental, No. 14 

at p. 2) 

In response to the comment from 

Continental, DOE believes that the 

existing test conditions specified within 

the ASHRAE 72 test procedure and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22303 

accepted by industry are generally 

representative of field conditions. With 

respect to equipment designed to 

operate in harsher ambient conditions, 

DOE previously considered NSF Type II 

equipment in the 2012 test procedure 

final rule and found that the compressor 

systems can effectively operate at test 

temperatures. In the 2012 test procedure 

final rule, DOE agreed with interested 

parties that testing cases at an ambient 

temperature of 80 °F, rather than the 

currently specified 75 °F, will not have 

a significant impact on energy 

consumption for cases with doors and 

recognized that the impact on open 

cases may be greater than on closed 

cases, but did not believe that 

equipment will have operation or 

performance issues if tested at a the 

temperatures prescribed by the DOE test 

procedure. 77 FR at 10305–10307 (Feb. 

21, 2012). DOE maintains that the 

energy consumption of a case should 

scale with ambient temperature and 

does not believe these issues will 

prevent units from being tested using 

the DOE-prescribed test temperatures or 

complying with any existing or 

amended DOE energy conservation 

standards. 

2. Burden of Testing 

Felix Storch, Inc. (FSI) expressed 

concern that there would be an undue 

burden on small business to conduct the 

proposed test procedures. FSI’s opinion 

was that DOE has not calculated the full 

extent to which the proposed test 

procedures revisions will affect small 

manufacturers. FSI further commented 

that small businesses have limited R&D 

budgets and expertise to understand and 

carry out the proposed test procedures 

effectively. (FSI, No. 12 at p. 1) 

FSI recommended, to limit burden on 

small business, that: (1) Small 

businesses be allowed to use a single 

test for each basic model; (2) DOE 

provide free consulting help to small 

businesses to interpret test procedures 

and be bound in enforcement cases by 

the interpretations it provides; (3) DOE, 

upon issuance of notices or rulemaking 

documents, be required to notify 

affected small businesses of new or 

revised regulations, and no enforcement 

be permitted against small business 

absent such notification; and (4) CCMS 

submission be optional, not required, 

for small businesses as this represents a 

large burden with little benefit to the 

consumer community. (FSI, No. 12 at p. 

3) Finally, FSI stated that small 

businesses, such as FSI, serve small 

niche markets and increase customer 

choice by providing customizable 

solutions. (FSI, No. 12 at p. 3) 

DOE understands that amending test 

procedures or including additional 

provisions in those test procedures 

could increase the burden on 

manufacturers to quantify the 

performance of their equipment. EPCA 

requires that the test procedures 

promulgated by DOE be reasonably 

designed to produce test results that 

reflect energy efficiency, energy use, 

and estimated operating costs of the 

covered equipment during a 

representative average use cycle. EPCA 

also requires that the test procedure not 

be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 

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

DOE has analyzed the expected 

incremental cost of the test procedure 

amendments adopted in this final rule 

and its impact on manufacturers. All 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

covered by this rule is currently 

required to be tested using the DOE test 

procedure to show compliance with 

applicable energy conservation 

standards. The DOE test procedure, as 

amended by the 2012 test procedure 

final rule, consists of one 24-hour test at 

standard rating conditions to determine 

daily energy consumption. 

In addition, the 2012 test procedure 

final rule amends the test procedure for 

commercial refrigeration equipment to 

update the referenced industry test 

procedures to their most current 

versions (AHRI 1200–2010 and AHAM 

HRF–1–2008); incorporates provisions 

for testing certain energy efficiency 

features, including night curtains and 

lighting occupancy sensor and 

scheduled controls; and provides a test 

procedure for specialty equipment that 

cannot be tested at the prescribed rating 

temperature. As part of that rulemaking, 

DOE considered the burden associated 

with the test procedure amendments 

and certified that the rule would not 

have a ‘‘significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities,’’ 

and the preparation of a regulatory 

flexibility analysis was not warranted. 

77 FR at 10314–10316 (Feb. 21, 2012). 

The test procedure amendments 

adopted in this final rule only 

reorganize and clarify the existing 

requirements in the DOE test procedure, 

both those established in the 2006 test 

procedure final rule and those 

established in the 2012 test procedure 

final rule; they do not alter or affect any 

of the test procedure requirements or 

technical provisions in any way. DOE 

does not believe that the proposed test 

procedure amendments would affect the 

way in which any covered commercial 

refrigeration equipment is tested, nor 

would they impact the burden of 

conducting such a test. 

In this test procedure final rule, DOE 

is also allowing manufacturers to test at 

the internal temperatures and/or 

ambient conditions required for NSF–7 

testing within 30 days of publication of 

this final rule in the Federal Register. 

This will dramatically reduce the 

burden for manufacturers that produce 

equipment for food storage, as under the 

amended test procedure these two 24- 

hour tests can be combined. The NSF– 

7 test is similar in length and burden to 

the DOE test, but is performed at 

slightly different internal and external 

temperatures. Certification of equipment 

tested at NSF–7 test temperatures for the 

purposes of compliance with DOE 

energy conservation standards will only 

be possible for equipment that is able to 

meet the DOE energy conservation 

standard at the more stringent NSF–7 

test conditions. However, DOE believes 

this provision can still potentially 

decrease the burden of test for some 

manufacturers. 

The amendments to the test procedure 

for commercial refrigeration equipment 

were chosen to help minimize the 

impact of additional testing while 

clarifying and reorganizing the DOE test 

procedure to provide more accurate and 

repeatable test methods. Because none 

of these amendments significantly 

increase the burden of a test, DOE 

believes that the test procedure finalized 

here will not be unduly burdensome to 

conduct. 

In response to FSI’s comments 

regarding this impact of DOE’s test 

procedure for commercial refrigeration 

equipment on small businesses, DOE 

notes that the bulk of FSI’s 

recommendations address CCE 

provisions that were established in a 

previous rulemaking (76 FR at 12446– 

12449 (March 7, 2011)) and are not 

addressed in this final rule. DOE 

provided a robust analysis of the 

estimated burden of the test procedure 

clarifications and amendments adopted 

in this final rule and determined that 

these changes would not cause an 

undue burden on small manufacturers. 

This analysis is presented in section 

IV.B of this final rule. 

With regard to burden on small 

manufacturers associated with 

previously promulgated rulemakings, 

DOE is only analyzing the incremental 

burden associated with the amendments 

and provisions adopted as a result of 

this final rule. However, DOE notes that 

previous rulemakings, such as those that 

accounted for the impact of CCE 

requirements on CRE manufacturers, 

including small businesses, have 

accounted for the incremental burden 

associated with these requirements and, 

in each case, found the burden to not 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

22304 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

15U.S. Department of Energy Appliance & 

Commercial Equipment Standards Program 

Guidance and Frequently Asked Questions, 

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

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

16http://energy.gov/node/773531/about_

appliance_and_equipment.html. 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Specifically, with regard to an 

allowance for small businesses to use a 

single test for each basic model, DOE 

established a sample size of not less 

than two in the CCE final rule for all 

manufacturers regardless of size to 

ensure a suitable representation of 

model variability. 76 FR at 12453 

(March 7, 2011). Regarding the 

availability of free consulting help for 

small businesses to interpret test 

procedures, DOE has established a 

guidance process whereby interested 

parties may submit questions to DOE at 

any time regarding proper conduct of 

the DOE test procedure or compliance 

with relevant certification requirements. 

