Thursday, 

December 16, 2010 

Part II 

Department of 

Energy 

10 CFR Part 430 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Test Procedures for 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Freezers; Final Rule and Interim Final 

Rule 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
78810 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2009–BT–TP–0003] 

RIN 1904–AB92 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Test Procedures 

for Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule, Interim final rule. 

SUMMARY: On May 27, 2010, the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) issued a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) 

to amend the test procedures for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers. That proposed rulemaking 

serves as the basis for today’s action. 

DOE is issuing a final rule regarding 

Appendix A1 and Appendix B1, and an 

interim final rule for Appendix A and 

Appendix B. The final rule amends the 

current procedures, incorporating 

changes that will take effect 30 days 

after the final rule publication date. 

These changes will be mandatory for 

product testing to demonstrate 

compliance with the current energy 

standards and for representations 

starting 180 days after publication. 

These changes, which will not affect 

measured energy use, include test 

procedures to account for refrigeratorfreezers equipped with variable antisweat heater controls, establishing test 

procedures for refrigerator-freezers 

equipped with more than two 

compartments, making minor 

adjustments to eliminate any potential 

ambiguity regarding how to conduct 

tests, and clarifying certain reporting 

requirements. The interim final rule 

establishes amended test procedures for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers that would be required for 

measuring energy consumption once 

DOE promulgates new energy 

conservation standards for these 

products. These new standards are 

currently under development in a 

separate rulemaking activity and will 

apply to newly manufactured products 

starting in 2014. Today’s action also 

discusses the treatment of combination 

wine storage-freezer products that were 

the subject of a recent test procedure 

waiver, energy use measurement roundoff, and additional topics raised by 

stakeholders during the rulemaking’s 

comment period. 

While the amended test procedures 

will be based largely on the test 

methodology used in the existing test 

procedures, they also include significant 

revisions with respect to the 

measurement of compartment 

temperatures and compartment 

volumes. These measurements will 

provide a more comprehensive 

accounting of energy usage by these 

products. The amended test procedure 

will modify the long-time automatic 

defrost test procedure to capture all 

energy use associated with the defrost 

cycle, establish a test procedure for 

products with a single compressor and 

multiple evaporators with active defrost 

cycles, incorporate into the energy use 

metric the energy use associated with 

icemaking for products with automatic 

icemakers, and clarify requirements on 

temperature control settings during 

testing. 

DATES: The amendments to §§ 430.2, 

430.3, 430.23 and Appendix A1 and 

Appendix B1 (the final rule) are 

effective January 18, 2011. The 

additions of Appendix A and Appendix 

B (the interim rule) are effective April 

15, 2011. 

The final rule changes will be 

mandatory for product testing starting 

June 14, 2011. Comments on the interim 

final rule are due February 14, 2011. 

The incorporation by reference of 

ANSI/AHAM HRF–1–1979, (‘‘HRF–1– 

1979’’), (Revision of ANSI B38.1–1970), 

American National Standard, 

Household Refrigerators, Combination 

Refrigerator-Freezers and Household 

Freezers, approved May 17, 1979, IBR 

approved for Appendices A1 and B1 to 

Subpart B, in the final rule is approved 

by the Director of the Office of the 

Federal Register as of January 18, 2011. 

The incorporation by reference of 

AHAM Standard HRF–1–2008 (‘‘HRF– 

1–2008’’), Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers, Energy and 

Internal Volume of Refrigerating 

Appliances (2008), including Errata to 

Energy and Internal Volume of 

Refrigerating Appliances, Correction 

Sheet issued November 17, 2009, IBR 

approved for Appendices A and B to 

Subpart B, in the interim rule is 

approved by the Director of the Office 

of the Federal Register as of April 15, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: The public may review 

copies of all materials related to this 

rulemaking at the U.S. Department of 

Energy, Resource Room of the Building 

Technologies Program, 950 L’Enfant 

Plaza, SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC, 

(202) 586–2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at the above telephone number 

for additional information regarding 

visiting the Resource Room. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Subid Wagley, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121, 202–287– 

1414, e-mail: Subid.Wagley@ee.doe.gov 

or Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–8145. E-mail: 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule and interim final rule incorporate 

by reference into part 430 the following 

industry standards: 

(1) ANSI/AHAM HRF–1–1979, 

(Revision of ANSI B38.1–1970), (‘‘HRF– 

1–1979’’), American National Standard, 

Household Refrigerators, Combination 

Refrigerator-Freezers and Household 

Freezers, approved May 17, 1979; 

(2) AHAM Standard HRF–1–2008, 

(‘‘HRF–1–2008’’), Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers, Energy and 

Internal Volume of Refrigerating 

Appliances (2008), including Errata to 

Energy and Internal Volume of 

Refrigerating Appliances, Correction 

Sheet issued November 17, 2009. 

You can purchase copies of AHAM 

standards from the Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers, 1111 19th 

Street, NW., Suite 402, Washington, DC 

20036, 202–872–5955, or http:// 

www.aham.org. 

You can also view copies of these 

standards at the U.S. Department of 

Energy, Resource Room of the Building 

Technologies Program, 950 L’Enfant 

Plaza, SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 

20024, (202) 586–2945, between 9 a.m. 

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Authority 

II. Summary of the Final Rule and Interim 

Final Rule 

III. Discussion 

A. Products Covered by the Proposed 

Revisions 

B. Combination Wine Storage-Freezer 

Units 

C. Establishing New Appendices A and B, 

and Compliance Dates for the Amended 

Test Procedures 

D. Amendments To Take Effect Prior to a 

New Energy Conservation Standard 

1. Procedures for Test Sample Preparation 

2. Product Clearances to Walls During 

Testing 

3. Alternative Compartment Temperature 

Sensor Locations 

4. Median Temperature Settings for 

Electronic Control Products and 

Establishment of Dual Standardized 

Temperatures 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78811 

5. Test Procedures for Convertible 

Compartments and Special 

Compartments 

6. Establishing a Temperature-Averaging 

Procedure for Auxiliary Compartments 

7. Modified Definition for Anti-Sweat 

Heater 

8. Applying the Anti-Sweat Heater Switch 

Averaging Credit to Energy Use 

Calculations 

9. Incorporation of Test Procedures for 

Products With Variable Anti-Sweat 

Heating Control Waivers 

10. Elimination of Part 3 of the Variable 

Defrost Test 

11. Corrections and Other Test Procedure 

Language Changes 

12. Including in Certification Reports Basic 

Information Clarifying Energy 

Measurements 

13. Rounding Off Energy Test Results 

E. Amendments To Take Effect 

Simultaneously With a New Energy 

Conservation Standard 

1. Modification of Long-Time and Variable 

Defrost Test Method To Capture 

Precooling and Temperature-Recovery 

Energy 

2. Establishing Test Procedures for 

Multiple Defrost Cycle Types 

3. Incorporating by Reference AHAM 

Standard HRF–1–2008 for Measuring 

Energy and Internal Volume of 

Refrigerating Appliances 

4. Establishing New Compartment 

Temperatures 

5. Establishing New Volume Calculation 

Method 

6. Control Settings for Refrigerators and 

Refrigerator-Freezers During Testing 

7. Icemakers and Icemaking 

F. Other Issues 

1. Electric Heaters 

2. Vacuum Insulation Panel Performance 

3. Metric Units 

G. Compliance With Other EPCA 

Requirements 

1. Test Burden 

2. Potential Amendments To Include 

Standby and Off Mode Energy 

Consumption 

3. Addressing Changes in Measured Energy 

Use 

IV. Procedural Requirements 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

M. Congressional Notification 

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Background and Authority 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

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

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

variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. (All 

references to EPCA refer to the statute 

as amended through the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA 2007), Pub. L. 110–140 (Dec. 19, 

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

6291–6309), which was subsequently 

redesignated as Part A for editorial 

reasons, establishes the ‘‘Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles.’’ 

Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers (collectively referred to below 

as ‘‘refrigeration products’’) are all 

treated as ‘‘covered products’’ under this 

Part. (42 U.S.C. 6291(1)–(2) and 

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

consists essentially of three parts: (1) 

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

energy conservation standards. The 

testing requirements consist of test 

procedures that manufacturers of 

covered products must use (1) as the 

basis for certifying to DOE that their 

products comply with the applicable 

energy conservation standards adopted 

under EPCA, and (2) for making 

representations about the efficiency of 

those products. Similarly, DOE must use 

these test requirements to determine 

whether the products comply with any 

relevant standards promulgated under 

EPCA. 

By way of background, the National 

Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 

1987 (NAECA), Public Law 100–12, 

amended EPCA by including, among 

other things, performance standards for 

residential refrigeration products. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(b)). On November 17, 1989, 

DOE amended these performance 

standards for products manufactured on 

or after January 1, 1993. 54 FR 47916. 

DOE subsequently published a 

correction to revise these new standards 

for three product classes. 55 FR 42845 

(October 24, 1990). DOE again updated 

the performance standards for 

refrigeration products on April 28, 1997, 

for products manufactured on or after 

July 1, 2001. 62 FR 23102. 

EISA 2007 amended EPCA to require 

DOE to determine by December 31, 

2010, whether amending the energy 

conservation standards in effect for 

refrigeration products would be 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(4)). To 

comply with this requirement, DOE 

began a new rulemaking to examine the 

potential adoption of new energy 

conservation standards for these 

products. 75 FR 59470 (Sept. 27, 2010) 

(hereafter, ‘‘standards NOPR’’). On 

September 18, 2008, DOE issued a 

framework document to initiate that 

rulemaking. 73 FR 54089. On September 

29, 2008, DOE held a public workshop 

to discuss the framework document and 

issues related to the rulemaking. The 

framework document identified several 

test procedure issues, including: (1) 

Compartment temperature changes; (2) 

modified volume calculation methods; 

(3) products that deactivate energyusing features during energy testing; (4) 

variable anti-sweat heaters; (5) 

references to the updated AHAM 

Standard HRF–1–2008, (‘‘HRF–1–2008’’), 

Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers, Energy and Internal 

Volume of Refrigerating Appliances 

(2008), including Errata to Energy and 

Internal Volume of Refrigerating 

Appliances, Correction Sheet issued 

November 17, 2009; (6) convertible 

compartments; and (7) harmonization 

with international test procedures. 

(‘‘Energy Conservation Standards 

Rulemaking Framework Document for 

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

AB79, Docket No. EERE–2008–BT– 

STD–0012) DOE initiated this test 

procedure rulemaking in part to address 

these issues, and published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking on May 27, 2010, 

hereafter referred to as ‘‘the NOPR.’’ 75 

FR 29824. 

In response to issue (3) mentioned 

above as applied to automatic 

icemakers, DOE separately published a 

guidance document addressing various 

aspects related to the icemaker, 

including the manner in which to 

measure icemaking energy usage as well 

as set-up issues during testing. 

(‘‘Additional Guidance Regarding 

Application of Current Procedures for 

Testing Energy Consumption of 

Refrigerator-Freezers with Automatic Ice 

Makers,’’ (December 18, 2009) published 

at 75 FR 2122 (January 14, 2010)). 

General Test Procedure Rulemaking 

Process 

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

the criteria and procedures DOE must 

follow when prescribing or amending 

test procedures for covered products. 

EPCA provides in relevant part that 

‘‘[a]ny test procedures prescribed or 

amended under this section shall be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results which measure energy 

efficiency, energy use * * * or 

estimated annual operating cost of a 

covered product during a representative 

average use cycle or period of use, as 

determined by the Secretary [of Energy], 

and shall not be unduly burdensome to 

conduct.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)). 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
78812 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

In addition, if DOE determines that a 

test procedure amendment is warranted, 

it must publish proposed test 

procedures and offer the public an 

opportunity to present oral and written 

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

considering amending a test procedure, 

DOE must determine ‘‘to what extent, if 

any, the proposed test procedure would 

alter the * * * measured energy use 

* * * of any covered product as 

determined under the existing test 

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

DOE determines that the amended test 

procedure would alter the measured 

energy use of a covered product, DOE 

must also amend the applicable energy 

conservation standard accordingly. (42 

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

With respect to today’s rulemaking, 

DOE has determined that five of the 

amendments it is adopting 

(compartment temperature changes 

(described in section III.E.4), volume 

calculation method changes (described 

in section III.E.5), amendments to 

capture precooling and partial recovery 

energy use (described in section III.E.1), 

amendments in the test procedures for 

special compartments using heat 

addition to control temperature 

(described in section III.D.5), and new 

test procedures that address products 

with a single compressor with multiple 

evaporators with active defrost cycles 

(described in section III.E.2)) will 

change the measured energy use of 

refrigeration products when compared 

to the current test procedure. In such 

situations, EPCA requires a standards 

rulemaking to address such changes in 

measured energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(e)(2)). DOE is considering the 

impacts of these changes as part of its 

standards rulemaking for refrigeration 

products, noted above. 

Today’s rule also fulfills DOE’s 

obligation to periodically review its test 

procedures under 42 U.S.C. 

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

next evaluation of this test procedure 

will occur in a manner consistent with 

the timeline set out in this provision. 

Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers 

DOE’s test procedures for refrigerators 

and refrigerator-freezers are found at 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A1. 

DOE initially established its test 

procedures for refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers in a final rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 14, 1977. 42 FR 46140. 

Industry representatives viewed these 

test procedures as too complex and 

eventually developed alternative test 

procedures in conjunction with AHAM 

that were incorporated into the 1979 

version of HRF–1, ‘‘Household 

Refrigerators, Combination RefrigeratorFreezers, and Household Freezers’’ 

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

test procedures on August 10, 1982. 47 

FR 34517. On August 31, 1989, DOE 

published a final rule establishing test 

procedures for variable defrost control 

(a system that varies the time intervals 

between defrosts based on the defrost 

need), dual-compressor refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers equipped with 

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

feature that bypasses the thermostat and 

runs the compressor continuously until 

terminated). 54 FR 36238. DOE most 

recently amended these test procedures 

in a final rule published March 7, 2003, 

which modified the test period used for 

products equipped with long-time 

automatic defrost or variable defrost. 68 

FR 10957. The term ‘‘long-time 

automatic defrost’’ identifies the use of 

an automatic defrost control in which 

successive defrosts are separated by 

more than 14 hours of compressor run 

time. The test procedures include 

provisions for determining the annual 

energy use in kilowatt-hours (kWh) and 

the annual operating cost for electricity 

for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. 

Also, consistent with the regulations 

set out in 10 CFR part 430, the 1989 and 

2003 final rules terminated all the 

previous refrigerator and refrigeratorfreezer test procedure waivers that DOE 

had previously granted to manufacturers 

before the issuance of the 2003 rule. 

Since the issuance of that rule, DOE has 

granted 11 waivers, which fall into two 

broad groupings. First, on April 24, 

2007, DOE granted a waiver to Liebherr 

Hausgera ̈te (Liebherr waiver), permitting 

testing of a combination wine storagefreezer line of appliances using a 

standardized temperature of 55 °F for 

the wine storage compartment, as 

opposed to the 45 °F temperature 

prescribed for fresh food compartments 

of refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. 

72 FR 20333, 20334. 

Second, DOE has granted 10 waivers 

allowing manufacturers to use a 

modified procedure to test refrigeration 

products that use ambient condition 

sensors that adjust anti-sweat heater 

power consumption. These variable 

anti-sweat heaters prevent condensation 

on the external surfaces of refrigerators 

and refrigerator-freezers. The new 

control addressed by the waivers uses 

sensors that detect ambient conditions 

to energize the heaters only when 

needed. The procedure described by 

these waivers provides a method for 

manufacturers to determine the energy 

consumed by a refrigerator using this 

type of variable control system. The first 

of these waivers was granted to the 

General Electric Company (GE) on 

February 27, 2008. 73 FR 10425. The 

full set of such waivers is summarized 

in Table I.1 below. 

TABLE I.1—VARIABLE ANTI-SWEAT HEATER CONTROL WAIVERS

Manufacturer Waiver status Case No. Date Federal Register citation 

GE ........................................... Granted ................................... RF–007 2/27/2008 73 FR 10425 

Whirlpool .................................. Granted ................................... RF–008 5/5/2009 74 FR 20695 

Electrolux ................................. Granted ................................... RF–009 12/15/2009 74 FR 66338 

Electrolux ................................. Granted ................................... RF–010 3/11/2010 75 FR 11530 

Samsung ................................. Granted ................................... RF–011 3/18/2010 75 FR 13120 

Electrolux ................................. Granted ................................... RF–012 4/29/2010 75 FR 22584 

Haier ........................................ Granted ................................... RF–013 6/7/2010 75 FR 32175 

Samsung ................................. Granted ................................... RF–014 8/3/2010 75 FR 45623 

GE ........................................... Granted ................................... RF–015 8/19/2010 75 FR 51262 

LG ............................................ Granted ................................... RF–016 8/19/2010 75 FR 51264 

After granting a waiver, DOE 

regulations generally direct the agency 

to initiate a rulemaking that would 

amend the regulations to eliminate the 

continued need for the waiver. 10 CFR 

430.27(m). This rulemaking addresses 

this requirement. Once today’s final rule 

becomes effective, any waivers it 

addresses will terminate. 

Freezers 

DOE’s test procedures for freezers are 

found at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendix B1. DOE established its test 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78813 

procedures for freezers in a final rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 14, 1977. 42 FR 46140. As 

with DOE’s test procedures for 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, 

industry representatives viewed the 

freezer test procedures as too complex 

and worked with AHAM to develop 

alternative test procedures, which were 

incorporated into the 1979 version of 

HRF–1. DOE revised its test procedures 

for freezers based on this AHAM 

standard on August 10, 1982. 47 FR 

34517. The August 31, 1989, final rule 

mentioned above established test 

procedures for freezers with variable 

defrost control and freezers with the 

quick-freeze feature. 54 FR 36238. The 

test procedures were amended on 

September 20, 1989, to correct the 

effective date published in the August 

31, 1989 rule. 54 FR 38788. The current 

test procedures include provisions for 

determining the annual energy use in 

kWh and annual electrical operating 

costs for freezers. 

DOE has not issued any waivers from 

the freezer test procedures since the 

promulgation of the 1989 final rule. 

Current Refrigeration Product Test 

Procedure Rulemaking 

The NOPR for this rulemaking was 

published on May 27, 2010. 75 FR 

29824. The public meeting was held 

June 22, 2010. At the meeting, DOE 

discussed the NOPR, detailed the 

proposed revisions, and solicited oral 

comments from meeting participants. 

Numerous stakeholders attended the 

meeting and/or provided written 

comments. These parties are identified 

in Table I.2 below. 

TABLE I.2—STAKEHOLDERS THAT SUBMITTED ORAL OR WRITTEN COMMENTS

Name Acronym Type* Oral 

comments 

Written 

comments 

AcuTemp/ThermoCor ................................................................ ThermoCor ............................................... CS ✔ 

American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy ................. ACEEE ..................................................... EA ✔ ✔ 

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

California Investor-Owned Utilities ............................................ IOUs ......................................................... U ✔ 

Earthjustice ................................................................................ Earthjustice .............................................. EA ✔ ✔ 

Electrolux Major Appliances North America ............................. Electrolux ................................................. M ✔ ✔ 

Energy Solutions for California Investor-Owned Utilities .......... IOUs ......................................................... U ✔ 

Fisher & Paykel Appliances Ltd ................................................ Fisher & Paykel ....................................... M ✔ 

General Electric Consumer and Industrial ................................ GE ............................................................ M ✔ ✔ 

NanoPore Insulation, LLC ......................................................... NanoPore ................................................. CS ✔ 

National Institute of Standards and Technology ....................... NIST ......................................................... TE ✔ 

Natural Resources Defense Council ......................................... NRDC ....................................................... EA ✔ ✔ 

People’s Republic of China WTO/TBT National Notification & 

Enquiry Center.

PRC ......................................................... FG ✔ 

Sanyo E&E Corporation ............................................................ Sanyo ....................................................... M ✔ 

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

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

Penfield Appliances ................................................................... Penfield .................................................... I .................... ✔ 

* IR: Industry Representative; M: Manufacturer; EA: Efficiency/Environmental Advocate; CS: Component Supplier: TE: Technical Expert: I: Individual; U: Utility; FG: Foreign Government Agency. 

II. Summary of the Final Rule and 

Interim Final Rule 

The final rule amends the current 

DOE test procedures for refrigeration 

products. These changes will not affect 

measured energy use of these products. 

Instead they will primarily clarify the 

manner in which to test for compliance 

with the current energy conservation 

standards. As indicated in greater detail 

below, these amendments apply to the 

current procedures in Appendices A1 

and B1, to the definitions set forth in 10 

CFR 430.2, to the current procedures in 

10 CFR 430.23. These minor 

amendments will eliminate any 

potential ambiguity contained in these 

sections of the test procedures and 

clarify the regulatory text to ensure that 

regulated entities fully understand the 

long-standing views and interpretations 

that the Department holds with respect 

to the application and implementation 

of the test procedures. The current 

procedures are also being amended to 

help account for, among other things, 

the various waivers granted by DOE. 

The final rule also makes a minor 

change to the text of 10 CFR 430.32(a) 

in order to ensure consistency with the 

test procedure amendments. 

The interim final rule establishes 

comprehensive changes to the manner 

in which the procedures are conducted 

by creating new Appendices A and B. 

These appendices include the 

modifications being adopted today as 

part of the modified Appendices A1 and 

B1 prescribed in this regulation. The 

procedures contained in the new 

Appendices A and B apply only to those 

products that would be covered by any 

new standard that DOE promulgates and 

are organized separately from the 

current test procedures found in 

Appendices A1 and B1. DOE will retain 

current Appendices A1 and B1 for this 

interim final rulemaking to cover 

products manufactured before any new 

standards DOE is currently considering 

would need to be met. However, once 

manufacturers are required to comply 

with any new standards, those 

appendices will be replaced by 

Appendices A and B, respectively. 

The final rule amendments discussed 

in this notice will take effect 30 days 

after publication of this final rule. 

However, manufacturers do not need to 

use the new versions of Appendices A1 

and B1 for testing to verify compliance 

with the energy standards until 180 

days from the final rule’s publication. 

The interim final rule will take effect 

120 days after date of publication of this 

final rule. Manufacturers will not need 

to use the new Appendices A and B 

until the compliance date for the 2014 

standards that DOE is considering. The 

date of compliance with those new 

standards has been set by Congress 

through EISA 2007 (i.e. January 1, 

2014). See EISA 2007, sec. 311(a)(3) (42 

U.S.C. 6295(b)(4)). In order to ensure 

that new Appendices A and B 

adequately address the new energy 

standards currently under development, 

DOE is issuing these appendices on an 

interim final basis and offering an 

additional 60 day comment period. 

The revised Appendices A1 and B1 

achieve three primary goals. First, they 

address certain issues raised throughout 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
78814 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1 Volume adjustment factors are used in 

calculation of the adjusted volume, which is the 

basis for the energy conservation standard 

equations for refrigeration products. 

the standards rulemaking. Second, they 

incorporate test procedures for 

refrigerator-freezers with variable antisweat heater controls that were the 

subject of test procedure waivers and 

interim waivers granted to GE and other 

manufacturers. Finally, the amendments 

clarify the test procedures for 

addressing special compartments and 

those refrigeration products that are 

equipped with more than one fresh food 

compartment or more than one freezer 

compartment. 

The revisions also address areas of 

potential inconsistency in the current 

procedure, and eliminate an optional 

test that DOE understands is not used by 

the industry. None of these changes is 

expected to result in any change in 

measured energy efficiency or energy 

use of refrigeration products. 

The additional test procedure 

revisions in the new Appendices A and 

B would (1) include new compartment 

temperatures and volume adjustment 

factors,1 (2) include new methods for 

measuring compartment volumes, (3) 

modify the long-time automatic defrost 

test procedure to ensure that the test 

procedure measures all energy use 

associated with the defrost function, 

and (4) establish test procedures for 

products with a single compressor and 

multiple evaporators with active defrost 

cycles. The first two of these 

amendments will improve 

harmonization with relevant 

international standards and assure test 

repeatability. The compartment 

temperature changes will significantly 

impact the energy use measured by the 

test for refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers. The temperature changes will 

also affect the calculated adjusted 

volume, which is equal to the fresh food 

compartment volume plus a 

temperature-dependent adjustment 

factor multiplied by the freezer 

compartment volume. The new volume 

calculation method will affect the 

calculation for compartment volumes 

and adjusted volume for all refrigeration 

products. Since the standards for 

refrigeration products are expressed as 

equations that specify maximum energy 

use as a function of adjusted volume, 

the modifications impact the allowable 

energy use for all of these products. The 

changes also affect the energy factor, 

which is equal to adjusted volume 

divided by daily energy consumption. 

The final rule also discusses the 

combination wine storage-freezer 

products that were the subject of the 

Liebherr waiver. DOE expects to 

propose modified product definitions to 

include coverage of wine storage 

products in a separate future 

rulemaking. This final rule treats wine 

coolers and other hybrid products that 

combine wine storage compartments 

with freezer or fresh food compartments 

in a consistent manner, by modifying 

the definition of electric refrigeratorfreezer to require compartment 

temperatures in the fresh food 

compartment that effectively exclude 

combination wine storage-freezer 

products from coverage. 

Lastly, the interim final rule also 

addresses the measurement of 

icemaking energy use. This 

measurement adds a fixed value to 

account for the energy used to produce 

ice in refrigeration products that are 

equipped with automatic icemakers. 

However, DOE intends to support 

development in 2011 of a test procedure 

for measurement of icemaker energy use 

and to initiate in 2012 a test procedure 

rulemaking to incorporate the new 

measurement into the refrigeration 

product test procedure. The icemaker 

energy use addition, which is included 

only in the new Appendices A and B, 

will improve the consistency of the 

measurement with the representative 

use cycle for such products. 

III. Discussion 

Table III.1 below summarizes the 

subsections of this section and indicates 

where the amendments would appear in 

the CFR. Seven of the subsections 

address changes in the CFR other than 

in appendices A1, B1, A, or B, and six 

of the subsections have no test 

procedure changes associated with 

them. Section E addresses the 

amendments that are part of the interim 

final rule. In addition, two of the 

interim final rule amendments are 

addressed in parts of section III.D (in 

sections III.D.2 and III.D.5). The 

remaining sections address the 

amendments that are part of the final 

rule. 

TABLE III.1—SECTION III SUBSECTIONS

Section Title Affected CFR sections 

Appendices 

A1 B1 A B 

A ........................................... Products Covered by the Proposed Revisions.430.2 .................................... NA 

B ........................................... Combination Wine Storage-Freezer Units .. 430.2 .................................... NA

C ........................................... Establishing New Appendices A and B, 

and Compliance Dates for the Amended 

Test Procedures.

Subpt. B ............................... ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

D.1 ........................................ Procedures for Test Sample Preparation ... 430.23, Subpt. B .................. ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

D.2 ........................................ Product Clearance Distances to Walls During Testing.Subpt. B ............................... ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

D.3 ........................................ Alternative Compartment Temperature 

Sensor Locations.

New pt. 429*, Subpt. B ........ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

D.4 ........................................ Median Temperature Settings for Electronic Control Products and Establishment of Dual Standardized Temperatures.Subpt. B ............................... ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

D.5 ........................................ Test Procedures for Convertible Compartments and Special Compartments.Subpt. B ............................... ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

D.6 ........................................ Establishing a Temperature-Averaging 

Procedure for Auxiliary Compartments.

Subpt. B ............................... ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78815 

TABLE III.1—SECTION III SUBSECTIONS—Continued 

Section Title Affected CFR sections 

Appendices 

A1 B1 A B 

D.7 ........................................ Modified Definition for Anti-Sweat Heater .. Subpt. B ............................... ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

D.8 ........................................ Applying the Anti-Sweat Heater Switch 

Averaging Credit to Energy Use Calculations.

430.23 .................................. NA 

D.9 ........................................ Incorporation of Test Procedures for Products with Variable Anti-Sweat Heating 

Control Waivers.

Subpt. B ............................... ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

D.10 ...................................... Elimination of Part 3 of the Variable Defrost Test.Subpt. B ............................... ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

D.11 ...................................... Simplification of Energy Use Equation for 

Products with Variable Defrost Control.

Subpt. B ............................... ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Energy Testing and Energy Use Equation 

for Products with Dual Automatic Defrost.

Subpt. B ............................... ✔ ✔ 

Freezer Variable Defrost ............................ Subpt. B ............................... ✔ ✔ 

D.12 ...................................... Including in Certification Reports Basic Information Clarifying Energy Measurements.New pt. 429* ........................ NA 

D.13 ...................................... Rounding Off Energy Test Results ............. 430.23, 430.32(a) ................ NA 

E.1 ........................................ Modification of Long-Time and Variable 

Defrost Test Method to Capture 

Precooling and Temperature-Recovery 

Energy.

Subpt. B ............................... ✔ ✔ 

E.2 ........................................ Establishing Test Procedures for Multiple 

Defrost Cycle Types.

Subpt. B ............................... ✔ 

E.3 ........................................ Incorporating by Reference AHAM Standard HRF–1–2008 for Measuring Energy 

and Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances.

Subpt. B ............................... ✔ ✔ 

E.4 ........................................ Establishing New Compartment Temperatures.Subpt. B ............................... ✔ ✔ 

E.5 ........................................ Establishing New Volume Calculation 

Method.

Subpt. B ............................... ✔ ✔ 

E.6 ........................................ Control Settings for Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers During Testing.Subpt. B ............................... ✔ ✔ 

E.7 ........................................ Icemakers and Icemaking ........................... Subpt. B ............................... ✔ ✔ 

F.1 ........................................ Electric Heaters .......................................... No changes to the regulatory language are associated with these 

sections of the Final Rule 

F.2 ........................................ Vacuum Insulation Panel Performance ......

F.3 ........................................ Metric Units 

G.1 ........................................ Test Burden 

G.2 ........................................ Potential Amendments to Include Standby 

and Off Mode Energy Consumption.

G.3 ........................................ Addressing Changes in Measured Energy 

Use.

* See the Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement (CCE) NOPR, 75 FR 56796 (September 16, 2010). The changes discussed in section 

III.D.12 are discussed here but not included in this final rule—they will instead be implemented in the CCE rulemaking. 

A. Products Covered by the Proposed 

Revisions 

The NOPR solicited comments 

regarding certain definitions related to 

refrigeration products. In particular, 

DOE sought comment regarding a 

proposed modification to the electric 

refrigerator-freezer definition that would 

clarify that the fresh food compartments 

of these products are designed for the 

refrigerated storage of food at 

temperatures above 32 °F and below 39 

°F. DOE proposed this change to address 

the coverage of combination wine 

storage-freezer products (i.e. to exclude 

them from coverage as electric 

refrigerator-freezers), and to improve 

consistency with the current definition 

for electric refrigerators. 75 FR 29828– 

29829. 

Additionally, while DOE did not 

propose specific changes to the electric 

refrigerator definition, the agency 

solicited comments on possible 

improvements to enhance the 

definition’s clarity. Most of these 

comments addressed concerns about the 

32 °F to 39 °F temperature range, 

already part of the electric refrigerator 

definition, that DOE proposed in the 

NOPR to apply also to the electric 

refrigerator-freezer definition. These 

comments, applicable to both 

definitions, are discussed in section 

III.B below. 