DOE also maintains a database of issues 

on which DOE has issued guidance for 

reference.15 When DOE issues notices or 

rulemaking documents, these 

documents are immediately available on 

DOE’s Web site for Appliance and 

Commercial Equipment Standards 16

and are publicly available via the 

Federal Register. DOE seeks to be as 

open as possible in conducting 

rulemakings and invites interested 

parties to participate openly. Regarding 

CCMS submission of certified ratings for 

small businesses, DOE has the same 

requirements for small businesses as for 

large entities and is under the same 

requirements to verify compliance with 

applicable energy conservation 

standards. Without certification reports, 

DOE has no record of compliance for 

applicable covered products. Further, 

DOE has attempted to design the CCMS 

templates to be as simple and 

straightforward as possible to minimize 

burden on manufacturers required to 

use these templates. Therefore, DOE 

continues to require certification of the 

TDEC or CDEC of covered basic models 

of commercial refrigeration equipment 

based on the testing of at least two 

unique units and the submittal of 

certification reports using DOE’s CCMS 

templates. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that test 

procedure rulemakings do not constitute 

‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ 58 

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

this action was not subject to review 

under the Executive Order by the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the OMB. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

of an initial regulatory flexibility act 

analysis (IRFA) whenever an agency is 

required to publish a general notice of 

proposed rulemaking. When an agency 

promulgates a final rule after being 

required to publish a general notice of 

proposed rulemaking, the agency must 

prepare a final regulatory flexibility 

analysis. The requirement to prepare 

these analyses does not apply to any 

proposed or final rule if the agency 

certifies that the rule will not, if 

promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. If the agency 

makes such a certification, the agency 

must publish the certification in the 

Federal Register along with the factual 

basis for such certification. 

As required by Executive Order 

13272, ‘‘Proper Consideration of Small 

Entities in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 

53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, so that the potential impacts of its 

rules on small entities are properly 

considered during the rulemaking 

process. 68 FR 7990 (Feb. 12, 2003). 

DOE has made its procedures and 

policies available on the Office of the 

General Counsel’s Web site at http://

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

In the October 2013 test procedure 

NOPR, DOE reviewed the proposed rule 

to amend the test procedure for 

commercial refrigeration equipment, 

under the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the procedures and 

policies published on February 19, 

2003. DOE certified that the proposed 

rule, if adopted, would not result in a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 78 FR at 64313 

(October 28, 2013). DOE received 

comments on its certification and the 

economic impacts of the test procedure, 

and has responded to these comments 

in section III.B.2. After consideration of 

these comments, DOE certifies that the 

test procedure amendments set forth in 

this final rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The factual basis for this 

certification is set forth below. 

For the commercial refrigeration 

industry, the Small Business 

Association (SBA) has set a size 

threshold, which defines those entities 

classified as ‘‘small businesses’’ for the 

purpose of the statute. DOE used the 

SBA’s size standards to determine 

whether any small entities would be 

required to comply with the rule. The 

size standards are codified at 13 CFR 

Part 121. The standards are listed by 

North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code and industry 

description and are available at http:// 

www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/

Size_Standards_Table.pdf. Commercial 

refrigeration equipment manufacturing 

is classified under NAICS 333415, ‘‘AirConditioning and Warm Air Heating 

Equipment and Commercial and 

Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing.’’ Small entities within 

this industry description are those with 

750 employees or fewer. 

DOE conducted a market survey to 

determine whether any small business 

manufacturers of equipment would be 

covered by this rulemaking. During its 

market survey, DOE used all available 

public information to identify potential 

small manufacturers. DOE’s research 

involved the review of industry trade 

association membership directories 

(including AHRI), equipment databases 

(e.g., Federal Trade Commission (FTC), 

the Thomas Register, California Energy 

Commission (CEC), and ENERGY STAR 

databases), individual company Web 

sites, and marketing research tools (e.g., 

Dunn and Bradstreet reports, Manta) to 

create a list of companies that 

manufacture or sell commercial 

refrigeration equipment covered by this 

rulemaking. DOE also referred to a list 

of small businesses that manufacture 

commercial refrigeration equipment, 

supplied by Traulsen in a written 

comment provided in response to the 

NOPR proposing amendments to the 

DOE test procedure for commercial 

refrigeration equipment published 

November 24, 2010 (Docket No. EERE– 

2010–BT–TP–0034, Traulsen, No. 9 at 

pp. 4–5). Using these sources, DOE 

identified 61 manufacturers of 

commercial refrigeration equipment. 

DOE then reviewed this data to 

determine whether the entities met the 

SBA’s definition of a small business 

manufacturer of commercial 

refrigeration equipment and screened 

out companies that do not offer 

equipment covered by this rulemaking, 

do not meet the definition of a ‘‘small 

business,’’ or are foreign owned and 

operated. Based on this review, DOE has 

identified 26 companies that would be 

considered small manufacturers and 

will be directly regulated by this rule, 

which represents 43 percent of national 

CRE manufacturers. Although 43 

percent would be considered a 

substantial number of small entities, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22305 

further analysis of incremental costs 

associated with this rulemaking 

determined no significant impact on 

these manufacturers. Specifically, the 

changes to the test procedure adopted in 

this final rule consist only of 

clarifications regarding: 

1. The applicability of the test 

procedure and related energy 

conservation standards to certain types 

of equipment; 

2. the definitions of ‘‘hybrid 

commercial refrigeration equipment,’’ 

‘‘commercial refrigeration equipment 

with drawers,’’ and ‘‘commercial 

refrigeration equipment with solid and/ 

or transparent doors’’; 

3. the relationship among the rating 

temperature, operating temperature, and 

integrated average temperature; 

4. the proper configuration and use of 

energy management systems, lighting 

controls, and test packages in the DOE 

test procedure for commercial 

refrigeration equipment; 

5. the treatment of various features, 

components, and accessories under the 

DOE test procedure; 

6. the rounding requirements for test 

results and certified ratings; 

7. the provision adopted in the 2012 

test procedure final rule to allow testing 

at the lowest application product 

temperature for equipment that cannot 

operate at the prescribed rating 

temperature for its equipment class; 

8. clarifications raised by 

Interpretations 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of AHRI 

1200–2010; 

9. the methodology used to determine 

total display area; and 

10. the compliance date of certain 

amendments established in the 2012 test 

procedure final rule. 

All commercial refrigeration 

equipment covered by this rule is 

currently required to be tested using the 

DOE test procedure to show compliance 

with established energy conservation 

standards. The DOE test procedure 

manufacturers must use to demonstrate 

compliance with existing standards is 

that established in the 2006 test 

procedure final rule, which references 

ARI 1200–2006 and AHAM HRF–1– 

2004. This test procedure consists of 

one 24-hour test at standard rating 

conditions to determine daily energy 

consumption. 

The 2012 test procedure final rule 

amends the test procedure for 

commercial refrigeration equipment to 

update the referenced industry test 

procedures to their most current 

versions (AHRI 1200–2010 and AHAM 

HRF–1–2008); incorporates provisions 

for testing certain energy efficiency 

features, including night curtains and 

lighting occupancy sensor and 

scheduled controls; and provides a test 

procedure for specialty equipment that 

cannot be tested at the prescribed rating 

temperature. As part of that rulemaking, 

DOE considered the burden associated 

with the test procedure amendments 

and certified that the rule would not 

have a ‘‘significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities,’’ 

and the preparation of a regulatory 

flexibility analysis was not warranted. 