AHAM also recommended that any 

changes to the definition for ‘‘electric 

refrigerator’’ and/or ‘‘electric refrigeratorfreezer’’ should also be made in the 

related Federal Trade Commission 

(FTC) Energy Guide labeling rules in 

order to ensure consistency across all 

government agencies. (AHAM, No. 16.1 

at p. 4) DOE notes that to achieve 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
78816 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

consistency, the FTC would need to 

update the definitions of ‘‘electric 

refrigerator’’ and ‘‘electric refrigeratorfreezer’’ in 16 CFR part 305.2. DOE will 

work with FTC to ensure that 

consistency is maintained between the 

two sets of regulations. 

With respect to freezers, DOE notes 

that its regulations currently define a 

freezer as ‘‘a cabinet designed as a unit 

for the freezing and storage of food at 

temperatures of 0 °F or below, and 

having a source of refrigeration 

requiring single phase, alternating 

current electric energy input only.’’ 10 

CFR 430.2. DOE did not propose 

altering this definition. 

Earthjustice commented that all 

products that can store frozen food 

should be covered as freezers, even if 

they cannot maintain temperature as 

low as 0 °F. The comment pointed to 

walk-in freezers as an example, which 

are statutorily defined as commercial 

equipment that maintain a temperature 

at or below 32 °F. (Earthjustice, No. 22.1 

at p. 2) See EISA 2007, sec. 312(a)(3) 

(codified at 42 U.S.C. 6311(20)) and 10 

CFR 431.302. DOE could define freezers 

in a similar manner, and may consider 

doing so in a future rulemaking. 

However, several reasons militate 

against such an approach at this time. 

Although Earthjustice raised the 

possibility that refrigeration products 

with compartment temperatures 

between 0 °F and 32 °F are being sold 

as freezers, they provided no 

information regarding how prevalent 

such sales might be, which would 

provide justification for immediate 

action. DOE is reluctant to apply the 

current energy standards for freezers to 

products that provide substandard 

performance because they do not 

achieve the temperatures specified for 

freezers. Instead, DOE would consider 

establishing standards with lower 

maximum energy levels for new freezer 

product classes that provide warmer 

freezing temperatures. However, such 

an approach would require developing 

appropriate product class definitions, as 

well as producing an analysis 

supporting the selection of appropriate 

energy standards. In order to properly 

examine Earthjustice’s proposed 

approach, DOE believes that a separate 

rulemaking would be the appropriate 

means of addressing this issue and 

would provide all interested parties 

with a sufficient opportunity for 

comment. Such a process is not in the 

scope of the current test procedure 

rulemaking or within the applicable 

timeframe, but DOE may consider 

Earthjustice’s approach when it reexamines this procedure. DOE also 

notes that creating such product classes 

and accompanying standards would 

create potential conflicts with the Joint 

Comment’s proposed levels that DOE is 

currently considering as part of its 

separate standards rulemaking. (See 

Joint Comment, No. 20.1 at p. 2). 

B. Combination Wine Storage-Freezer 

Units 

In its November 19, 2001, final rule, 

DOE amended its definition of electric 

refrigerators to exclude wine storage 

products. 66 FR 57845. DOE modified 

the definition to exclude products that 

do not maintain internal temperatures 

below 39 °F to clarify that wine coolers 

are not covered by DOE’s standards for 

refrigerators. The final rule explained 

that these products ‘‘are configured with 

special storage racks for wine bottles 

and in general do not attain as low a 

storage temperature as a standard 

refrigerator. These characteristics make 

them unsuitable for general long-term 

storage of perishable foods.’’ Id. at 

57846. The final rule also noted the 

small number of sales of these products 

and the likely absence of any significant 

impact from this approach. Id. 

When this change occurred, wine 

storage-freezer appliances were 

unavailable as a consumer product. 

Subsequently, when Liebherr 

Hausgera ̈te (Liebherr) introduced a line 

of wine storage-freezer appliances in 

2005, containing both freezer and wine 

storage compartments, they could not be 

accurately categorized by any of the 

current DOE product classes. Because of 

this gap, Liebherr petitioned the agency 

for a test procedure waiver to address 

this product, which DOE granted on 

April 24, 2007 (Liebherr waiver). 72 FR 

20333. The waiver specified that testing 

shall be conducted following the test 

procedure for refrigerator-freezers, 

except that the standard temperature for 

the wine-storage compartment shall be 

55 °F. Id. at 20334. 

DOE believes that the arguments 

made in favor of excluding wine storage 

products from the definition of electric 

refrigerators also apply to combination 

appliances such as these wine storagefreezer appliances. Consequently, in the 

NOPR, DOE proposed modifying the 

definition of refrigerator-freezer to 

exclude products which combine a 

freezer and a wine storage compartment. 

75 FR 29829. The proposed definition 

invoked the same clause used in the 

refrigerator definition, ‘‘designed for the 

refrigerated storage of food at 

temperatures above 32 °F and below 39 

°F’’, which would be applied to any 

fresh food compartments of refrigeratorfreezers. Id. 

AHAM, NRDC, Sub-Zero and 

Whirlpool all agreed with the principle 

of excluding such products from the 

refrigerator-freezer definition (AHAM, 

No. 16.1 at p. 10; NRDC No. 21.1 at p. 

5; Sub-Zero, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 10 at p. 32; Whirlpool No. 12.1 at 

p. 6). However, ACEEE, AHAM, SubZero, and Whirlpool all opposed the 

wording of the temperature range 

clause, commenting that this change 

appears to exclude all products that 

have the capability of temperatures 

warmer than 39 °F in the fresh food 

compartment. In their view, this 

exclusion would be inappropriate. 

(ACEEE, No. 19.1 at p.1; AHAM, No. 

16.1 at p. 4; AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at p. 24; Whirlpool, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 

27–28; Sub-Zero, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at p. 32; Whirlpool, 

No. 12.1 at p. 1) Whirlpool suggested 

that the definition impose a 39 °F 

maximum when the controls are set in 

the coldest position. (Whirlpool, No. 10 

at pp. 27–28; Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 

1) 

As mentioned above, the clause, 

‘‘designed for the refrigerated storage of 

food at temperatures above 32 °F and 

below 39 °F’’ was added to the electric 

refrigerator definition in 2001 to clarify 

that wine storage products are not 

refrigerators, since wine storage 

products are designed for warmer 

temperatures, and generally cannot 

achieve temperatures below 39 °F with 

temperature controls set in their coldest 

positions. 66 FR 57845. 

DOE does not intend to exclude from 

coverage those refrigeration products 

that are capable of controlling fresh food 

compartments at temperatures cooler 

than 39 °F at cold settings and warmer 

than 39 °F at warm settings, including 

those currently available on the market 

characterized as wine storage products. 

In response to these comments and to 

prevent the inadvertent exclusion of 

products, DOE is adjusting the 

definitions of both ‘‘electric refrigerator’’ 

and ‘‘electric refrigerator-freezer’’ to 

clarify that temperature control above 

39 °F is not a basis for exclusion from 

the definition. DOE will replace the 

temperature-range clause highlighted by 

stakeholders with ‘‘designed to be 

capable of achieving storage 

temperatures above 32 °F and below 39 

°F’’. The words ‘‘designed to be capable’’ 

are intended to clarify that (1) the 

product can achieve temperatures below 

39 °F, but that temperatures above 39 °F 

do not disqualify it from the definition, 

and (2) that a poorly constructed 

product that happens to be incapable of 

actually achieving the 39 °F is not 

excluded from coverage. Also, the 

specification of ‘‘storage temperatures’’ 

clarifies that the storage areas of the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78817 

product are subject to the 39 °F 

temperature requirement, rather than, 

for example, the evaporator, which may 

be somewhat colder during compressor 

operation. The storage temperature is 

distinct from ‘‘compartment 

temperature’’, which has a specific 

meaning as described in 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, appendix A1, section 

5.1.2. In particular, storage temperature 

is not subject to the requirements for 

averaging of temperature sensors within 

the compartment. DOE further notes 

that the definition does not specify the 

ambient conditions for which the 

storage temperature range applies. 

Hence, a product that achieves the 

storage temperature range in a 70 °F 

ambient but not during a 90 °F energy 

test is not excluded from coverage. 

Stakeholders also raised a related 

issue. AHAM asked if DOE had a 

proposal addressing combination wine 

storage-refrigerators, which Sanyo 

confirmed as having already been 

commercialized. (AHAM, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 30–31; 

Sanyo, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

10 at pp. 33–34) DOE had been unaware 

of such products and had not developed 

a proposal to address them. In light of 

potential coverage concerns, DOE is 

treating these combination products as 

covered products. DOE is concerned 

that removing such combination 

products from coverage could create a 

potentially significant gap within its 

regulatory program that could, in turn, 

undermine the Department’s efforts to 

improve the energy efficiency of 

consumer appliances. Manufacturers of 

products that cannot meet the required 

testing conditions prescribed by today’s 

rule would, as currently required, need 

to avail themselves of the waiver 

regulations in 10 CFR 430.27. DOE 

intends, however, to address such wine 

storage-refrigeration combination 

products further in a separate 

rulemaking. 

In light of these comments and 

concerns, DOE has modified its ‘‘electric 

refrigerator’’ definition to read as 

follows: 

Electric refrigerator means a cabinet 

designed for the refrigerated storage of 

food, designed to be capable of 

achieving storage temperatures above 32 

°F (0 °C) and below 39 °F (3.9 °C), and 

having a source of refrigeration 

requiring single phase, alternating 

current electric energy input only. An 

electric refrigerator may include a 

compartment for the freezing and 

storage of food at temperatures below 

32°F (0 °C), but does not provide a 

separate low temperature compartment 

designed for the freezing and storage of 

food at temperatures below 8 °F (¥13.3 

°C). 

DOE is also modifying its definition 

for ‘‘electric refrigerator-freezer’’ in a 

similar fashion to read as follows: 

Electric refrigerator-freezer means a 

cabinet which consists of two or more 

compartments with at least one of the 

compartments designed for the 

refrigerated storage of food and designed 

to be capable of achieving storage 

temperatures above 32 °F (0 °C) and 

below 39 °F (3.9 °C), and with at least 

one of the compartments designed for 

the freezing and storage of food at 

temperatures below 8 °F (¥13.3 °C) 

which may be adjusted by the user to a 

temperature of 0 °F (¥17.8 °C) or below. 

The source of refrigeration requires 

single phase, alternating current electric 

energy input only. 

These definitions exclude products 

with wine storage or other 

compartments that cannot attain 

temperatures suitable for fresh food 

storage. 

The Liebherr waiver will terminate on 

the effective date of this final rule, as 

indicated in the waiver. 72 FR 20333 

(April 24, 2007). To the extent that the 

products covered by this waiver do not 

meet the definition of electric 

refrigerator and electric refrigeratorfreezer, DOE plans to address these 

wine storage and related refrigeration 

products in a separate rulemaking. 

Finally, the Department clarifies that 

this final rule excludes most wine 

storage products because they are 

designed to be incapable of attaining 

temperatures suitable for fresh food 

storage (i.e., those temperatures below 

39 °F) and not because they store 

beverages rather than solid food. 

Although EPCA does not define the 

term ‘‘food,’’ a number of other federal 

statutes define ‘‘food’’ to include 

beverages. See 21 U.S.C. 321(f) (defining 

‘‘food’’ in the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act to include ‘‘articles used 

for food or drink for man or other 

animals’’; 15 U.S.C. 55(b) (using same 

definition in the false advertising 

context); 42 U.S.C. 1791(b)(4) (defining 

‘‘food’’ in the Bill Emerson Good 

Samaritan Food Donation Act as ‘‘any 

raw, cooked, processed, or prepared 

edible substance, ice, beverage, or 

ingredient used or intended for use in 

whole or in part for human 

consumption.’’) DOE believes that 

including beverages—such as milk, 

juice, wine and beer—within the 

meaning of the term ‘‘food’’ is likewise 

appropriate in the context of defining 

refrigeration products for purposes of 

the Federal energy conservation 

standards. Thus, those beverage storage 

products, including wine chillers, beer 

refrigerators, or other beverage 

refrigeration products, that are designed 

to be capable operating with storage 

temperatures below 39 °F are, and 

would continue to be treated as, 

refrigerators and would continue to 

remain subject to the current test 

procedures and energy conservation 

standards of 10 CFR part 430. 

C. Establishing New Appendices A and 

B, and Compliance Dates for the 

Amended Test Procedures 

DOE proposed to establish new 

Appendices A and B. In addition, DOE 

has now separated the amendments into 

two sets. The first set consists of 

amendments that must be in effect 

before the compliance date for the 2014 

residential refrigeration products energy 

conservation standards. The second set 

consists of amendments that must go 

into effect starting on the compliance 

date for the 2014 standards. The 

majority of the first set of amendments 

will be implemented as part of the 

currently existing Appendices A1 and 

B1. (The remaining amendments in the 

first set include changes to other related 

sections of the CFR, such as 10 CFR 

430.2 and 430.23.) The second set of 

amendments appears only in new 

Appendices A and B and constitutes the 

interim final rule of this notice. These 

new appendices will include all of the 

amendments implemented in 

Appendices A1 and B1. 

As indicated earlier, while the 

effective date for the final rule 

amendments is 30 days after the 

publication of this final rule in the 

Federal Register, only the amendments 

to Appendices A1 and B1 and to 10 CFR 

430.2 and 430.23 have an immediate 

impact on manufacturers. For purposes 

of representations, under 42 U.S.C. 

6293(c)(2), effective 180 days after DOE 

amends a test procedure, manufacturers 

cannot make representations regarding 

energy use and efficiency unless the 

product was tested in accordance with 

the amended procedure. A 

manufacturer, distributor, retailer or 

private labeler may petition DOE to 

obtain an extension of time for making 

these representations. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(c)(3)) For the purposes of this final 

rule, DOE interprets the date of 

amendment to be coincident with the 

date of publication of the final rule. 

Manufacturers will need to use new 

Appendices A and B once they are 

required to comply with the amended 

energy conservation standards. 

Likewise, Appendices A and B will be 

mandatory for representations regarding 

energy use or operating cost of these 

products once manufacturers must 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
78818 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

comply with the new energy 

conservation standards. 

Under EPCA, DOE must determine by 

December 31, 2010, whether to amend 

energy conservation standards that 

would apply to refrigeration products 

manufactured in 2014. DOE has 

proposed amending its energy 

conservation standards for these 

products, as required by 42 U.S.C. 

6293(e)(2). 75 FR 59470. The amended 

test procedures of Appendices A and B 

will be used in analyzing and finalizing 

the proposed standards. 

DOE received no comments opposing 

the approach of using the proposed new 

Appendices A and B to organize the 

staging of implementation of test 

procedure amendments. Therefore, the 

establishment of the new appendices 

remains as proposed in the NOPR. 

However, the effective date for the new 

appendices has been delayed 90 days to 

allow time for the comment period 

associated with the interim final rule. 

D. Amendments To Take Effect Prior to 

a New Energy Conservation Standard 

This section primarily addresses 

amendments that manufacturers must 

use prior to the compliance date for the 

new energy conservation standards. As 

described above, these amendments 

become effective in 30 days and will be 

required for certifying compliance with 

the current energy conservation 

standards and for representation 

purposes for products sold starting in 

180 days. As described for each of the 

subsections, these amendments are 

made in 10 CFR 430.23. 10 CFR 

430.32(a), and to the appropriate 

sections of Appendices A1 and B1. 

These amendments also appear in the 

new Appendices A and B. 

Two of the amendments discussed in 

this section are made only in 

Appendices A and B. These 

amendments are included in sections 

III.D.2 and III.D.5 because they fall 

under the general topics of these 

subsections, which also address 

amendments made in Appendices A1 

and B1. 