77 FR at 10314–10316 (Feb. 21, 2012). 

The test procedure amendments 

adopted in this final rule only 

reorganize and clarify the existing 

requirements in the DOE test procedure, 

both those established in the 2006 test 

procedure final rule and those 

established in the 2012 test procedure 

final rule; they do not alter or affect any 

of the test procedure requirements or 

provisions in any way. DOE does not 

believe that the proposed test procedure 

amendments would affect the way in 

which any covered commercial 

refrigeration equipment is tested, nor 

would they increase the burden of 

conducting such a test. 

Rather, some of the provisions 

adopted in this final rule will reduce the 

burden associated with testing and 

certifying commercial refrigeration 

equipment. Specifically, this final rule 

allows manufacturers to reduce burden 

by testing and certifying equipment and 

internal and ambient test conditions 

that satisfy both the DOE test procedure 

and the NSF–7 test procedure effective 

30 days after publication of this final 

rule in the Federal Register. This may 

significantly decrease the amount of 

testing manufacturers must do to 

demonstrate compliance with both 

programs. 

DOE also notes that the amendments 

regarding the treatment of various 

features, components, and accessories 

under the DOE test procedure were the 

result of a series of negotiations that 

occurred between DOE, manufacturers, 

and energy efficiency advocates and, 

thus, represent a mutually agreed upon 

approach for each of these features. DOE 

believes adoption of these clarifications 

will streamline testing and make DOE’s 

test procedure easier and more 

straightforward to implement. 

The negotiations also resulted in a 

recently published final rule adopting 

amended regulations governing AEDMs, 

basic model definition, and compliance 

for commercial HVAC, refrigeration, and 

WH equipment. The AEDM provisions 

allow an alternative method for 

determining compliance in lieu of 

conducting actual physical testing. 78 

FR 79579, 79590. Commercial 

refrigeration equipment previously were 

required to test two units of each basic 

model, so the addition of an AEDM 

option reduces the number of units for 

which manufacturers will need to 

conduct this test procedure. The 2013 

AEDM final rule also clarified its basic 

model definitions, which give 

manufacturers the flexibility to group 

individual models based on certain 

characteristics into an individual basic 

model for the purposes of demonstrating 

compliance with DOE’s energy 

conservation standards. DOE notes that 

the AEDM and basic model provisions 

adopted in the 2013 AEDM final rule 

will reduce the burden of demonstrating 

compliance with DOE’s energy 

conservation standards in general, such 

that the burden estimates for testing 

discussed here represent a worse case. 

The specific reductions in burden 

accomplished in the 2013 AEDM final 

rule are discussed in more detail in that 

rule. 78 FR 79590–79591 (Dec. 31, 

2013). 

Based on this factual basis, DOE 

continues to certify that this rule will 

not have a ‘‘significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities,’’ and the preparation of a 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

warranted. DOE has transmitted the 

certification and supporting statement 

of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration for review under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

Manufacturers of commercial 

refrigeration equipment must certify to 

DOE that their products comply with 

any applicable energy conservation 

standards. In certifying compliance, 

manufacturers must test their products 

according to the DOE test procedure for 

commercial refrigeration equipment, 

including any amendments adopted for 

that test procedure. DOE has established 

regulations for the certification and 

recordkeeping requirements for all 

covered consumer products and 

commercial equipment, including 

commercial refrigeration equipment. 76 

FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). The 

collection-of-information requirement 

for the certification and recordkeeping 

is subject to review and approval by 

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA). This requirement has been 

approved by OMB under OMB Control 

Number 1910–1400. Public reporting 

burden for the certification is estimated 

to average 20 hours per response, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

22306 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

In this final rule, DOE amends its test 

procedure for commercial refrigeration 

equipment. DOE has determined that 

this rule falls into a class of actions that 

are categorically excluded from review 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.). The rule is covered by 

Categorical Exclusion A5, for 

rulemakings that interpret or amend an 

existing rule without changing the 

environmental effect, as set forth in 

DOE’s NEPA regulations in appendix A 

to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021. This 

rule will not affect the quality or 

distribution of energy usage and 

therefore will not result in any 

environmental impacts. Accordingly, 

neither an environmental assessment 

nor an environmental impact statement 

is required. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999), imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR at 13735 (March 

14, 2000). DOE has examined this final 

rule and has determined that it would 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the products that are the subject of this 

final rule. States can petition DOE for 

exemption from such preemption to the 

extent, and based on criteria, set forth in 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further 

action is required by Executive Order 

13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard; and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

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

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, the final rule 

meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA; Pub. 104– 

4 sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531) 

requires each Federal agency to assess 

the effects of Federal regulatory actions 

on State, local, and Tribal governments 

and the private sector. For proposed 

regulatory actions likely to result in a 

rule that may cause expenditures by 

State, local, and Tribal governments in 

the aggregate or by the private sector of 

$100 million or more in any one year 

(adjusted annually for inflation), section 

202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency 

to publish estimates of the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820. (This policy is 

also available at http://energy.gov/gc/

office-general-counsel.) DOE reviewed 

this final rule pursuant to UMRA and its 

policy and determined that the rule 

contains neither an intergovernmental 

mandate nor a mandate that may result 

in the expenditure of $100 million or 

more in any year, so these requirements 

do not apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

final rule would not have any impact on 

the autonomy or integrity of the family 

as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 15, 1988), that this regulation 

will not result in any takings that might 

require compensation under the Fifth 

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

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

provides for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. The OMB’s 

guidelines were published in 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published in 67 FR 

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

this final rule under the OMB and DOE 

guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in 

those guidelines. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22307 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OIRA, Office of 

Management and Budget, a Statement of 

Energy Effects for any proposed 

significant energy action. A ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ is defined as any action 

by an agency that promulgated or is 

expected to lead to promulgation of a 

final rule, and that (1) is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866, or any successor order; and (2) 

is likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy; or (3) is designated by the 

Administrator of OIRA as a significant 

energy action. For any proposed 

significant energy action, the agency 

must give a detailed statement of any 

adverse effects on energy supply, 

distribution, or use should the proposal 

be implemented, and of reasonable 

alternatives to the action and their 

expected benefits on energy supply, 

distribution, and use. This regulatory 

action would not have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy and 

therefore it is not a significant energy 

action. Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

91), DOE must comply with section 32 

of the Federal Energy Administration 

Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93–275), as 

amended by the Federal Energy 

Administration Authorization Act of 

1977. When a proposed rule contains or 

involves use of commercial standards, 

the rulemaking must inform the public 

of the use and background of such 

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

This final rule incorporates testing 

methods contained in ASTM Standard E 

1084–86 (Reapproved 2009), ‘‘Standard 

Test Method for Solar Transmittance 

(Terrestrial) of Sheet Materials Using 

Sunlight,’’ and ASHRAE 72–2005, 

‘‘Method of Testing Commercial 

Refrigerators and Freezers.’’ DOE has 

evaluated these standards and is unable 

to conclude whether they fully comply 

with the requirements of section 323(b) 

of the Federal Energy Administration 

Act (i.e., whether they were developed 

in a manner that fully provides for 

public participation, comment, and 

review). 

As required by section 32(c) of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 as amended, DOE has consulted 

with the Attorney General and the 

Chairman of the Federal Trade 

Commission about the impact on 

competition of using the methods 

contained in these standards before 

prescribing a final rule. 

M. Congressional Notification 

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

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of this rule before its effective date. The 

report will state that it has been 

determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major 

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

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this final rule. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Small 

businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 10, 

2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 

431 of chapter II of title 10, of the Code 

of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

§ 429.42 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 429.42 is amended by 

adding in paragraphs (b)(2)(i), (ii), and 

(iii), the words ‘‘increments of 0.01’’ 

before the phrase ‘‘kilowatt hours per 

day (kWh/day).’’ 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 4. Section 431.62 is amended by: 

■ a. Removing the definition for 

‘‘commercial hybrid refrigerator, freezer, 

and refrigerator-freezer’’; 

■ b. Adding in alphabetical order the 

definitions for ‘‘chef base or griddle 

stand,’’ ‘‘closed solid,’’ ‘‘closed 

transparent,’’ ‘‘commercial freezer,’’ 

‘‘commercial hybrid,’’ ‘‘commercial 

refrigerator,’’ ‘‘commercial refrigeratorfreezer,’’ ‘‘door,’’ ‘‘operating 

temperature,’’ ‘‘rating temperature,’’ and 

’’transparent’’; and 

■ c. Revising the definitions for ‘‘icecream freezer’’ and ‘‘lowest application 

product temperature.’’ 

The additions and revision read as 

follows: 

§ 431.62 Definitions concerning 

commercial refrigerators, freezers and 

refrigerator-freezers. 

* * * * * 

Chef base or griddle stand means 

commercial refrigeration equipment that 

is designed and marketed for the 

express purpose of having a griddle or 

other cooking appliance placed on top 

of it that is capable of reaching 

temperatures hot enough to cook food. 

Closed solid means equipment with 

doors, and in which more than 75 

percent of the outer surface area of all 

doors on a unit are not transparent. 

Closed transparent means equipment 

with doors, and in which 25 percent or 

more of the outer surface area of all 

doors on the unit are transparent. 

Commercial freezer means a unit of 

commercial refrigeration equipment in 

which all refrigerated compartments in 

the unit are capable of operating below 

32 °F (±2 °F). 

Commercial hybrid means a unit of 

commercial refrigeration equipment: 

(1) That consists of two or more 

thermally separated refrigerated 

compartments that are in two or more 

different equipment families, and 

(2) That is sold as a single unit. 

Commercial refrigerator means a unit 

of commercial refrigeration equipment 

in which all refrigerated compartments 

in the unit are capable of operating at or 

above 32 °F (±2 °F). 

Commercial refrigerator-freezer means 

a unit of commercial refrigeration 

equipment consisting of two or more 

refrigerated compartments where at 

least one refrigerated compartment is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

22308 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

capable of operating at or above 32 °F 

(±2 °F) and at least one refrigerated 

compartment is capable of operating 

below 32 °F (±2 °F). 

* * * * * 

Door means a movable panel that 

separates the interior volume of a unit 

of commercial refrigeration equipment 

from the ambient environment and is 

designed to facilitate access to the 

refrigerated space for the purpose of 

loading and unloading product. This 

includes hinged doors, sliding doors, 

and drawers. This does not include 

night curtains. 

* * * * * 

Ice-cream freezer means a commercial 

freezer that is designed to operate at or 

below ¥5 °F (±2 °F) (¥21 °C ± 1.1 °C) 

and that the manufacturer designs, 

markets, or intends for the storing, 

displaying, or dispensing of ice cream. 

* * * * * 

Lowest application product 

temperature means the lowest 

integrated average temperature at which 

a given basic model is capable of 

consistently operating (i.e., maintaining 

so as to comply with the steady-state 

stabilization requirements specified in 

ASHRAE 72–2005 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.63) for the purposes 

of testing under the DOE test 

procedure). 

* * * * * 

Operating temperature means the 

range of integrated average temperatures 

at which a self-contained commercial 

refrigeration unit or remote-condensing 

commercial refrigeration unit with a 

thermostat is capable of operating or, in 

the case of a remote-condensing 

commercial refrigeration unit without a 

thermostat, the range of integrated 

average temperatures at which the unit 

is marketed, designed, or intended to 

operate. 

* * * * * 

Rating temperature means the 

integrated average temperature a unit 

must maintain during testing (i.e., either 

as listed in the table at § 431.66(d)(1) or 

the lowest application product 

temperature). 

* * * * * 

Transparent means greater than or 

equal to 45 percent light transmittance, 

as determined in accordance with the 

ASTM Standard E 1084–86 (Reapproved 

2009), (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.63) at normal incidence and in the 

intended direction of viewing. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 431.63 is amended by: 

■ a. Removing ‘‘for § 431.64’’ in 

paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) and adding 

in its place, ‘‘for § 431.64 and 

appendices A and B to subpart C to part 

431’’; 

■ b. Removing ‘‘and 431.66’’ in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) and adding in 

its place, ‘‘431.66, and appendices A 

and B to subpart C of part 431’’; and 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to 

read as follows: 

§ 431.63 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

* * * * * 

(d) ASHRAE. The American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning Engineers, Inc., 1971 

Tullie Circle NE., Atlanta, GA 30329, or 

http://www.ashrae.org/. 

(1) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72–2005, 

(ASHRAE 72–2005), ‘‘Method of Testing 

Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers,’’ 

Copyright 2005, IBR approved for 

§ 431.62, and appendices A and B to 

subpart C of part 431. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(e) ASTM. ASTM International, 100 

Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428, (877) 909– 

2786, or go to http://www.astm.org/. 

(1) ASTM E 1084 (Reapproved 2009), 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Solar 

Transmittance (Terrestrial) of Sheet 

Materials Using Sunlight,’’ approved 

April 1, 2009, IBR approved for 

§ 431.62. 

(2) [Reserved] 

■ 6. Section 431.64 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 431.64 Uniform test method for the 

measurement of energy consumption of 

commercial refrigerators, freezers, and 

refrigerator-freezers. 

* * * * * 

(b) Testing and calculations. 

Determine the daily energy 

consumption of each covered 

commercial refrigerator, freezer, or 

refrigerator-freezer by conducting the 

appropriate test procedure set forth 

below, in appendix A or B to this 

subpart. The daily energy consumption 

of commercial refrigeration equipment 

shall be calculated using raw measured 

values and the final test results shall be 

reported in increments of 0.01 kWh/day. 

■ 7. Section 431.66 is amended by: 

■ a. In the table in paragraph (d)(1) 

removing every instance of ‘‘≥32’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘≥32 ±2’’, removing 

every instance of ‘‘<32’’ and adding in 

its place ‘‘<32 ±2’’, and removing 

‘‘≤¥5**’’ and adding in its place ‘‘≤¥5 

±2**’’ 

■ b. Adding paragraph (f) to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.66 Energy conservation standards 

and their effective dates. 

* * * * * 

(f) Exclusions. The energy 

conservation standards in paragraphs (b) 

through (e) of this section do not apply 

to salad bars, buffet tables, and chef 

bases or griddle stands. 

■ 8. Add appendices A and B to subpart 

C of part 431 to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 431— 

Uniform Test Method for the Measurement 

of Energy Consumption of Commercial 

Refrigerators, Freezers, and RefrigeratorFreezers 

Note: After October 20, 2014 but before 

March 28, 2017, any representations made 

with respect to the energy use or efficiency 

of commercial refrigeration equipment must 

be made in accordance with the results of 

testing pursuant to this appendix. 