DOE invited comment on whether any 

of the proposed amendments would 

affect measured energy use and asked 

commenters to quantify any potential 

impacts. AHAM identified four 

proposed amendments that would have 

a significant impact on measured energy 

use: (1) The test method for products 

with variable anti-sweat heaters; (2) the 

test procedures for convertible and 

special compartments; (3) the modified 

test procedure for products with longtime or variable defrost to capture 

precooling energy use; and (4) the 

proposed changes addressing multiple 

defrost cycle types. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at 

p. 3). The PRC indicated that measured 

energy use would be increased by: (1) 

The proposed test procedures 

addressing products with variable antisweat heaters and (2) modification of 

test procedures for products with longtime or variable defrost to capture 

precooling energy use. (PRC, No. 15.1 at 

p. 4) Whirlpool commented that a 

number of the amendments proposed to 

take effect prior to the new energy 

conservation standards would have a 

significant impact on measured energy 

use, manufacturer cost, facilities, testing 

capability, lead time, or combination 

thereof and requested that they not take 

effect prior to January 1, 2014: (1) 

Revision of the refrigerator definition; 

(2) test procedures for convertible and 

special compartments; (3) test 

procedures for products with variable 

anti-sweat heating; (4) modification of 

the test procedure for long-time or 

variable defrost to capture precooling 

energy; (5) procedures for products with 

multiple defrost cycle types; (6) 

clarification of instructions regarding 

the presence of ice in the ice bin during 

testing; and (7) disallowing energy use 

ratings for products that fail to meet 

standardized temperatures. (Whirlpool, 

No. 12.1 at p. 2) 

DOE obtained clarification from 

Whirlpool that all of the above-cited 

proposals would affect measured energy 

use. Whirlpool also clarified how two of 

these proposed amendments affect 

measured energy use. The proposed 

refrigerator definition change would, in 

Whirlpool’s view, make it impossible to 

set fresh food compartments at 

temperatures above 39 °F during testing, 

as compared with current testing with 

temperatures bracketing the 45 °F 

standardized temperature because the 

reduced compartment temperature 

would result in higher thermal load and 

energy use. Whirlpool also asserted that 

the proposed test procedure clarification 

that ice should not be in the ice bin 

during testing would change the 

measurement for manufacturers that 

currently test with the ice bins filled. 

(Whirlpool provided no evidence that 

any manufacturer tests in this fashion). 

(Clarification of Written Comments 

Submitted by Whirlpool Corporation, 

No. 35 at p. 1) The available information 

indicates otherwise—that all 

manufacturers test products without ice 

in the bins, due to AHAM support of the 

CSA Informs Bulletin of August 24, 

2009, which discusses ‘‘mechanically 

simulating an ice-bin-full condition that 

produces identical results to testing 

with a full bin of ice’’ (AHAM 

Preliminary Proposal for RefrigeratorFreezer Verification Program, No. 30 at 

p. 4). NRDC filed comments asking that 

the procedures be effective as soon as is 

practical but offered no information 

regarding the potential measured energy 

use impacts of the proposed 

amendments. (NRDC, No. 21.1 at p. 2) 

No commenter quantified the energy 

measurement impacts of the proposed 

amendments cited as having an impact 

on measurements. Consequently, DOE 

has no data or other factual 

information—other than what it 

developed on its own—with which to 

analyze the possible impacts flowing 

from its proposed amendments. 

Nevertheless, DOE gave careful 

consideration to these comments and 

made several modifications to its 

proposals to address the concerns raised 

by individual commenters. These 

modifications are described in detail in 

the sections that follow. 

1. Procedures for Test Sample 

Preparation 

To make the current procedure more 

clear, the NOPR proposed changing the 

manner in which samples are prepared 

for testing. Specifically, DOE proposed 

the following: 

• Removing the text ‘‘as nearly as 

practicable’’ from the current set-up 

instructions that require testing set up to 

be in accordance with the printed 

instructions supplied with the cabinet, 

and adding specific deviations from this 

requirement for test repeatability and 

flexibility. This change was proposed 

for section 2 of Appendices A1, B1, A, 

and B in lieu of the current test 

procedure’s reference to HRF–1–1979. 

75 FR 29830. 

• Adding ‘‘anti-circumvention’’ 

language in 10 CFR 430.23(a) and (b). Id. 

• Requiring manufacturers to seek a 

waiver in those cases where (1) the 

prescribed test procedures do not yield 

measurements that would be 

representative of the product’s energy 

use during normal consumer use, or (2) 

the set-up instructions are unclear. 

These requirements were proposed to be 

codified by portions of the proposed 

text described in the first two bullets 

above (in section 2 of Appendices A1, 

B1, A, and B, and in 10 CFR 430.23(a) 

and (b)), and by a new section 7 of 

Appendices A1, B1, A, and B. Id. 

As part of the changes described in 

the first bullet above, the NOPR 

proposed to add specific deviations 

from the installation instructions 

supplied with the product: 

(a) Not requiring the connection of 

water lines and installation of water 

filters during testing; 

(b) Requiring clearance requirements 

from product surfaces to be consistent 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78819 

with those described elsewhere in the 

test procedure; 

(c) Requiring the use of an electric 

power supply as described in HRF–1– 

2008, section 5.5.1; 

(d) Applying the temperature control 

settings for testing as described in 

section 3 of Appendix A1, B1, A, or B 

but requiring the settings for convertible 

compartments and other temperaturecontrollable or special compartments to 

be those settings that are described 

elsewhere in the test procedure; and 

(e) Not requiring the anchoring or 

securing of a product to prevent tipping 

during energy testing. 

Id. 

DOE sought comment on these 

proposals and specifically asked for 

suggestions regarding the need for 

additional deviations from the 

installation instructions. 

AHAM and Whirlpool supported 

removing the words ‘‘as nearly as 

practical’’ from the test sample 

preparation language. (AHAM, No. 16.1 

at p. 4; Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 2). 

Electrolux commented that any 

deviations in product set-up should be 

specified in the owner’s manual. 

(Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell H8). No 

other suggestions were offered by 

commenters. 

In response to the Electrolux 

comment, DOE believes that most of the 

deviations proposed in the NOPR are 

necessary in order to allow for 

consistent and repeatable testing. For 

instance, voltage requirements can play 

a role in determining the measured 

energy use of a particular product. 

Product owner manuals, however, do 

not specify a voltage range with the tight 

tolerance specified in HRF–1–1979 

section 7.4.1 (within 1% of 115 volts). 

Instead, they typically allow 

refrigeration products to operate with 

electric power sources with a range of 

voltages near the nominal values. GE’s 

owner’s manual for GE Profile Side by 

Side refrigerators is one such example. 

The instructions do not specify an 

allowable voltage range other than that 

‘‘[t]he refrigerator should always be 

plugged into its own individual 

electrical outlet which has a voltage 

rating that matches the rating plate.’’ 

(Profile Side by Side Refrigerators, No. 

28 at p. 4) The online specifications for 

one of these products provide only a 

nominal voltage: ‘‘Volts/Hertz/Amps 

120v; 60Hz; 15A’’ (GE ENERGY STAR 

25.9 Cu. Ft. Side-by-Side Refrigerator 

with Dispenser, No. 29 at p. 2) DOE 

believes that the tight tolerance on the 

voltage specification specified in HRF– 

1–1979 is necessary in order to assure 

repeatable testing. Repeatable testing 

that yields measurements that can be 

compared across product lines requires 

the use of consistent testing conditions, 

such as the use of an electric supply 

with a voltage very close to the nominal 

115 volts. This is just one example of 

the need for the specific deviations from 

manufacturer’s instructions proposed in 

the NOPR. Likewise, many of the other 

proposed deviations are also necessary 

to assure test repeatability. DOE believes 

that some of the other proposed 

deviations, such as not requiring 

connection of water lines and waiving 

instructions to secure the product so 

that it will not tip, do not affect the 

energy use measurement. DOE notes 

that Electrolux did not identify which of 

the proposed deviations are problematic 

nor did it explain the reasons for its 

position. No other stakeholders 

expressed concern about the deviations. 

Hence, DOE is adopting these deviations 

as proposed. 

Regarding the ‘‘anti-circumvention’’ 

language, AHAM and Whirlpool urged 

DOE to adopt the exact language of 

HRF–1–2008, as adopted by ENERGY 

STAR, which does not use the term 

‘‘average consumer use’’. (AHAM, No. 

16.1 at p. 4; Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 

2). AHAM requested that if DOE decides 

to use the term ‘‘average consumer use’’, 

DOE should define the term, provide the 

data upon which the determination is 

reached, and allow for comment before 

releasing the final rule. (AHAM, No. 

16.1 at pp. 4–5). Electrolux commented 

that the language would be acceptable if 

the 70 °F ambient condition is 

highlighted. (Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, 

cell H12). 

As discussed in the NOPR, DOE’s 

proposal reflects the statutory 

requirement, and the Department’s 

longstanding view, that the overall 

objective of the test procedure is to 

measure the product’s energy 

consumption during a representative 

average use cycle or period of use. 42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)(3). Further, the test 

procedure requires specific conditions 

during testing that are designed to 

ensure repeatability while avoiding 

excessive testing burden. DOE’s test 

procedures are carefully designed and 

circumscribed in order to attain an 

overall calculated measurement of 

average energy consumption during 

representative use, though certain 

conditions may not individually appear 

to be representative of the average use 

cycle. DOE has held the consistent view 

that products should not be designed in 

a way that would cause energy 

consumption to drop during testing as a 

result of these apparently 

unrepresentative conditions. Doing so 

would result in a biased measurement 

that would be unrepresentative of 

average consumer use and would 

circumvent the total test procedure. 

The concept of average consumer use 

is not intended to represent an annual 

energy use in kWh to which a 

measurement according to the test 

procedure can be compared. Nor is it 

intended to represent a specific set of 

conditions for parameters that can affect 

energy use (including ambient 

temperature, ambient humidity, door 

opening patterns, etc.). Instead, 

deviation of a test procedure 

measurement from average consumer 

use must be established based on the 

specific control features used by a 

product and consideration of whether 

the product or any of its components 

operate in a fundamentally different 

way during the energy test than they 

would during representative consumer 

use. To this end, the NOPR provided an 

example of a product with anti-sweat 

heaters that are controlled by a 

humidity sensor. In a test under the 

current test procedure, the humidity of 

the test chamber is uncontrolled. 

Because the relative humidity level 

during a test could be at any level 

between 0% and 100%, it is unlikely 

that the measured energy use of the antisweat heaters under the current test 

would yield results consistent with their 

average energy use in a home. 

The average consumer use concept is 

also illustrated in DOE’s ‘‘Additional 

Guidance Regarding Application of 

Current Procedures for Testing Energy 

Consumption of Refrigerator-Freezers 

With Automatic Ice Makers’’. 75 FR 

2122 (January 14, 2010). This document 

provides guidance regarding test set up 

for icemakers, particularly for 

refrigerator-freezers with bottommounted freezers and through-the-door 

ice service. In explaining that the 

icemaker must remain on but not 

producing ice, DOE noted that ‘‘keeping 

the ice maker and its associated 

components on, but preventing them 

from making ice, better represents the 

average use of a refrigerator-freezer, 

such as when the machine has a full bin 

of ice in a consumer’s home. Turning off 

either the ice maker or components 

associated with the ice maker, by 

contrast, does not represent the average 

use of a refrigerator-freezer, and may 

cause the machine to consume less 

energy than when the ice maker is on, 

but not making ice.’’ Id. at 2123. 

Hence, DOE believes that the concept 

of average consumer use, as used, for 

example, in the icemaker treatment 

guidance described above, is sufficiently 

understood in the context of the 

regulatory language. Therefore the 

phrase has neither been eliminated from 

the amended language nor specifically 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
78820 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

defined. The concept is invoked in the 

proposed passage that requires 

manufacturers to obtain a waiver if a 

product operates in a way that makes 

the test procedure unsuitable for 

measuring its energy use. The language 

retains this passage to reinforce EPCA’s 

requirement that the test procedures 

measure energy use under a 

representative average use cycle or 

period of use. 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3). 

However, DOE has considered 

comments favoring the adoption of the 

existing anti-circumvention language in 

HRF–1–2008, which were based on the 

collective belief that harmonization of 

anti-circumventions language will 

improve compliance. The modified anticircumvention language that DOE is 

adopting today retains all of the HRF– 

1–2008 text and reads as follows: 

The following principles of 

interpretation should be applied to the 

test procedure. The intent of the energy 

test procedure is to simulate typical 

room conditions (approximately 70 °F 

(21 °C)) with door openings, by testing 

at 90 °F (32.2 °C) without door 

openings. Except for operating 

characteristics that are affected by 

ambient temperature (for example, 

compressor percent run time), the unit, 

when tested under this test procedure, 

shall operate in a manner equivalent to 

the unit in typical room conditions. The 

energy used by the unit shall be 

calculated when a calculation is 

provided by the test procedure. Energy 

consuming components that operate in 

typical room conditions (including as a 

result of door openings, or a function of 

humidity), and that are not exempted by 

this test procedure, shall operate in an 

equivalent manner during energy testing 

under this test procedure, or be 

accounted for by all calculations as 

provided for in the test procedure. If (1) 

a product contains energy consuming 

components that operate differently 

during the prescribed testing than they 

would during representative average 

consumer use and (2) applying the 

prescribed test to that product would 

evaluate it in a manner that is 

unrepresentative of its true energy 

consumption (thereby providing 

materially inaccurate comparative data), 

a manufacturer must obtain a waiver in 

accordance with the relevant provisions 

of 10 CFR 430. Examples: 

1. Energy saving features that are 

designed to be activated by a lack of 

door openings shall not be functional 

during the energy test. 

2. The defrost heater should not either 

function or turn off differently during 

the energy test than it would when 

operating in typical room conditions. 

3. Electric heaters that would 

normally operate at typical room 

conditions with door openings should 

also operate during the energy test. 

4. Energy used during adaptive 

defrost shall continue to be tested and 

adjusted per the calculation provided 

for in this test procedure. 

This modification includes the 

specification of 70 °F as typical for room 

conditions, as requested in the 

Electrolux comment. (Electrolux, No. 

17.2 at p. 1, cell H12). It also includes 

the proposed requirement that a 

manufacturer must petition for a waiver 

when the test procedure cannot be used 

to measure the energy use of a product. 

DOE dropped the proposed text’s 

description of a type of product feature 

that would make the energy test 

procedure unsuitable for testing the 

product: ‘‘smoothly varying functions of 

the operating conditions and the control 

inputs.’’ AHAM viewed this clause as 

deficient. (AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at p. 43). Upon reexamining this example, DOE 

acknowledges that the control systems 

that this example attempted to highlight 

are not necessarily incompatible with 

the test procedure. One such system is 

the variable anti-sweat heater control 

system, which can use on/off control or 

discrete power input steps rather than a 

gradual increase in power as humidity 

increases. An on/off control system is 

not ‘‘smoothly varying’’, but that does 

not necessarily mean that the test 

procedure cannot provide a 

representative measurement. 

Accordingly, DOE decided to eliminate 

this example from the proposed 

regulatory text. 

Regarding the proposed requirement 

for a manufacturer to obtain a waiver, 

Whirlpool and AHAM commented that 

DOE should use an expedited process 

such as the FAQ process to address 

variations in setup instead of the 

complex and lengthy waiver process. 

(Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 2; AHAM, No. 

16.1 at p. 5). Whirlpool also commented 

that any process used to address 

exceptions should involve less 

disclosure of design details than the 

waiver process. (Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at 

p. 3). 

DOE appreciates the significance of 

the issues raised by the commenters 

regarding the waiver process. Separate 

from this proceeding, DOE has launched 

a new online database offering guidance 

on the Department’s test procedures for 

consumer products and commercial 

equipment. See http://www1.eere.

energy.gov/guidance/default.aspx?pid=

2&spid=1. The new database will 

provide a publicly accessible forum for 

anyone with questions about—or 

needing clarification of—DOE’s test 

procedures. However, the Department’s 

waiver process covers cases where ‘‘the 

basic model contains one or more 

design characteristics which either 

prevent testing of the basic model 

according to the prescribed test 

procedures, or the prescribed test 

procedures may evaluate the basic 

model in a manner so unrepresentative 

of its true energy consumption 

characteristics * * * as to provide 

materially inaccurate comparative data.’’ 