Manufacturers conducting tests of 

commercial refrigeration equipment after 

May 21, 2014 and prior to October 20, 2014, 

must conduct such test in accordance with 

either this appendix or § 431.64 as it 

appeared at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, in 

the 10 CFR parts 200 to 499 edition revised 

as of January 1, 2014. Any representations 

made with respect to the energy use or 

efficiency of such commercial refrigeration 

equipment must be in accordance with 

whichever version is selected. Given that 

after October 20, 2014 representations with 

respect to the energy use or efficiency of 

commercial refrigeration equipment must be 

made in accordance with tests conducted 

pursuant to this appendix, manufacturers 

may wish to begin using this test procedure 

as soon as possible. 

1. Test Procedure 

1.1. Determination of Daily Energy 

Consumption. Determine the daily energy 

consumption of each covered commercial 

refrigerator, freezer, refrigerator-freezer or 

ice-cream freezer by conducting the test 

procedure set forth in the Air-Conditioning 

and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Standard 

1200–2006, ‘‘Performance Rating of 

Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets,’’ 

section 3, ‘‘Definitions,’’ section 4, ‘‘Test 

Requirements,’’ and section 7, ‘‘Symbols and 

Subscripts’’ (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.63). For each commercial refrigerator, 

freezer, or refrigerator-freezer with a selfcontained condensing unit, also use ARI 

Standard 1200–2006, section 6, ‘‘Rating 

Requirements for Self-contained Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 

Storage Cabinets.’’ For each commercial 

refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-freezer 

with a remote condensing unit, also use ARI 

Standard 1200–2006, section 5, ‘‘Rating 

Requirements for Remote Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 

Storage Cabinets.’’ 

1.2. Methodology for Determining 

Applicability of Transparent Door Equipment 

Families. To determine if a door for a given 

model of commercial refrigeration equipment 

is transparent: (1) Calculate the outer door 

surface area including frames and mullions; 

(2) calculate the transparent surface area 

within the outer door surface area excluding 

frames and mullions; (3) calculate the ratio 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22309 

of (2) to (1) for each of the outer doors; and 

(4) the ratio for the transparent surface area 

of all outer doors must be greater than 0.25 

to qualify as a transparent equipment family. 

1.3. Additional Specifications for Testing 

of Components and Accessories. Subject to 

the provisions regarding specific components 

and accessories listed below, all standard 

components that would be used during 

normal operation of the basic model in the 

field shall be installed and in operation 

during testing as recommended by the 

manufacturer and representative of their 

typical operation in the field unless such 

installation and operation is inconsistent 

with any requirement of the test procedure. 

The specific components and accessories 

listed in the subsequent sections shall be 

operated as stated during the test. 

1.3.1. Energy Management Systems. 

Applicable energy management systems may 

be activated during the test procedure 

provided they are permanently installed on 

the case, configured as sold and in such a 

manner so as to operate automatically 

without the intervention of the operator, and 

do not conflict with any of other 

requirements for a valid test as specified in 

this appendix. 

1.3.2. Lighting. Energize all lighting, except 

customer display signs/lights as described in 

section 1.3.3 and UV lighting as described in 

section 1.3.6 of this appendix, to the 

maximum illumination level for the duration 

of testing. However, if a closed solid unit of 

commercial refrigeration equipment includes 

an automatic lighting control system that can 

turn off internal case lighting when the door 

is closed, and the manufacturer recommends 

the use of this system in writing in the 

product literature delivered with the unit, 

then the lighting control should be operated 

in the automatic setting, even if the model 

has a manual switch that disables the 

automatic lighting control. 

1.3.3. Customer display signs/lights. Do not 

energize supplemental lighting that exists 

solely for the purposes of advertising or 

drawing attention to the case and is not 

integral to the operation of the case. 

1.3.4. Condensate pan heaters and pumps. 

For self-contained equipment only, all 

electric resistance condensate heaters and 

condensate pumps must be installed and 

operational during the test. This includes the 

stabilization period (including pull-down), 

steady-state, and performance testing 

periods. Prior to the start of the stabilization 

period as defined by ASHRAE 72–2005 

(incorporated by reference, see § 431.63), the 

condensate pan must be dry. Following the 

start of the stabilization period, allow any 

condensate moisture generated to accumulate 

in the pan. Do not manually add or remove 

water from the condensate pan at any time 

during the test. 

1.3.5. Anti-sweat door heaters. Anti-sweat 

door heaters must be in operation during the 

entirety of the test procedure. Models with a 

user-selectable setting must have the heaters 

energized and set to the maximum usage 

position. Models featuring an automatic, nonuser-adjustable controller that turns on or off 

based on environmental conditions must be 

operating in the automatic state. If a unit is 

not shipped with a controller from the point 

of manufacture and is intended to be used 

with an automatic, non-user-adjustable 

controller, test the unit with a manufacturerrecommended controller that turns on or off 

based on environmental conditions. 

1.3.6. Ultraviolet lights. Do not energize 

ultraviolet lights during the test. 

1.3.7. Illuminated temperature displays 

and alarms. All illuminated temperature 

displays and alarms shall be energized and 

operated during the test as they would be 

during normal field operation. 

1.3.8. Condenser filters. Remove any 

nonpermanent filters that are provided to 

prevent particulates from blocking a model’s 

condenser coil. 

1.3.9. Refrigeration system security covers. 

Remove any devices used to secure the 

condensing unit against unwanted removal. 

1.3.10. Night curtains and covers. Do not 

deploy night curtains or covers. 

1.3.11. Grill options. Remove any optional, 

non-standard grills used to direct airflow. 

1.3.12. Misting or humidification systems. 

Misting or humidification systems must be 

inactive during the test. 

1.3.13. Air purifiers. Air purifiers must be 

inactive during the test. 

1.3.14. General purpose outlets. During the 

test, do not connect any external load to any 

general purpose outlets contained within a 

unit. 

1.3.15. Crankcase heaters. Crankcase 

heaters must be operational during the test. 

If a control system, such as a thermostat or 

electronic controller, is used to modulate the 

operation of the crankcase heater, it must be 

activated during the test. 

1.3.16. Drawers. Drawers are to be treated 

as identical to doors when conducting the 

DOE test procedure. Commercial refrigeration 

equipment with drawers should be 

configured with the drawer pans that allow 

for the maximum packing of test simulators 

and filler packages without the filler 

packages and test simulators exceeding 90 

percent of the refrigerated volume. Packing of 

test simulators and filler packages shall be in 

accordance with the requirements for 

commercial refrigerators without shelves, as 

specified in section 6.2.3 of ASHRAE 72– 

2005 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.63). 

2. Test Conditions 

2.1. Integrated Average Temperatures. 

Conduct the testing required in section 1 and 

2 of this appendix A, and determine the daily 

energy consumption at the applicable 

integrated average temperature as found in 

the following table. 

Category Test procedure Integrated average temperature 

(i) Refrigerator with Solid Door(s) ............................................................................... ARI Standard ....

1200–2006 1

38 °F (±2 °F). 

(ii) Refrigerator with Transparent Door(s) .................................................................. ARI Standard ....

1200–2006 1

38 °F (±2 °F). 

(iii) Freezer with Solid Door(s) .................................................................................... ARI Standard ....

1200–2006 1

0 °F (±2 °F). 

(iv) Freezer with Transparent Door(s) ........................................................................ ARI Standard ....

1200–2006 1

0 °F (±2 °F). 

(v) Refrigerator-Freezer with Solid Door(s) ................................................................ ARI Standard ....

1200–2006 1

38 °F (±2 °F) for refrigerator compartment. 0 °F (±2 °F) for freezer compartment. 

(vi) Commercial Refrigerator with a Self-Contained Condensing Unit Designed for 

Pull-Down Temperature Applications and Transparent Doors.

ARI Standard ....

1200–2006 1

38 °F (±2 °F). 

(vii) Ice-Cream Freezer ............................................................................................... ARI Standard ....

1200–2006 1

¥15.0 °F (±2 °F). 

(viii) Commercial Refrigerator, Freezer, and Refrigerator-Freezer with a Self-Contained Condensing Unit and without Doors.ARI Standard ....

1200–2006 1

(A) 0 °F (±2 °F) for low temperature applications. 

(B) 38 °F (±2 °F) for medium temperature applications. 

(ix) Commercial Refrigerator, Freezer, and Refrigerator-Freezer with a Remote 

Condensing Unit.

ARI Standard ....

1200–2006 1

(A) 0 °F (±2 °F) for low temperature applications. 

(B) 38 °F (±2 °F) for medium temperature applications. 

1 Incorporated by reference, see § 431.63. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

22310 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

2.2. Lowest Application Product 

Temperature. If a unit of commercial 

refrigeration equipment is not able to be 

operated at the integrated average 

temperature specified in the table in 

paragraph 2.1, test the unit at the lowest 

application product temperature (LAPT), as 

defined in § 431.62. For units equipped with 

a thermostat, LAPT is the lowest thermostat 

setting. For remote condensing equipment 

without a thermostat or other means of 

controlling temperature at the case, the 

lowest application product temperature is the 

temperature achieved with the dew point 

temperature (as defined in AHRI Standard 

1200 (I–P)-2010 (incorporated by reference 

see § 431.63)) set to 5 degrees colder than that 

required to maintain the manufacturer’s 

lowest specified operating temperature. 

2.3. Testing at NSF Test Conditions. For 

commercial refrigeration equipment that is 

also tested in accordance with NSF test 

procedures (Type I and Type II), integrated 

average temperatures and ambient conditions 

used for NSF testing may be used in place 

of the DOE-prescribed integrated average 

temperatures and ambient conditions 

provided they result in a more stringent test. 

That is, the measured daily energy 

consumption of the same unit, when tested 

at the rating temperatures and/or ambient 

conditions specified in the DOE test 

procedure, must be lower than or equal to the 

measured daily energy consumption of the 

unit when tested with the rating 

temperatures or ambient conditions used for 

NSF testing. The integrated average 

temperature measured during the test may be 

lower than the range specified by the DOE 

applicable temperature specification 

provided in paragraph 2.1 of this appendix, 

but may not exceed the upper value of the 

specified range. Ambient temperatures and/ 

or humidity values may be higher than those 

specified in the DOE test procedure. 

3. Volume and Total Display Area 

3.1. Determination of Volume. Determine 

the volume of a commercial refrigerator, 

freezer, refrigerator-freezer, or ice-cream 

freezer using the method set forth in the 

ANSI/AHAM HRF–1–2004, ‘‘Energy, 

Performance and Capacity of Household 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and 

Freezers’’ (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.63), section 3.21, ‘‘Volume,’’ sections 

4.1 through 4.3, ‘‘Method for Computing 

Total Refrigerated Volume and Total Shelf 

Area of Household Refrigerators and 

Household Wine Chillers,’’ and sections 5.1 

through 5.3, ‘‘Method for Computing Total 

Refrigerated Volume and Total Shelf Area of 

Household Freezers.’’ 

3.2. Determination of Total Display Area. 

Determine the total display area of a 

commercial refrigerator, freezer, refrigeratorfreezer, or ice-cream freezer using the method 

set forth in ARI Standard 1200–2006 

(incorporated by reference, see § 431.63), but 

disregarding the specification that 

‘‘transparent material (≥65% light 

transmittance) in Appendix D. Specifically, 

total display area shall be the sum of the 

projected area(s) of visible product, 

expressed in ft 2 (i.e., portions through which 

product can be viewed from an angle normal, 

or perpendicular, to the transparent area). 

Determine L as the interior length of the CRE 

model, provided no more than 10 percent of 

that length consists of non-transparent 

material. For those cases with greater than 10 

percent of non-transparent area, L shall be 

determined as the projected linear 

dimension(s) of visible product plus 10 

percent of non-transparent area. 

See Figures A3.1, A3.2, A3.3, A3.4, and 

A3.5 as examples of how to calculate the 

dimensions associated with calculation of 

total display area. In the diagrams, Dh and L 

represent the dimensions of the projected 

visible product. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22311 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER21AP14.000</GPH>
22312 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER21AP14.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22313 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

Appendix B to Subpart C of Part 431— 

Amended Uniform Test Method for the 

Measurement of Energy Consumption of 

Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and 

Refrigerator-Freezers 

Note: Any representations made on or after 

March 28, 2017, with respect to the energy 

use or efficiency of commercial refrigeration 

equipment must be made in accordance with 

the results of testing pursuant to this 

appendix. 

1. Test Procedure 

1.1. Determination of Daily Energy 

Consumption. Determine the daily energy 

consumption of each covered commercial 

refrigerator, freezer, refrigerator-freezer or 

ice-cream freezer by conducting the test 

procedure set forth in the AHRI Standard 

1200 (I–P)–2010, section 3, ‘‘Definitions,’’ 

section 4, ‘‘Test Requirements,’’ and section 

7, ‘‘Symbols and Subscripts’’ (incorporated 

by reference, see § 431.63). For each 

commercial refrigerator, freezer, or 

refrigerator-freezer with a self-contained 

condensing unit, also use AHRI Standard 

1200 (I–P)–2010, section 6, ‘‘Rating 

Requirements for Self-contained Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 

Storage Cabinets.’’ For each commercial 

refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-freezer 

with a remote condensing unit, also use 

AHRI Standard 1200 (I–P)-2010, section 5, 

‘‘Rating Requirements for Remote 

Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets.’’ 

1.2. Methodology for Determining 

Applicability of Transparent Door Equipment 

Families 

To determine if a door for a given model 

of commercial refrigeration equipment is 

transparent: (1) Calculate the outer door 

surface area including frames and mullions; 

(2) calculate the transparent surface area 

within the outer door surface area excluding 

frames and mullions; (3) calculate the ratio 

of (2) to (1) for each of the outer doors; and 

(4) the ratio for the transparent surface area 

of all outer doors must be greater than 0.25 

to qualify as a transparent equipment family. 

1.3. Additional Specifications for Testing 

of Components and Accessories. All standard 

components that would be used during 

normal operation of the basic model in the 

field shall be installed and used during 

testing as recommended by the manufacturer 

and representative of their typical operation 

in the field unless such installation and 

operation is inconsistent with any 

requirement of the test procedure. The 

specific components and accessories listed in 

the subsequent sections shall be operated as 

stated during the test. 