(10 CFR 430.27(a)(1)). The language 

DOE is adopting simply reiterates this 

requirement and illustrates specific 

cases in which it applies to refrigeration 

products. Hence, the amended test 

procedures retain the proposed language 

requiring manufacturers to seek a 

waiver if that product, when tested 

under the prescribed procedure, would 

produce results unrepresentative of that 

product’s true energy consumption. 

2. Product Clearance Distances to Walls 

During Testing 

DOE proposed to modify the rear wall 

clearance requirement during testing by 

adding a new rear wall clearance 

subsection as part of section 2 of 

Appendices A1, B1, A, and B. 75 FR 

29832. Wall clearance is a necessary 

element to refrigerator and refrigeratorfreezer energy efficiency testing because 

condenser performance is affected by 

the amount of available air flow. The 

condenser removes heat from the 

refrigeration system to the ambient air 

and placing the back of a refrigerator 

closer to a wall can restrict the amount 

of condenser air flow. Reducing this air 

flow can impact the energy 

consumption of a tested product—the 

condenser will need to operate at a 

higher temperature, which implies a 

higher discharge pressure and higher 

power input for the compressor. 

Similarly, increasing the distance 

between the refrigerator and wall can 

ease the load on the compressor, which 

lowers the tested product’s overall 

energy consumption. In this regard, the 

current procedure references HRF–1– 

1979, which provides that ‘‘[t]he space 

between the back [of the cabinet] and 

the wall shall be in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s instructions or as 

determined by mechanical stops on the 

back of the cabinet.’’ (HRF–1–1979, 

section 7.4.2) (10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, appendix A1, section 2.2). 

In contrast, HRF–1–2008 provides 

greater detail by specifying that ‘‘the 

space between the back and the test 

room wall or simulated wall shall be the 

minimum distance in accordance with 

the manufacturer’s instructions or as 

determined by mechanical stops on the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78821 

back of the cabinet.’’ (HRF–1–2008, 

section 5.5.2). 

DOE proposed to include in 

Appendices A1, B1, A, and B, language 

that would help clarify the applicable 

clearance distances: 

2.9 The space between the back of 

the cabinet and the test room wall or 

simulated wall shall be the minimum 

distance in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s instructions. If the 

instructions do not specify a minimum 

distance, the cabinet shall be located 

such that the rear of the cabinet touches 

the test room wall or simulated wall. 

The test room wall facing the rear of the 

cabinet or the simulated wall shall be 

flat within 1⁄4 inch, and vertical to 

within 1 degree. The cabinet shall be 

leveled to within 1 degree of true level, 

and positioned with its rear wall 

parallel to the test chamber wall or 

simulated wall immediately behind the 

cabinet. Any simulated wall shall be 

solid and shall extend vertically from 

the floor to above the height of the 

cabinet and horizontally beyond both 

sides of the cabinet. 

75 FR 29832. 

DOE believes that these proposed 

requirements are consistent with the 

current test procedures, as well as the 

clearance requirements found in HRF– 

1–1979 and HRF–1–2008. 

AHAM and Whirlpool suggested 

using less complex language that simply 

required the space between the back of 

the cabinet and the wall to be the 

minimum distance in accordance with 

manufacturer’s instructions. (AHAM, 

No. 16.1 at p. 9; Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at 

p. 6) Electrolux noted that some 

products lack automatic door closers, 

and that they are installed in an 

orientation tipped slightly rearward for 

gravity to assist in door closing. The 

product owner’s manual includes 

instruction for further adjustment for 

unlevel flooring for proper operation of 

the product. (Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 

1, cell H18). 

NRDC requested that DOE specify the 

maximum distance allowable for 

clearance during testing to avoid 

potential gaming by manufacturers 

seeking to maximize the amount of 

cooling space around the condenser 

coil. (NRDC, No. 21.1 at p. 5). Fisher & 

Paykel suggested that the DOE test 

procedure be synchronized with the IEC 

test procedure by specifying a maximum 

allowable distance of not more than ‘‘50 

mm from the plane of the back panel to 

the vertical surface unless any 

permanent rear spacers extend further 

than that. In that case, the appliance 

shall be located so that those spacers are 

in contact with the vertical surface.’’ 

(Fisher & Paykel, No. 24.2 at p. 1). 

Although DOE is adjusting its 

approach to account for the issues 

raised by some manufacturers, DOE 

shares the concerns of NRDC and Fisher 

& Paykel regarding the potential 

selection of a rear clearance instruction 

in owners’ manuals that is 

unrealistically large. In some cases such 

as chest freezers, the specified rear 

clearance is consistent with reasonable 

best practice, but is still large enough 

that many consumers may ignore the 

instruction. For instance, the GE Model 

FCM20SUWW 20-cubic foot chest 

freezer’s installation manual 

recommends a three-inch clearance 

(Food Freezers, No. 31 at p. 13), but 

DOE suspects that many consumers do 

not maintain this clearance. The 

purpose of requiring permanent 

mechanical spacers to be installed on 

the product if the rear clearance needs 

to be greater than a certain distance is 

to ensure consistency between the test 

procedure and field use of the product. 

By setting this requirement at a larger, 

rather than smaller, rear clearance, this 

approach has a greater potential to save 

energy in the field. 

The modified requirement will 

incorporate the language suggested by 

AHAM. This modification is made to 

section 3 of Appendices A1, B1, A, and 

B. 

The additional provision suggested by 

Fisher & Paykel requiring use of 

mechanical stops if testing is conducted 

with clearances larger than a threshold 

value will also be implemented in 

Appendices A and B, using the 

suggested 50 mm threshold value, 

which converts to 2 inches in English 

units. 

3. Alternative Compartment 

Temperature Sensor Locations 

DOE proposed to modify section 5.1 

of Appendix A1 (alternative 

temperature sensor locations) in order to 

provide clearer instructions and to 

reduce the incidence of deviation from 

the standard temperature sensor 

locations. The proposal would have 

permitted manufacturer selection of 

new locations only in cases where small 

deviations from the standard locations 

were involved. Otherwise, a 

manufacturer would need to petition for 

a waiver. 75 FR 29832. DOE proposed 

this approach to facilitate the 

development of new diagrams 

addressing new compartment 

configurations. In DOE’s view, these 

new diagrams would help ensure future 

coverage of a broader range of potential 

configurations in the standard set of 

diagrams that currently exist. Broader 

coverage in standardized diagrams 

would help improve test consistency. 

Additionally, DOE proposed that where 

sensor locations deviated less than 2 

inches from their standard locations, a 

manufacturer could simply report that 

the locations changed in the 

certification report and identify the 

locations of these deviations in the 

product’s certification test reports. Id. 

DOE also sought comment on the 

frequency of temperature sensor 

location revisions from the 

specifications of the figures of HRF–1– 

1979, and on whether the proposed 

exception allowing for minor relocation 

of sensors is sufficient to limit to a 

reasonable level the potential number of 

waivers associated with the proposed 

requirement. 

AHAM, Whirlpool, and Sub-Zero 

supported a requirement that 

manufacturers must report changes to 

temperature sensor locations as long as 

such information is treated 

confidentially until the certification 

report is submitted to DOE. (AHAM, No. 

16.1 at p. 5; AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 48–49; 

Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 3; Sub-Zero, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 

51). AHAM and Sub-Zero commented 

that alternative temperature sensor 

placement should not require a waiver 

under the current waiver procedure due 

to the public nature of the process and 

the delay in time to market that it can 

cause. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 5; SubZero, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 

at pp. 51–52). Electrolux commented 

that HRF–1–2008 requires even spacing 

of shelving within the product, which 

can create conflicts between the 

placement of drawers or pans and the 

specified sensor locations. Electrolux 

also recommended reporting of 

alternative locations in certification 

reports. (Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell 

H20). 

DOE appreciates the manufacturers’ 

sensitivity regarding time and 

confidentiality. In light of this concern, 

and the absence of any comments to the 

contrary, DOE has decided to eliminate 

its proposed waiver requirement. 

Instead, the use of alternative 

temperature sensor locations will be 

required to be reported in the 

certification report. These nonstandard 

sensor locations, whether significant or 

minor deviations, would be reported in 

the certification test reports. These 

modified amendments make any public 

disclosure of proprietary information 

unnecessary until product certification, 

as requested by stakeholders. DOE will 

make these changes in section 5.1 of 

Appendices A1, B1, A, and B, which 

will include the requirement to identify 

the new sensor locations in test reports, 

and in a new 10 CFR part 429, which 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
78822 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

2 ‘‘Australian/New Zealand Standard, 

Performance of Household Electrical Appliances— 

Refrigerating Appliances, Part 1: Energy 

Consumption and Performance’’, AS/NZS 4474. 

1:2007, Appendix M, available for purchase at 

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

aspx?searchType=simple&publisher=all&keyword=

AS/NZS%204474 

will provide the amended list of data 

required in the certification report. The 

part 429 changes, if adopted, will be 

made as part of the Certification, 

Compliance, and Enforcement (CCE) 

rulemaking. See 75 FR 56796, 56819 

(September 16, 2010). In addition, 

because new requirements for the 

maintenance of records are under 

consideration as part of a new 10 CFR 

part 429, the proposed clarification for 

the section 5.1 amendments regarding 

test reports (i.e., that manufacturers 

maintain test data records ‘‘in 

accordance with 10 CFR 430.62(d).’’) 

will be treated separately as part of the 

ongoing CCE rulemaking. This potential 

requirement is also discussed in section 

III.D.12. 

4. Median Temperature Settings for 

Electronic Control Products and 

Establishment of Dual Standardized 

Temperatures 

Median Temperature Settings 

DOE proposed to modify the test 

procedure language related to 

temperature control settings, as detailed 

in section 3 of Appendix A1, to clarify 

the procedure for products with 

electronic controls. Many current 

products have electronic controls, 

which generally have setpoints 

indicating specific control temperatures. 

Section 3.2.1 indicates that a first test is 

conducted with temperature controls set 

in a median position. For electronic 

controls, an average of the coldest and 

warmest temperature settings is 

generally used as the median 

temperature for purposes of testing. 

However, in some cases there is no 

temperature setting exactly equal to this 

average, and the controls cannot be 

mechanically defeated as described in 

the procedure. 

DOE proposed that the test procedure 

specify that products equipped with 

such electronic controls be tested using 

one of the following three options: (1) 

Use of a setting equal to the average of 

the coldest and warmest settings, (2) use 

of the setting that is closest to this 

average, or (3) if there are two settings 

whose difference with the average is the 

same, use of the higher of these two 

settings. This modification was 

proposed for Appendices A1 and B1 

and would be retained for new 

Appendices A and B. 75 FR 29833. 

AHAM supported the proposed 

approach. (AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at p. 55; AHAM, No. 

16.1 at p. 10). During the public 

meeting, the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) 

recommended that DOE consider 

adopting what is commonly known as 

the ‘‘triangulation approach’’ in place of 

the interpolation approach. (NIST, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 

55–56). The triangulation approach, 

which has been a part of the Australian/ 

New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4474 2

for many years, maps both the 

refrigerator and freezer compartment 

temperatures exactly to the target 

temperatures by allowing up to three 

control setting combinations 

surrounding the standardized 

compartment temperatures. GE 

concurred that this approach is more 

flexible and repeatable, because it gives 

results at the exact desired sets of 

temperatures (i.e. 0 °F/39 °F for testing 

starting in 2014—see section III.E.4 

below) rather than close to those 

temperatures. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 58–59). 

Whirlpool agreed that the triangulation 

approach may be appropriate for 

adopting into the DOE test procedure in 

the future, but that it would incur 

redevelopment expense if introduced 

now. (Whirlpool, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at p. 59). GE 

indicated that the triangulation 

approach could be adopted as an option 

for temperature settings, rather than the 

required procedure. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at p. 59). AHAM also 

supported adopting the triangulation 

approach as an option. (AHAM, No. 

16.1 at p. 10). 

While the triangulation method 

presents advantages with respect to 

temperature settings, the adoption of 

this method will require additional 

examination by DOE to ascertain its 

suitability for inclusion as part of its 

regulations. DOE may further examine 

this method with greater scrutiny as part 

of a future rulemaking to amend its test 

procedure. In light of the significant 

changes already being introduced to the 

final rule that is being adopted today, 

and in recognition of the fact that a 

procedure needs to be finalized in 

coordination with the parallel standards 

rulemaking that is underway, DOE is 

declining to adopt the triangulation 

method as part of today’s rule. 

Accordingly, based on the above 

considerations, DOE is adopting the 

proposed amendments addressing 

median temperature settings for 

electronic control products. 

Dual Standardized Temperatures 

DOE proposed extensive changes to 

instructions for setting temperatures as 

part of Appendices A and B. 75 FR 

29843–29846. One concept adopted for 

these changes included using dual 

standardized temperatures for 

refrigerator-freezers and basic 

refrigerators—products that have two (or 

more) compartments. The current test 

procedures allow manufacturers to 

select ‘‘second-test’’ temperature settings 

based only on test results for the freezer 

compartment. (See Appendix A1, 

section 3.2 and sections 3.2.1 through 

3.2.3). NIST advised DOE that, in 

practice, manufacturers use the warmest 

setting for the second test only when 

both compartments are cooler than their 

standardized temperatures during the 

first test. DOE asked stakeholders to 

help clarify the approach for setting of 

temperature controls for such products. 

75 FR 29846. 

GE commented that manufacturers 

currently use the approach described by 

DOE. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 10 at pp. 137–138). DOE received no 

comments indicating that its 

understanding of the manufacturers’ 

approach to temperature settings is 

incorrect. In particular, DOE received no 

comments from any manufacturer that 

uses any different approach for setting 

of temperature controls. Hence, DOE 

will implement this change in 

Appendices A1 and A. 

5. Test Procedures for Convertible 

Compartments and Special 

Compartments 

DOE proposed changing the test 

procedure for special compartments to 

make this procedure consistent with the 

convertible compartment test procedure. 

75 FR 29833. Under the current DOE 

test procedure, which references section 

7.4.2 of HRF–1–1979, ‘‘compartments 

which are convertible from refrigerator 

to freezer are operated in the highest 

energy usage position.’’ (This section of 

HRF–1–1979 is referenced in Appendix 

A1, section 2.2.) The procedure for 

special compartments calls for the 

controls to be ‘‘set to provide the coldest 

temperature’’. (HRF–1–1979 section 

7.4.2) To simplify these requirements to 

make them consistent with each other, 

DOE proposed to require the highest 

energy use position for both convertible 

and special compartments. 75 FR 29833. 

DOE also proposed to specify that if 

a convertible compartment has external 

doors (i.e. that the compartment’s doors 

open directly to the exterior of the 

product), the compartment shall be 

tested as a fresh food or freezer 

compartment, whichever of these 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78823 

3 ‘‘32nd Annual Portrait of the U.S. Appliance 

Industry’’, Appliance Magazine, September 2009, 

Vol. 66, No. 7. 

4Shipments of standard-size refrigerator-freezers 

were near 10 million in 2008, while shipments of 

compact refrigerators, standard-size freezers, and 

compact freezers totaled close to 4.5 million. See 

the TSD, Chapter 3, ‘‘Market and Technology 

Assessment’’, section 3.2.6.1. 

functions represents the highest energy 

use position. Id. Such an approach is 

different than requiring the highest 

energy use position for the 

compartment. For example, a 

compartment that can be controlled for 

any temperature between ¥5 °F and 35 

°F would likely use the most energy at 

its ¥5 °F setting. However, testing the 

compartment as a freezer compartment, 

which would most likely represent a 

higher energy use than when testing that 

compartment as a fresh food 

compartment, would place its energy 

use at a 5 °F standardized temperature 

under the current test procedure. 