1.3.1. Energy Management Systems. 

Applicable energy management systems may 

be activated during the test procedure 

provided they are permanently installed on 

the case, configured and sold in such a 

manner so as to operate automatically 

without the intervention of the operator, and 

do not conflict with any of other 

requirements for a valid test as specified in 

this appendix. 

1.3.2. Lighting. All lighting except for 

customer display signs/lights as described in 

section 1.3.3 and UV lighting as described in 

section 1.3.6 of this appendix shall be 

energized to the maximum illumination level 

for the duration of testing for commercial 

refrigeration equipment with lighting except 

when the unit is equipped with lighting 

occupancy sensors and controls. If the unit 

includes an automatic lighting control 

system, it should be enabled during test. If 

the unit is equipped with lighting occupancy 

sensors and controls in should be tested in 

accordance with section 1.3.2.1 of this 

appendix. 

1.3.2.1. Lighting Occupancy Sensors and 

Controls. For units with lighting occupancy 

sensors and/or scheduled lighting controls 

installed on the unit, determine the effect of 

the controls/sensors on daily energy 

consumption by either a physical test or a 

calculation method and using the variables 

that are defined as: 

CECA is the alternate compressor energy 

consumption (kilowatt-hours); 

LECsc is the lighting energy consumption of 

internal case lights with lighting occupancy 

sensors and controls deployed (kilowatthours); 

Pli is the rated power of lights when they 

are fully on (watts); 

Pli(off) is the power of lights when they are 

off (watts); 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER21AP14.002</GPH>
22314 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Pli(dim) is the power of lights when they are 

dimmed (watts); 

TDECo is the total daily energy 

consumption with lights fully on, as 

measured by AHRI Standard 1200 (I–P)–2010 

(kilowatt-hours); 

tdim is the time period during which the 

lights are dimmed due to the use of lighting 

occupancy sensors or scheduled lighting 

controls (hours); 

tdim,controls is the time case lighting is 

dimmed due to the use of lighting controls 

(hours); 

tdim,sensors is the time case lighting is 

dimmed due to the use of lighting occupancy 

sensors (hours); 

tl is the time period when lights would be 

on without lighting occupancy sensors and/ 

or scheduled lighting controls (24 hours); 

toff is the time period during which the 

lights are off due to the use of lighting 

occupancy sensors and/or scheduled lighting 

controls (hours); 

toff,controls is the time case lighting is off due 

to the use of scheduled lighting controls 

(hours); 

toff,sensors is the time case lighting is off due 

to the use of lighting occupancy sensors 

(hours); and 

tsc is the time period when lighting is fully 

on with lighting occupancy sensors and 

scheduled lighting controls enabled (hours). 

1.3.2.1.i. For both a physical test and a 

calculation method, determine the estimated 

time off or dimmed, toff or tdim, as the sum 

of contributions from lighting occupancy 

sensors and scheduled lighting controls that 

dim or turn off lighting, respectively, as 

shown in the following equation: 

The sum of tsc, toff, and tdim should equal 

24 hours and the total time period during 

which the lights are off or dimmed shall not 

exceed 10.8 hours. For cases with scheduled 

lighting controls, the time the case lighting is 

off and/or dimmed due to scheduled lighting 

controls (toff,controls and/or tdim,controls, as 

applicable) shall not exceed 8 hours. For 

cases with lighting occupancy sensors 

installed, the time the case lighting is off 

and/or dimmed due to lighting occupancy 

sensors (toff,sensors and/or tdim,sensors, as 

applicable) shall not exceed 10.8 hours. For 

cases with lighting occupancy sensors and 

scheduled lighting controls installed, the 

time the case lighting is off and/or dimmed 

due to lighting occupancy sensors (toff,sensors

and/or tdim,sensors, as applicable) shall not 

exceed 2.8 hours and the time the case 

lighting is off and/or dimmed due to 

scheduled lighting controls (toff,controls and/or 

tdim,controls, as applicable) shall not exceed 8 

hours. 

1.3.2.1.ii. If using a physical test to 

determine the daily energy consumption, 

turn off the lights for a time period 

equivalent to toff and dim the lights for a time 

period equal to tdim. If night curtains are also 

being tested on the case, the period of lights 

off and/or dimmed shall begin at the same 

time that the night curtain is being deployed 

and shall continue consecutively, in that 

order, for the appropriate number of hours. 

1.3.2.1.iii. If using a calculation method to 

determine the daily energy consumption— 

Where EER represents the energy efficiency 

ratio from Table 1 in AHRI Standard 1200 (I– 

P)–2010 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.63) for remote condensing equipment 

or the values shown in the following table for 

self-contained equipment: 

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

Operating temperature class EER 

Btu/W 

Medium ..................................... 11 

Low ........................................... 7 

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

Operating temperature class EER 

Btu/W 

Ice Cream ................................. 5 

1.3.2.1.iii.C. For remote condensing units, 

calculate the revised compressor energy 

consumption (CECR) by adding the CECA to 

the compressor energy consumption (CEC) 

measured in AHRI Standard 1200 (I–P)–2010 

(incorporated by reference, see § 431.63). The 

CDEC for the entire case is the sum of the 

CECR and LECsc (as calculated above) and the 

fan energy consumption (FEC), anticondensate energy consumption (AEC), 

defrost energy consumption (DEC), and 

condensate evaporator pan energy 

consumption (PEC) (as measured in AHRI 

Standard 1200 (I–P)–2010). 

1.3.2.1.iii.D. For self-contained units, the 

TDEC for the entire case is the sum of total 

daily energy consumption as measured by 

the AHRI Standard 1200 (I–P)–2010 

(incorporated by reference, see § 431.63) test 

with the lights fully on (TDECo) and CECA, 

less the decrease in lighting energy use due 

to lighting occupancy sensors and scheduled 

lighting controls, as shown in following 

equation. 

1.3.3. Customer display signs/lights. Do not 

energize supplemental lighting that exists 

solely for the purposes of advertising or 

drawing attention to the case and is not 

integral to the operation of the case. 

1.3.4. Condensate pan heaters and pumps. 

For self-contained equipment only, all 

electric resistance condensate heaters and 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER21AP14.003</GPH> ER21AP14.004</GPH> ER21AP14.005</GPH> ER21AP14.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22315 

condensate pumps must be installed and in 

operation during the test. This includes the 

stabilization period (including pull-down), 

steady-state, and performance testing 

periods. Prior to the start of the stabilization 

period as defined by ASHRAE 72–2005 

(incorporated by reference, see § 431.63), the 

condensate pan must be dry. Following the 

start of the stabilization period, allow any 

condensate moisture generated to accumulate 

in the pan. Do not manually add or remove 

water to or from the condensate pan at any 

time during the test. 

1.3.5. Anti-sweat door heaters. Anti-sweat 

door heaters must be operational during the 

entirety of the test procedure. Models with a 

user-selectable setting must have the heaters 

energized and set to the maximum usage 

position. Models featuring an automatic, nonuser-adjustable controller that turns on or off 

based on environmental conditions must be 

operating in the automatic state. If a unit is 

not shipped with a controller from the point 

of manufacture and is intended to be used 

with an automatic, non-user-adjustable 

controller, test the unit with a manufacturerrecommended controller that turns on or off 

based on environmental conditions. 

1.3.6. Ultraviolet lights. Do not energize 

ultraviolet lights during the test. 

1.3.7. Illuminated temperature displays 

and alarms. All illuminated temperature 

displays and alarms shall be energized and 

operated during the test as they would be 

during normal field operation. 

1.3.8. Condenser filters. Remove any 

nonpermanent filters that are provided to 

prevent particulates from blocking a model’s 

condenser coil. 

1.3.9. Refrigeration system security covers. 

Remove any devices used to secure the 

condensing unit against unwanted removal. 

1.3.10. Night curtains and covers. For 

display cases sold with night curtains 

installed, the night curtain shall be employed 

for 6 hours; beginning 3 hours after the start 

of the first defrost period. Upon the 

completion of the 6-hour period, the night 

curtain shall be raised until the completion 

of the 24-hour test period. 

1.3.11. Grill options. Remove any optional 

non-standard grills used to direct airflow. 

1.3.12. Misting or humidification systems. 

Misting or humidification systems must be 

inactive during the test. 

1.3.13. Air purifiers. Air purifiers must be 

inactive during the test. 

1.3.14. General purpose outlets. During the 

test, do not connect any external load to any 

general purpose outlets contained within a 

unit. 

1.3.15. Crankcase heaters. Crankcase 

heaters must be operational during the test. 

If a control system, such as a thermostat or 

electronic controller, is used to modulate the 

operation of the crankcase heater, it must be 

utilized during the test. 

1.3.16. Drawers. Drawers are to be treated 

as identical to doors when conducting the 

DOE test procedure. Commercial refrigeration 

equipment with drawers should be 

configured with the drawer pans that allow 

for the maximum packing of test simulators 

and filler packages without the filler 

packages and test simulators exceeding 90 

percent of the refrigerated volume. Packing of 

test simulators and filler packages shall be in 

accordance with the requirements for 

commercial refrigerators without shelves, as 

specified in section 6.2.3 of ASHRAE 72– 

2005 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.63). 

2. Test Conditions 

2.1. Integrated Average Temperatures. 

Conduct the testing required in section 1 of 

this appendix B, and determine the daily 

energy consumption at the applicable 

integrated average temperature in the 

following table. 

Category Test procedure Integrated average 

temperature 

(i) Refrigerator with Solid Door(s) ........................................................................................................... AHRI Standard 

1200 (I–P)– 

2010 1.

38 °F (±2 °F). 

(ii) Refrigerator with Transparent Door(s) ............................................................................................... AHRI Standard 

1200 (I–P)– 

2010 1.

38 °F (±2 °F). 

(iii) Freezer with Solid Door(s) ................................................................................................................ AHRI Standard 

1200 (I–P)– 

2010 1.

0 °F (±2 °F). 

(iv) Freezer with Transparent Door(s) ..................................................................................................... AHRI Standard 

1200 (I–P)– 

2010 1.

0 °F (±2 °F). 

(v) Refrigerator-Freezer with Solid Door(s) ............................................................................................. AHRI Standard 

1200 (I–P)– 

2010 1.

38 °F (±2 °F) for refrigerator compartment. 

0 °F (±2 °F) for 

freezer compartment. 

(vi) Commercial Refrigerator with a Self-Contained Condensing Unit Designed for Pull-Down Temperature Applications and Transparent Doors.AHRI Standard 

1200 (I–P)– 

2010 1.

38 °F (±2 °F). 

(vii) Ice-Cream Freezer ........................................................................................................................... AHRI Standard 

1200 (I–P)– 

2010 1.

¥15.0 °F (±2 °F). 

(viii) Commercial Refrigerator, Freezer, and Refrigerator-Freezer with a Self-Contained Condensing 

Unit and without Doors.

AHRI Standard 

1200 (I–P)– 

2010 1.

(A) 0 °F (±2 °F) for 

low temperature 

applications. 

(B) 38.0 °F (±2 °F) 

for medium temperature applications. 

(ix) Commercial Refrigerator, Freezer, and Refrigerator-Freezer with a Remote Condensing Unit ...... AHRI Standard 

1200 (I–P)– 

2010 1.

(A) 0 °F (±2 °F) for 

low temperature 

applications. 

(B) 38.0 °F (±2 °F) 

for medium temperature applications. 

1 Incorporated by reference, see § 431.63. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

22316 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

2.2. Lowest Application Product 

Temperature. If a unit of commercial 

refrigeration equipment is not able to be 

operated at the integrated average 

temperature specified in the table in 

paragraph 2.1 of this appendix, test the unit 

at the lowest application product 

temperature (LAPT), as defined in § 431.62. 

For units equipped with a thermostat, LAPT 

is the lowest thermostat setting. For remote 

condensing equipment without a thermostat 

or other means of controlling temperature at 

the case, the lowest application product 

temperature is the temperature achieved with 

the dew point temperature (as defined in 

AHRI Standard 1200 (I–P)–2010 

(incorporated by reference, see § 431.63)) set 

to 5 degrees colder than that required to 

maintain the manufacturer’s lowest specified 

application temperature. 

2.3. Testing at NSF Test Conditions. For 

commercial refrigeration equipment that is 

also tested in accordance with NSF test 

procedures (Type I and Type II), integrated 

average temperatures and ambient conditions 

used for NSF testing may be used in place 

of the DOE-prescribed integrated average 

temperatures and ambient conditions 

provided they result in a more stringent test. 

That is, the measured daily energy 

consumption of the same unit, when tested 

at the rating temperatures and/or ambient 

conditions specified in the DOE test 

procedure, must be lower than or equal to the 

measured daily energy consumption of the 

unit when tested with the rating 

temperatures or ambient conditions used for 

NSF testing. The integrated average 

temperature measured during the test may be 

lower than the range specified by the DOE 

applicable temperature specification 

provided in paragraph 2.1 of this appendix, 

but may not exceed the upper value of the 

specified range. Ambient temperatures and/ 

or humidity values may be higher than those 

specified in the DOE test procedure. 

3. Volume and Total Display Area 

3.1. Determination of Volume. Determine 

the volume of a commercial refrigerator, 

freezer, refrigerator-freezer, or ice-cream 

freezer using the method set forth in the 

HRF–1–2008 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.63), section 3.30, ‘‘Volume,’’ and 

sections 4.1 through 4.3, ‘‘Method for 

Computing Refrigerated Volume of 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, Wine 

Chillers and Freezers.’’ 

3.2. Determination of Total Display Area. 

Determine the total display area of a 

commercial refrigerator, freezer, refrigeratorfreezer, or ice-cream freezer using the method 

set forth in ARI Standard 1200–2006 

(incorporated by reference, see § 431.63), but 

disregarding the specification that 

‘‘transparent material (≥65% light 

transmittance) in Appendix D. Specifically, 

total display area shall be the sum of the 

projected area(s) of visible product, 

expressed in ft2 (i.e., portions through which 

product can be viewed from an angle normal, 

or perpendicular, to the transparent area). 

Determine L as the interior length of the CRE 

model, provided no more than 5 inches of 

that length consists of non-transparent 

material. For those cases with greater than 5 

inches of non-transparent area, L shall be 

determined as the projected linear 

dimension(s) of visible product plus 5 inches 

of non-transparent area. 

See Figures A3.1, A3.2, and A3.3 as 

examples of how to calculate the dimensions 

associated with calculation of total display 

area. In the diagrams, Dh and L represent the 

dimensions of the projected visible product. 

BILLING CODE 4500–01–P 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER21AP14.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22317 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER21AP14.008</GPH>
22318 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

[FR Doc. 2014–08640 Filed 4–18–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER21AP14.009</GPH>