Testing the compartment as a freezer 

compartment would involve a 

temperature setting 10 °F warmer than 

testing in the highest energy use 

position. This scenario would most 

likely use less energy than using the ¥5 

°F setting. The proposal retained the 

current instructions to use the highest 

energy use position to test convertible 

compartments that do not have external 

doors. DOE also proposed a definition 

for ‘‘separate auxiliary compartments’’ to 

identify compartments that have doors 

that open to the product’s exterior. Id. 

ACEEE supported the proposal to test 

special compartments in their highest 

energy usage position, adding that, in 

the absence of data detailing how such 

compartments are used by consumers, 

the highest energy usage position makes 

the most sense. (ACEEE, No. 19.1 at p. 

1). NRDC also supported the proposal to 

test special compartments in their 

maximum energy use position to assure 

that energy ratings are not overly 

optimistic. (NRDC, No. 21.1 at p. 3). 

Other stakeholders opposed the 

proposal for special compartments, and 

some offered alternative approaches. 

AHAM and Whirlpool claimed that a 

change from the lowest temperature 

setting to highest energy use would add 

test burden, because multiple tests may 

be required to determine which setting 

results in the highest energy use 

measurement. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 5; 

AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

10 at p. 61; Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 3). 

AHAM claimed that virtually every 

model, without identifying any 

representative models, has temperature 

controllable compartments, and thus the 

proposed change could dramatically 

increase the test burdens on all 

manufacturers. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 

5). Electrolux commented that the 

highest energy use approach is unclear. 

(Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell H28). 

Electrolux discussed some of the 

complications associated with the 

highest energy use position 

requirement, mentioning (a) the 

difference between externally-accessible 

and internally-accessible compartments 

(e.g. such as internal drawers), (b) the 

possibility that the highest energy use 

position is not necessarily consistent 

with normal use, and (c) compartments 

that may engage a feature that increases 

energy use for a limited period of time. 

(Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell H26). 

Electrolux also questioned DOE’s 

suggestion of a 2 cubic foot maximum 

size delineator for special 

compartments. (Electrolux, No. 17.2 at 

p. 1, cell H28). The PRC echoed 

Electrolux’s comment (b) above, 

indicating that use of the highest energy 

use position may not be the best 

representation of the ‘‘actual use’’. (PRC, 

No. 15.1 at p. 5). 

Additionally, Electrolux pointed out 

the need for definitions to help clarify 

the functions of different compartments, 

indicating that there are many different 

types of compartments, and the test 

procedures may not be the same for all 

of them. (Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, 

cell H26). To this end, AHAM offered 

definitions for both ‘‘compartment’’ and 

‘‘sub-compartment’’, presumably with 

the intent that the proposed 

amendments may apply to one of these 

types and not the other. (AHAM, No. 

16.1 at p. 11). Whirlpool recommended 

that special compartments subject to the 

proposed approach should not exceed 

10% of total capacity (total product 

volume), adding that temperatures 

should be volume-weighted, but did not 

elaborate. (Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 3). 

AHAM recommended using volumeweighted temperature averaging for 

special compartments, but did not 

provide reasons for adopting this 

approach. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 6). 

Electrolux recommended that DOE 

consider including a volume adjustment 

factor dependent on the (typically 

cooler) temperature of a special 

compartment when determining a 

product’s adjusted volume. While such 

a change may impact the related energy 

usage calculations, it would not affect 

the manner in which test sample is set 

up or the test is conducted and 

Electrolux offered no explanation as to 

how its proposed change would affect 

the actual testing of a given product. 

(Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell H28). 

(DOE notes that the volume adjustment 

factor is used to calculate adjusted 

volume (see Appendix A1 section 6.1), 

which in turn is used to calculate 

energy factor (see 10 CFR 430.23(a)(4)) 

and maximum allowable energy use (see 

10 CFR 430, subpart C, section 32(a)), 

none of which impact test set-up and 

conduct of the test. Since this 

discussion addresses the test set-up for 

special compartments, DOE concludes 

that the comment, addressing volume 

adjustment factor, is not relevant.) 

AHAM, Whirlpool, and Electrolux 

asserted that the measured energy use 

under the proposed special 

compartment procedure would change. 

(AHAM, No. 16.1 at pp. 3, 5, 6; AHAM, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 

61; Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 3; 

Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell H26). 

Whirlpool further commented that the 

proposed change should not be adopted 

prior to 2014. (Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 

2). Whirlpool further commented that 

special compartments should be tested 

at their coldest temperature position. 

(Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 3) 

In consideration of AHAM’s comment 

that nearly every refrigeration product 

has separate compartments with 

temperature control, DOE randomly 

reviewed the refrigerator-freezer product 

offerings of three major brands 

(Whirlpool, GE, and Frigidaire) on their 

Web sites. These are the major brands of 

Whirlpool, GE, and Electrolux, 

manufacturers who comprise more than 

80% market share for standard-size 

refrigerator-freezers.3 The research, 

involving five randomly selected 

products from three key product 

categories (Class 3: refrigeratorfreezers—automatic defrost with topmounted freezers without through-thedoor ice service; Classes 5 and 5A: 

refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost 

with bottom-mounted freezers; and 

Classes 4 and 7: refrigerator-freezers— 

automatic defrost with side-mounted 

freezers) of each of the three brands 

indicates that one-fifth of these products 

have special compartments. (These 

product classes are currently listed in 10 

CFR 430.32.) (Special Compartment: 

Research Summary, No. 36 at p.1, cell 

F65). The examined classes are those 

that would be most likely to employ 

these types of features because they 

contain multiple sub-compartments 

such as drawers within their fresh food 

compartments and constitute a majority 

of the refrigeration products sold in the 

market (roughly 70% of refrigeration 

product shipments).4 DOE also notes 

that of the eleven refrigerator-freezer 

products purchased for reverse 

engineering teardowns as part of the 

energy conservation standard 

rulemaking, only two had a separate 

compartment with separate temperature 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
78824 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

5 ‘‘Australian/New Zealand Standard, 

Performance of Household Electrical Appliances— 

Refrigerating Appliances, Part 1: Energy Consumption and Performance’’, AS/NZS 4474. 

1:2007. 

control—both were refrigerator-freezers 

with bottom-mounted freezers. Hence, 

DOE believes that the level of test 

burden associated with these test 

procedure amendments would be less 

severe than predicted by AHAM. 

Definitions of Compartment Types To 

Improve Clarity 

DOE considered the need for 

additional definitions, for a variety of 

terms—e.g. ‘‘compartment’’ and ‘‘subcompartment’’—as suggested by AHAM, 

(AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 11), to clarify 

which types of compartments are 

subject to the different requirements. 

Because AHAM indicated that the 

suggested definitions for these terms 

were derived from the Australian/New 

Zealand standards,5 DOE considered 

this approach and factored in the 

international harmonization concerns 

raised by some stakeholders (AHAM, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 

42–43; AHAM, No. 16.1 at pp. 1, 7, 10, 

11; Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 5), when 

it examined the need for new 

definitions. 

AHAM proposed to define a 

‘‘compartment’’ as ‘‘an enclosed space 

within a refrigerating appliance, which 

is directly accessible through one or 

more external doors.’’ Under the AHAM 

proposal, a compartment ‘‘may contain 

one or more sub-compartments and one 

or more convenience features.’’ (AHAM, 

No. 16.1 at p. 11). 

In DOE’s view, this definition, if 

adopted, would define a compartment 

as having one or more external doors, in 

spite of the fact that the freezer 

compartments of many refrigeration 

products do not have external doors. 

The definitions for ‘‘electric refrigerator’’ 

and ‘‘electric refrigerator-freezer’’ do not 

prescribe that the compartments 

associated with these products have 

external doors (see 10 CFR 430.2), thus, 

the AHAM-proposed definition would 

conflict with the agency’s use of the 

term ‘‘compartment’’ within its 

regulations. At this time, DOE declines 

to make this change. 

DOE also considered whether any 

additional definitions are needed to 

clarify which instructions apply to 

which compartment types. The 

following discussion walks the reader 

through these considerations. The 

NOPR proposed a series of amendments 

regarding compartments: 

• First, DOE proposed a definition for 

‘‘separate auxiliary compartments’’ that 

defined this term as ‘‘a freezer 

compartment or a fresh food 

compartment of a refrigerator or 

refrigerator-freezer having more than 

two compartments that is not the first 

freezer compartment or the first fresh 

food compartment. Access to a separate 

auxiliary compartment is through a 

separate exterior door or doors rather 

than through the door or doors of 

another compartment. Separate 

auxiliary compartments may be 

convertible (e.g., from fresh food to 

freezer).’’ 75 FR 29833–29835. 

• Next, DOE proposed a new section 

2.7 (for Appendices A1 and A—parts of 

it also appear as section 2.5 in 

Appendices B1 and B) that would 

specify the manner in which convertible 

and special compartments would be 

tested: ‘‘Compartments that are 

convertible (e.g., from fresh food to 

freezer) shall be operated in the highest 

energy use position. For the special case 

of convertible separate auxiliary 

compartments, this means that the 

compartment shall be treated as a 

freezer compartment or a fresh food 

compartment, depending on which of 

these represents higher energy use. 

Other compartments with separate 

temperature control (such as crispers 

convertible to meat keepers), with the 

exception of butter conditioners, shall 

also be tested with controls set in the 

highest energy use position.’’ Id. DOE 

notes that these ‘‘other compartments’’ 

fall under the ‘‘special compartment’’ 

definition in HRF–1–1979 and HRF–1– 

2008. DOE did not establish a definition 

for ‘‘special compartment’’ in its 

proposal, since it considered that the 

amended section 2.7 clarifies adequately 

that the highest energy use position 

would be used for the compartments 

that fit the description provided in the 

section. 

• Finally, DOE proposed new text for 

sections 3.2 and 6.2 (for Appendices A1, 

B1, A, and B): ‘‘For the purposes of 

calculating per-cycle energy 

consumption, as described in this 

section, freezer compartment 

temperature shall be equal to a volumeweighted average of the temperatures of 

all applicable freezer compartments, 

and fresh food compartment 

temperature shall be equal to a volumeweighted average of the temperatures of 

all applicable fresh food compartments. 

Applicable compartments for these 

calculations may include a first freezer 

compartment, a first fresh food 

compartment, and any number of 

separate auxiliary compartments.’’ Id. 

These sections describe the additional 

procedures associated with convertible 

separate auxiliary compartments when 

treated as fresh food or freezer 

compartments. 

Table III.2 below notes the 

terminology used in the NOPR for the 

listed compartments and also lists the 

test procedure instructions as proposed. 

TABLE III.2—COMPARTMENT TYPES OTHER THAN THE FIRST FRESH FOOD COMPARTMENT OR THE FIRST FREEZER

COMPARTMENT

Temperature 

range 

Doors accessible directly from exterior? Separate temperature 

control Notes NOPR Testing instructions 

Fresh Food ..... Y Y 

N 

Separate Auxiliary Fresh Food Compartment.Test as a Fresh Food compartment. 

N Y Special Compartment ......................... Highest Energy Use. 

N ........................................................ None. 

Freezer ........... Y Y 

N 

Separate Auxiliary Freezer Compartment.Test as a Freezer compartment. 

N Y Special Compartment ......................... Highest Energy Use. 

N ........................................................ None. 

Convertible ..... Y Y Convertible Separate Auxiliary Compartment.Test as a Fresh Food or Freezer 

compartment, whichever results in 

the highest energy use. 

N Not likely to exist ................................ None. 

N Y Convertible Compartment .................. Highest Energy Use. 

N Not likely to exist ................................ None. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78825 

The NOPR proposed to require 

separate auxiliary compartments that 

are not convertible to be tested as either 

fresh food or freezer compartments, 

depending on their temperature range. 

The instructions for setting any 

temperature controls for these 

compartments are described in section 3 

of proposed Appendices A1, B1, A, and 

B. The proposed section 2.7 specified 

that convertible separate auxiliary 

compartments would also be tested 

either as fresh food or freezer 

compartments, depending on which of 

these selections results in a higher 

energy use measurement. The proposed 

section 2.7 also specified that 

convertible compartments that are not 

separate auxiliary compartments would 

be tested using the highest energy use 

position. Finally, the proposed section 

2.7 specified that other compartments 

with separate temperature control that 

are not butter conditioners would be 

tested in the highest energy use 

position. 

After re-examining this proposal and 

considering the relevant comments 

received, DOE recognizes that 

additional clarification would help 

stress that, for testing purposes, special 

compartments have no external doors, 

i.e. doors directly accessible from the 

exterior. To clarify the procedure, in 

light of commenters’ concerns that the 

compartments involved should be more 

clearly identified (Electrolux, No. 17.2 

at p. 1, cell H26; AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 

11), DOE has added a definition for 

‘‘special compartment’’ in section 1 of 

Appendices A1, B1, A, and B. 

With respect to the issue of volume, 

Whirlpool suggested that DOE adopt a 

size limit of 10 percent of the total 

refrigerated volume of a product for 

special compartments, but did not 

provide information or data justifying 

such a limit. (Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 

3). In contrast, Electrolux criticized as 

arbitrary the 2-cubic foot size 

delineation used in the NOPR for 

discussion purposes. (This volume was 

not proposed as a size limit). 

(Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell H26). 

DOE notes that there is no available 

information indicating typical consumer 

usage patterns (i.e. typical temperature 

settings) for special compartments and 

the dependence of these temperature 

settings on compartment size. DOE 

believes, however, that most such 

compartments are small, as described in 

the NOPR. 75 FR 29834. DOE notes that 

the definitions for the term ‘‘special 

compartment’’ in HRF–1–1979 and 

HRF–1–2008 mention several 

compartment types that are typically 

small (i.e. less than 2 cubic feet in size): 

butter or margarine conditioners, cheese 

compartments, crispers, ice storage bins, 

and meat keepers (HRF–1–1979 section 

3.18; HRF–1–2008 section 3.24). 

Because these compartments tend to be 

small, there is no clear need for a size 

limitation since manufacturers will 

likely continue to limit the sizes of these 

compartments. For this reason, and the 

absence of any available information to 

help support the selection of an 

appropriate size limit, DOE has decided 

not to incorporate a size limitation on 

special compartments. Accordingly, the 

new definition for special compartment 

reads as follows. 

‘‘Special compartment’’ means any 

compartment other than a butter conditioner, 

without doors directly accessible from the 

exterior, and with separate temperature 

control (such as crispers convertible to meat 

keepers) that is not convertible from fresh 

food temperature range to freezer 

temperature range. 

(See section 1 of Appendices A1 and A. A 

similar definition has been inserted in 

Appendices B1 and B) 

Instructions for Testing of Special 

Compartments 

As discussed above, stakeholders 

expressed concern about DOE’s 

proposal to require testing using the 

highest energy use positions of special 

compartments rather than the lowest 

temperature. The comments indicated 

that the requirement would potentially 

require manufacturers to conduct 

multiple tests to verify that the highest 

energy use position was used in a test. 

DOE acknowledges this possibility. To 

address this concern, DOE has decided 

to modify the amendments so that they 

are based on temperature settings rather 

than the highest energy use position. 

Further, DOE has decided to revert to 

the current test procedure requirement 

for the coldest setting for most special 

compartments. For products that use the 

addition of heat to adjust the 

temperature of temperature-controllable 

compartments, the test procedure will 

require averaging of tests conducted 

with the temperature settings in the 

warmest and coldest settings. In making 

these changes, the potential testing 

burden will be minimized while 

ensuring that the energy consumed by 

these features is sufficiently captured 

under the test procedure. 

Based on its examination of a variety 

of refrigeration products, DOE expects 

that most of those products that are 

equipped with special compartments 

provide temperature control of these 

compartments by increasing or 

decreasing the amount of cold air 

diverted from the refrigeration system to 

the special compartment. (In other 

words, when more air is diverted into 

the special compartment, that 

compartment’s compartment 

temperature is lower.) As mentioned 

above, two of the eleven refrigeratorfreezers DOE purchased for its reverse 

engineering analysis for the energy 

conservation standard rulemaking had 

special compartments with separate 

temperature control. Both of these 

products were designed to adjust air 

flow to control the temperature in these 

compartments. When a greater quantity 

of cold air is diverted to provide a lower 

temperature in the special compartment, 

less air is available to cool the rest of the 

fresh food compartment. This situation 

extends the cooldown time for the fresh 

food compartment, which extends the 

compressor run time and increases the 

measured energy use of the product. For 

such compartments, the coldest 

temperature setting and the highest 

energy use setting are generally the 

same. Hence, the proposed approach 

should not create any change in energy 

use measurement. 

DOE proposed the change calling for 

the highest energy use position to 

establish consistency with the 

requirements for convertible 

compartments (for which the highest 

energy use position is prescribed—see 

HRF–1–1979 section 7.4.2), and to 

assure that this highest energy approach 

is also applied to products that might 

use resistive heating to control the 

temperature in special compartments. 

For such products, the coldest 

temperature setting would likely be the 

lowest energy use setting, because less 

resistance heat would be needed to raise 

the temperature of such a compartment 

above its minimum temperature. 

The modified amendments specify 

that the requirement for averaging tests 

with the settings in the coldest and 

warmest positions applies to special 

compartments that use any form of heat 

addition for any part of the controllable 

temperature range of the compartments. 

DOE has decided to modify its earlier 

proposal and implement this 

modification only in Appendices A and 

B, which will require manufacturers to 

use this procedure in conjunction with 

the new energy standards that DOE is 

currently considering promulgating. 

DOE believes that these changes in the 

amendments will eliminate most of the 

added test burden potentially associated 

with them, since DOE’s examination of 

the market indicates that most products 

do not use heat addition for special 

compartment temperature control. By 

delaying implementation of the 

exception for heated temperature 

control, the change will also eliminate 

the impact of the test procedure change 

on products manufactured prior to the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
78826 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

compliance date for the new energy 

conservation standards. Likewise, 

because, as described above, the coldest 

and highest energy use settings are 

equivalent for most special 

compartments (i.e. those controlled by 

adjusting the flow of cooling air), DOE 

believes that this amendment (coldest 

position, except for the minority special 

compartments using heat addition) does 

not significantly alter the proposal 

(highest energy use position) and will 

adequately capture the energy use of 

these features. 

DOE recognizes that the highest 

energy use position may not be 

consistent with normal use, as indicated 

by Electrolux and PRC (Electrolux, No. 

17.2 at p. 1, cell H26; PRC, No. 15.1 at 

p. 5). ACEEE and NRDC both supported 

use of the highest energy use position in 

light of the lack of such consumer data. 

(ACEEE, No. 19.1 at p. 1: NRDC, No. 

21.1 at p. 3) The modified amendment 

addresses the concerns of Electrolux 

and PRC by allowing the use of 

averaging of warmest-setting and 

coldest-setting measurements for 

products with special compartments 

with heated temperature control 

systems. Neither stakeholder submitted 

any information suggesting what 

temperature settings are used by 

consumers. There is no currently 

agreed-upon standard as to what 

constitutes a normal use setting for 

special and convertible compartments. 

Based on its careful analysis, DOE 

believes its selected averaging approach 

is likely to provide a reasonable 

representation of consumer use for these 

compartments, because the approach 

does not represent an extreme control 

setting. 

Regarding Electrolux’s comment 

about temporary functions associated 

with special compartments (Electrolux, 

No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell H26), Electrolux 

did not provide any description of the 

types of such functions that might be at 

issue. However, DOE notes that 

‘‘features’’ are addressed by HRF–1– 

2008, section 5.5.2 which are manually 

initiated and which operate temporarily, 

such as quick-chill compartments. In 

response to these comments, DOE chose 

to modify the proposed amendment to 

clarify that the requirement for 

temperature setting of special 

compartments do not apply to any such 

temporary feature or functions. This 

change will appear in section 2.7 of 

Appendices A1 and A, and in section 

2.5 of Appendices B1 and B. 

Instructions for Testing of Separate 

Auxiliary Convertible Compartments 

Convertible compartments are those 

compartments that can operate as either 

freezer compartments or fresh food 

compartments. As discussed above, a 

separate auxiliary convertible 

compartment would be tested as either 

a freezer compartment or a fresh food 

compartment, depending on which of 

these functions uses more energy. 

Because these compartments have 

temperature ranges spanning those of 

both freezer and fresh food 

compartments, using the standard 

coldest, median, and warmest settings 

during testing as a freezer or fresh food 

compartment may be inappropriate in 

certain cases. For example, a separate 

auxiliary convertible compartment 

could have a range of temperature 

settings from ¥6 °F to 46 °F. The 

median setting would be 20 °F, which 

is too high a setpoint for a freezer 

compartment of a refrigerator-freezer 

and too low for a fresh food 

compartment. To resolve this issue, 

DOE has added language in the final 

rule specifying settings (a) within 2 °F 

of the standardized temperatures as the 

median settings, (b) at least 5 °F above 

the standardized temperature as the 

warmest setting for testing the 

compartment as a freezer compartment, 

and (c) at least 5 °F below the 

standardized temperature as the coldest 

setting for testing as a fresh food 

compartment. The new language also 

indicates that if the control setpoints do 

not represent specific temperatures (i.e. 

as might be the case for mechanical 

controls), that the measured 

compartment temperatures rather than 

the setpoints must meet these 

requirements. This change is 

incorporated in section 3 of Appendices 

A1 and A. 

Additional Discussion 

DOE agrees in principle with AHAM’s 

comment that volume-weighted 

temperature averaging may be 

appropriate for special compartments. 

However, as AHAM indicated (AHAM, 

No. 16.1 at p. 6), such an approach 

represents a departure from the current 

test procedure that would change the 

measured energy use. The current test 

procedure requires that these 

compartments be set in their coldest 

position and does not include a 

procedure to measure their 

temperatures. The modified test 

procedure established by the final rule 

and the interim final rule requires the 

coldest temperature position for these 

compartments for most products, i.e. 

those that do not utilize heat addition 

for temperature control. DOE has 

adopted this approach to maintain 

greater consistency with the current test 

procedure. DOE may consider use of 

volume-weighted temperature averaging 

in a future test procedure rulemaking. 

The test procedure for special 

compartments established with the 

interim final rule modifies the test 

procedure only for products that use 

heat addition for temperature control. 

Based on available information, which 

suggests that few products have such 

special compartments, DOE expects the 

number of products that are likely to be 

impacted by this change to be modest. 

Stakeholders have not provided any 

information suggesting otherwise nor 

have they provided data that would 

permit DOE to evaluate the likely effects 

of this change. However, in 

consideration of these comments, DOE 

has modified the timing of the 

amendments. This change will not 

require manufacturers of products using 

heat addition for temperature control to 

use the new averaging approach until 

the new energy conservation standards 

take effect. As a result, manufacturers 

will have additional time to redesign 

such products to adjust to the new 

procedure. Hence, the final changes in 

the procedures for convertible and 

special compartments are (1) new 

definitions for ‘‘separate auxiliary 

compartment’’ and ‘‘special 

compartment’’ in Appendices A1, B1, A, 

and B; (2) clarification that the highest 

energy use position requirement for 

convertible compartments implies they 

shall be tested as a freezer or fresh food 

compartment only if they are separate 

auxiliary compartments in Appendices 

A1 and A; (3) requirements for special 

compartments reiterating current 

procedures calling for the coldest 

temperature settings in Appendices A1, 

B1, A, and B; and (4) instructions for 

temperature settings for separate 

auxiliary convertible compartments that 

take into account the wide temperature 

control range of these compartments, 

which will be inserted in Appendices 

A1 and A. In addition, the interim final 

rule change is an exception to the 

requirements for special compartments 

in products that use heat addition for 

temperature control, for which the 

averaging of the warmest- and coldesttemperature settings tests shall be used, 

which will be prescribed as part of 

Appendices A and B. 

6. Establishing a Temperature-Averaging 

Procedure for Auxiliary Compartments 

The NOPR proposed amendments that 

would address the testing of externaldoor compartments other than the two 

main compartments of a refrigeratorfreezer. Specifically, DOE proposed 

requirements for (1) adjusting 

temperature controls, (2) measuring 

auxiliary compartment temperatures, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78827 

and (3) incorporating the auxiliary 

compartment temperature into the 

calculation of energy consumption. 75 

FR 29833–29835. DOE proposed the 

following: 

(1) Temperature settings, generally— 

Consistent with current requirements, 

the temperature controls for auxiliary 

compartments with external doors that 

have individual temperature control 

capability would be set at the same 

median, cold, or warm setting used for 

the first fresh food compartment and/or 

the first freezer compartment, or some 

combination thereof as described in 

section 3.2.1 of Appendix A1 or B1. Id. 

(2) Auxiliary compartment 

temperature measurements— 

Measurement of external door-equipped 

auxiliary compartment temperatures 

would be done in the same manner as 

prescribed in the current test procedure 

for the main fresh food and freezer 

compartments, as described in section 

5.1 of Appendix A1 or B1. Id. 

(3) Incorporation of auxiliary 

compartment temperature 

measurements in the test procedure 

calculations—calculations for the 

freezer temperature for a product with 

more than one freezer compartment 

(including one or more auxiliary freezer 

compartments with external doors) 

would be performed using a volumeweighted average of the compartment 

temperatures measured within each 

freezer compartment. A similar 

approach would apply to fresh food 

compartments. These freezer and fresh 

food temperatures would be used to 

determine the appropriate temperature 

settings for subsequent testing, and to 

calculate the energy use. Id. 

DOE proposed to insert these 

amendments into Appendices A1 and A 

to address those auxiliary compartments 

with external doors that are found in 

some refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers. DOE proposed similar 

amendments to Appendices B1 and B to 

address the auxiliary compartments 

found in some freezers. DOE further 

proposed to define ‘‘separate auxiliary 

compartments’’ to include auxiliary 

compartments with external doors in 

order to ensure they are treated 

consistently with other auxiliary 

compartments. Id. 

Commenters generally supported this 

approach. For example, AHAM and 

Whirlpool both concurred that auxiliary 

compartment temperatures should be 

volume-weighted. (AHAM, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 65; 

Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 4). AHAM 

provided an equation to illustrate the 

volume-weighted averaging of multiple 

compartments. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 

6). 

While DOE agrees that AHAM’s 

suggested equation properly represents 

the proposed approach, because it 

provides a weighted average of 

compartment temperatures in which the 

temperatures are weighted by the 

compartment volumes, the final rule 

and interim final rule adopt a more 

general equation that is functionally 

equivalent by averaging for a general 

number of fresh food compartments. 

DOE is also adopting an equivalent 

volume-averaging equation for the 

freezer compartment temperature. These 

changes have been made in Appendices 

A1, B1, A, and B. The requirements for 

testing of auxiliary compartments 

otherwise remain as they were 

proposed, except for the clarification 

regarding temperature settings for 

convertible separate auxiliary 

compartments, discussed above in 

section III.D.5. 

7. Modified Definition for Anti-Sweat 

Heater 

DOE proposed to modify the 

definitions of anti-sweat heater in both 

the refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer 

test procedures and in the freezer test 

procedures to clarify that such heaters 

can be used for both interior and 

exterior surfaces. 75 FR 29835. 

The current DOE test procedure 

definition for anti-sweat heater applies 

to heaters that prevent the accumulation 

of moisture on the exterior surfaces of 

the cabinet (see 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix A1, section 1.3 and 

appendix B1, section 1.2). However, 

some refrigerator-freezers also use antisweat heaters to prevent moisture 

accumulation on internal surfaces of the 

cabinet. In particular, manufacturers of 

French door refrigerator-freezers with 

through the door (TTD) ice service have 

used anti-sweat heaters to prevent 

moisture accumulation inside the fresh 

food compartment near the air duct 

embedded in the side wall that carries 

refrigerated air to the ice compartment. 

To account for heaters that operate in 

this manner, DOE proposed to change 

the anti-sweat heater definition found in 

Appendices A1 and B1. DOE also 

proposed to include these modified 

definitions in Appendices A and B. This 

proposed modification would not 

change the test procedure but would 

clarify that interior heaters used to 

prevent sweating are to be treated as 

anti-sweat heaters for purposes of 

calculating energy usage under the 

procedure. Id. 

AHAM, Whirlpool, ACEEE, and 

NRDC supported the DOE proposal for 

the anti-sweat heater to apply to both 

interior and exterior surfaces (AHAM, 

No. 16.1 at p. 6; Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at 

p. 4; ACEEE, No. 19.1 at p. 2; NRDC, No. 

21.1 at p. 3). There were no comments 

objecting to this proposal. 

DOE also sought comment on whether 

the proposed definition needed to be 

modified to indicate that a heater that 

prevents the accumulation of moisture, 

irrespective of whether that heater is 

designated as an anti-sweat heater, 

should be defined as an anti-sweat 

heater. Commenters provide no views 

on this issue. 

In light of the support from 

commenters for DOE’s proposed 

approach, and the absence of any 

additional comment regarding any 

further modifications to address heaters 

that prevent moisture accumulation, 

DOE has decided to adopt its proposal 

to modify the definition of anti-sweat 

heater to apply to interior as well as 

exterior cabinet surfaces. 

8. Applying the Anti-Sweat Heater 

Switch Averaging Credit to Energy Use 

Calculations 

DOE proposed to modify the 

calculation for annual energy use to 

make it consistent with the annual 

operating cost calculation. 75 FR 29835. 

Currently, the energy conservation 

standards for refrigeration products are 

based on the annual energy use 

calculated for these products. This value 

is calculated based on a ‘‘standard 

cycle.’’ (see 10 CFR 430.23(a)(5) and 

(b)(5)). The standard cycle is defined as 

‘‘the cycle type in which the anti-sweat 

heater control, when provided, is set in 

the highest energy consuming position.’’ 

(see Appendix A1, section 1.7 or 

Appendix B1, section 1.5). 

In contrast, the annual operating cost, 

which serves as the basis for the figures 

reported on the Federal Trade 

Commission’s EnergyGuide label, can be 

calculated based on the average of 

energy consumption test results using 

the standard cycle and a cycle with the 

anti-sweat heater switch ‘‘in the position 

set at the factory just prior to shipping’’. 

(see 10 CFR 430.23(a)(2) and (b)(2)). 

Manufacturers generally set the switch 

off prior to shipping. Thus, the annual 

operating cost is calculated as an 

average of tests with the switch on and 

off. This is referred to as the ‘‘anti-sweat 

heater switch averaging credit’’ for the 

purposes of this discussion. DOE 

understands that most manufacturers 

test and rate refrigeration products 

equipped with anti-sweat heater 

switches using the averaging credit and 

use the same results for reporting both 

energy use and annual operating cost. 

DOE proposed to modify the annual 

energy use calculation to ensure 

consistency with the annual operating 

cost calculation by making changes to 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
78828 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

6Stakeholders apparently have interpreted the 

effective date of the test procedure amendments, 

which is 30 days after the final rule, to also be the 

date that representations regarding energy use of 

manufactured products must start to be based on 

the amended test procedures. As explained earlier, 

the transition to representations based on the 

amended test procedure must occur within 180 

days of the final rule. 

7The 1.3 system factor is used in the GE waiver 

test procedure to convert energy use of the antisweat heaters to energy use of the product. 

10 CFR 430.23(a) and 10 CFR 430.23(b). 

75 FR 29835. 

Electrolux favored preserving the 

current test procedure for testing with 

an anti-sweat heater switch and sought 

clarification regarding the agency’s 

rationale for its proposed change. 

(Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell H50). 

DOE received no comments calling for 

elimination of the anti-sweat heater 

switch averaging credit. To clarify, 

DOE’s proposed modification would 

change the test procedure to ensure 

consistency with the manner in which 

manufacturers already test products—by 

averaging the test results with the antisweater heater switch positioned in the 

on and the factory-set positions. As 

explained in the NOPR, this approach 

was the original intent of the test 

procedure, and there is nothing from the 

preamble to the final rule that first 

established the annual energy use 

metrics of 10 CFR 430.23(a) and 

430.23(b) (see 54 FR 6062 (February 7, 

1989)) to indicate that the omission of 

the anti-sweat heater averaging credit in 

these metrics was anything but an 

oversight. 75 FR 29835. Having received 

no other comment from stakeholders, 

DOE has decided to proceed with the 

proposed modification. 

9. Incorporation of Test Procedures for 

Products With Variable Anti-Sweat 

Heating Control Waivers 

Variable anti-sweat heating (VASH) 

control systems are used to adjust the 

use of anti-sweat heaters based on 

ambient conditions. These systems are 

typically active under high humidity 

conditions but deactivate when their 

sensors detect that ambient humidity 

conditions are dry enough such that 

their operation is not required. 

Commercialized products incorporating 

such control systems have been tested 

for certification under test procedure 

waivers using a test procedure based on 

calculation rather than measurements. 

This procedure was initially proposed 

in a GE waiver petition, which was 

granted February 27, 2008 (GE waiver). 

73 FR 10425, 10427. This procedure 

calculates the additional energy use of 

the anti-sweat heaters based on 

manufacturers’ data for average heater 

power input at 10 different humidity 

levels. Id. To address products that have 

these systems, the NOPR proposed an 

alternative test procedure prescribing a 

method for measuring the energy use 

impact of the anti-sweat heaters during 

the product’s operation, rather than the 

procedure described in the GE waiver. 

75 FR 29835–29837. 

The proposed test would require 

measuring a product’s energy use in a 

chamber controlled at 72 °F at three 

different humidity levels, including a 

low humidity level for which the antisweat heater would be expected to be 

inactive. The difference in energy use 

measurements made in moderate- and 

high-humidity tests and the energy use 

measurement of the low-humidity test 

would provide a measurement of the 

energy use associated with the heaters 

operating under VASH control. These 

measurements would be used to 

calculate the energy use contribution 

associated with the anti-sweat heaters at 

the 10 humidity levels of the GE waiver. 

A weighted average of these energy use 

contributions, based on the same 

weighting factors of the GE waiver 

procedure, would constitute an 

adjustment factor that a manufacturer 

would add to the energy use measured 

during a test in a 90 °F ambient with the 

anti-sweat heaters deactivated, similar 

to the approach of the GE waiver. DOE 

had proposed that deactivation of the 

anti-sweat heaters in this 90 °F test 

would be achieved by requiring a low 

ambient humidity (i.e. less than 35% 

relative humidity) to ensure that the 

VASH control system would not engage 

the heaters. DOE proposed this 

procedure rather than adopt the GE 

waiver’s calculation approach because 

DOE initially did not consider the 

calculation approach amenable to 

verification. DOE also proposed to use 

the standard cycle for calculating energy 

use for products with VASH control and 

anti-sweat heater switches rather than 

using the averaging credit for such 

products, as allowed in the GE waiver 

procedure because of concern that the 

additional energy savings associated 

with the switch is not likely to occur 

during consumer use if the VASH 

control already turns off the heaters 

when they are not needed. Id. 

Responding to this proposal, AHAM, 

Fisher & Paykel, and Whirlpool, 

asserted that (1) it is possible to 

independently verify published energy 

consumption measured under the GE 

waiver, (2) DOE’s proposal imposes 

undue test burden on the manufacturer 

without a corresponding increase in 

accuracy, (3) DOE’s proposal penalizes 

variable anti-sweat heater systems 

compared to fixed anti-sweat heater 

systems (because of the proposed 

elimination of the anti-sweat heater 

switch averaging credit), and (4) DOE’s 

proposal has a significant impact on 

measured energy use, requiring 

adjustment of the energy conservation 

standards. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at pp. 2–3; 

Fisher & Paykel, No. 24.3 at p. 1; 

Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at pp. 4–5). GE also 

asserted that an independent laboratory 

could verify the reported energy 

consumption by measuring the wattage 

of the heater at the various humidity 

levels at the appropriate ambient 

temperature. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 80–81). 

AHAM noted that the requirement to 

control relative humidity in test 

chambers below 35 percent would 

increase test burden. (AHAM, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 85) GE 

added that achieving 95 percent relative 

humidity is difficult because of the 

heavy amount of condensation that 

would result during testing. (GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 166) 

Electrolux expressed concern over the 

significant transition time when 

changing chamber humidity levels and 

allowing the product to reach 

equilibrium. (Electrolux, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 167–168) 

Whirlpool, Electrolux, and GE reiterated 

that available humidity chambers are 

not currently capable of achieving the 

required accuracy for measuring energy 

consumption with the prescribed level 

of accuracy under the proposed 

procedure and that making the required 

upgrades to achieve this accuracy would 

not be possible within the proposed 30- 

day period.6 Whirlpool requested that 

these proposed changes take place in 

conjunction with the 2014 standards 

that DOE is currently promulgating, but 

not earlier. (Whirlpool, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 78–79; 

Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell H65; 

GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at 

pp. 165–166). 

AHAM and Fisher & Paykel urged 

DOE to adopt the GE waiver in its 

entirety without modification. (AHAM, 

No. 16.1 at pp. 2–3; Fisher & Paykel, No. 

24.3 at p. 1) In addition, AHAM stated 

in the public meeting that there is 

industry consensus around several 

issues: (1) 30 days is insufficient to 

begin testing under this proposed 

procedure, (2) the increase in test 

burden would likely not change the test 

results, (3) Japanese researchers have 

presented data showing that the 1.3 

system factor 7 is accurate, and (4) DOE 

should harmonize with IEC and Canada 

where possible. (AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 79–80) DOE 

notes that the IEC has not yet published 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78829 

a test procedure incorporating the GE 

waiver procedure. 

The PRC requested that the test 

procedure should use relative humidity 

measurement points of 35 percent and 

80 percent instead of 25 percent and 95 

percent in order to yield representative 

results. The PRC asserted that a 25 

percent relative humidity (RH) level 

would likely not require an anti-sweat 

heater and 95 percent RH conditions are 

rare. (PRC, No. 15.1 at p. 4) Whirlpool 

and Electrolux noted that the infiltration 

load (i.e. the thermal load added to the 

refrigeration system associated with 

leakage of ambient air into the cabinet) 

increases as ambient humidity 

increases. Hence, the adjustment factor 

determined using the measurement 

would include an adjustment for 

infiltration that is not associated with 

the anti-sweat heaters, which would 

exaggerate the impact of the heater 

energy use. (Whirlpool, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at p. 167; Electrolux, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 

71–73). 

NRDC supported DOE’s proposal to 

measure variable anti-sweat heater 

energy and to define the moisture 

content of the test chamber. (NRDC, No. 

21.1 at p. 4) NRDC suggested that DOE 

should allow manufacturers to apply for 

a waiver to avoid the test burden 

associated with achieving 95 percent RH 

and allow manufacturers to use an 

alternative maximum-humidity 

condition for the test. NRDC also 

indicated that manufacturers should 

report the anti-sweat heater wattages at 

different humidity levels to aid DOE’s 

verification efforts. Id. ACEEE noted 

that Thermotron, Cincinnati Sub Zero, 

and Scientific Climate Systems all 

supply temperature- and humiditycontrolled environmental chambers 

capable of achieving a relative humidity 

range of 20 percent to 98 percent within 

2–3 degrees of accuracy. (ACEEE, No. 

19.1 at p. 2). 

NIST also made a general request 

during the public meeting that DOE 

require manufacturers to report their 

heater control algorithms in certification 

reports. NIST also requested that DOE 

modify the test requirements to ensure 

that the humidity levels used during 

testing are selected based on the 

algorithm details to provide the most 

appropriate test for verifying the 

performance of a tested product’s antisweat heater. (NIST, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 75–76) 

Electrolux also pointed out that 

different products may use different 

control strategies. (Electrolux, No. 17.2 

at p. 1, cell H53). 

The IOUs recommended that DOE 

investigate VASH control characteristics 

to ensure that the test procedure favors 

those systems that use more adaptive 

controls. The IOUs also asked that DOE 

consider requiring confirmation during 

the test that the anti-sweat heater is off 

at the 25 percent RH condition to 

prevent circumvention of the test 

procedure. (IOUs, No. 14.1 at p. 4). 

Fisher & Paykel also voiced concern 

about the potential for circumvention 

associated with heaters that do not 

deactivate at 25 percent RH (Fisher & 

Paykel, No. 24.3 at p. 2). The company 

explained that because the incremental 

energy use associated with the proposed 

test at 65 percent and 95 percent relative 

humidities involves subtracting the 

measured energy use of those tests from 

the energy use measured in the 25 

percent relative humidity test, any 

activation of the heaters in the 25 

percent test would increase the energy 

measured in the 25 percent test, which 

would reduce the incremental energy 

use calculated by the subtractions for 

the 65 and 95 percent tests. A 

manufacturer can simply reduce the 

energy use adjustment determined for 

the anti-sweat heaters (which is 

determined based on the incremental 

measurements of the 65 and 95 percent 

tests) by allowing activation of the 

heaters during the 25 percent test. 

However, DOE notes that this concern 

was intended to be alleviated in the 

proposed procedure by also requiring 

that the 90 °F ambient test be conducted 

using sensor-based deactivation of the 

heaters, also in a 25 percent relative 

humidity ambient. Any reduction of 

measured heater energy use in the 72 

°F/25 percent relative humidity test due 

to heater activation would be negated by 

higher energy measurement in the 90 

°F/25 percent relative humidity test. 

Fisher & Paykel also indicated that the 

proposed equations for the energy 

differences at 65 percent and 95 percent 

relative humidities presented in the 

proposed new Appendix A were 

incorrect, using minus signs where 

equals signs should have been. (Fisher 

& Paykel, No. 24.2 at p. 3). See 75 FR 

at 29864. 

DOE acknowledges the potential 

burden associated with the proposed 

VASH test procedure and that the 

proposal did not fully address all VASH 

control variants, nor the possibility of 

exaggeration of the measurement as a 

result of infiltration (as suggested by the 

Electrolux and Whirlpool comments). 

Notwithstanding this fact, DOE 

continues to believe that the adoption of 

a measurement-based test as opposed to 

a calculation to account for the energy 

use of products employing these types 

of control systems is critical to ensuring 

that the procedures yield meaningful 

information regarding the performance 

of products equipped with these 

systems. Without such a method, DOE’s 

ability to resolve cases of circumvention 

(i.e. a manufacturer claiming that a 

product has variable anti-sweat heater 

control when it does not) would be 

significantly weakened. This is because, 

although DOE could conduct tests to 

verify manufacturers’ claims regarding 

their control algorithms, as suggested by 

some stakeholders (AHAM, No. 16.1 at 

pp. 2–3; Fisher & Paykel, No. 24.3 at p. 

1; Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at pp. 4–5), the 

test procedures used for such 

verification are not codified and could 

be called into question. Also, the direct 

measurement of anti-sweat heater 

wattage as suggested in the comments 

may be difficult or impossible, 

depending on the routing of wires to 

these heaters. However, in lieu of a 

more comprehensive VASH test 

procedure, DOE is codifying the 

procedure that DOE previously 

approved as part of the test procedure 

waivers granted to several 

manufacturers. This approach will 

provide a uniform method to help 

account for the energy used by these 

systems until such time that DOE reexamines this procedure and decides on 

potentially more comprehensive 

modifications. Hence, the GE waiver 

procedure has been adopted in 

Appendices A1 and A. 

DOE believes that the use of the 

averaging credit for products with antisweat heaters and VASH control is 

inconsistent with field usage, because, 

as described in the NOPR, an anti-sweat 

heater switch is not likely to provide 

additional savings if the VASH controls 

already respond to ambient conditions 

and turn off the heaters when they are 

not needed. 75 FR 29837. However, 

DOE believes that this provision should 

remain in place at this time, as specified 

in the GE waiver procedure, because 

without the ability to turn off the antisweat heater with such a switch, it 

would be difficult to conduct the test as 

specified in the waiver because turning 

off the heaters would require 

disconnecting the wires supplying their 

power, which may be difficult or 

impossible with damaging the product. 

It is not clear that universally-applicable 

instructions could be developed for 

running the 90 °F ambient test with the 

anti-sweat heater disengaged for 

products without such switches. 

Developing a general procedure 

addressing VASH systems would likely 

need to include development of an 

approach to address this issue for these 

products in order to ensure that the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
78830 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

procedure provides results comparable 

to the energy usage found in the field. 

DOE also sought comment on whether 

the VASH test procedures should apply 

to freezers as well as refrigeratorfreezers. AHAM and Fisher & Paykel 

both indicated that these test procedures 

should apply to freezers (AHAM, No. 

16.1 at p. 3: Fisher & Paykel, No. 24.2 

at p. 1). Based on these responses, the 

final rule will add these procedures to 

Appendices B1 and B. 

10. Elimination of Part 3 of the Variable 

Defrost Test 

DOE proposed eliminating the 

optional third part of the test currently 

in place for products equipped with a 

variable defrost capability. 75 FR 

29839–29840. The current procedure, 

which appears at 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix A1, section 4.1.2.3, 

was added to the test procedures in 

1989. 54 FR 36238. This test was 

designed to measure the mean time 

between defrosts for variable defrostequipped products. DOE included this 

optional step to provide manufacturers 

with an alternative to the default 

specification for the CT value (10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B, appendix A1, 

section 5.2.1.3) that would ordinarily be 

used when calculating energy use. (CT 

represents the number of hours of 

compressor operation between defrost 

cycles) 

As the NOPR explained, the time 

required to conduct this part of the test 

ranges from 1 to 2 weeks. To ascertain 

the impact on accuracy of using the 

default calculation for CT rather than 

the optional test, DOE tested a variable 

defrost product using the optional 

procedure. The test results showed that 

the calculated energy use using the CT 

determined by the optional third part of 

the test differs from the energy use 

determined using the default value of 

CT by less than 0.4% (Third Part Test, 

No. 33 at p. 1, cell E57). DOE is unaware 

of any manufacturer that has used the 

optional procedure to rate a refrigeration 

product, which indicates to DOE that 

the industry generally considers the 

default equation for CT to be adequately 

represent the performance of variable 

defrost systems. For this reason, and to 

simplify the test procedure, DOE 

proposed to eliminate this optional test 

from Appendices A1, B1, A, and B. 75 

FR 29839–29840. 

Both AHAM and Whirlpool supported 

the proposal to eliminate the optional 

third part of the test. (AHAM, No. 16.1 

at p. 6; Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

10 at p. 111; Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 

4) DOE did not receive any comments 

from manufacturers or other parties that 

indicate that the test has been used to 

rate a product’s energy use. DOE did not 

receive any comments in favor of 

retaining this optional step. Hence, DOE 

has decided to adopt its proposal to 

eliminate this optional step. 

11. Corrections and Other Test 

Procedure Language Changes 

This section discusses three other 

amendments to the current test 

procedure. 

Simplification of Energy Use Equation 

for Products With Variable Defrost 

Control 

DOE proposed modifying Appendix 

A1 by removing the clarifying equations 

for F, ETM, and ETL, eliminating 

references to the optional third part of 

the test (see section III.D.10 above, 

which discusses eliminating this part of 

the test), and correcting the units in the 

definitions for CTM (maximum time 

between defrosts in hours of compressor 

run time) and CTL (lowest time between 

defrosts in hours of compressor run 

time). Additionally, DOE proposed that 

parallel changes be made in Appendices 

B1, A, and B. (In Appendix B1, the 

change would be made in the current 

section 5.2.1.3.) 75 FR 29840. 

AHAM supported the proposed 

modifications. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at pp. 

6–7) Fisher & Paykel commented that 

the proposed language would not 

sufficiently clarify that the CT, CTM and 

CTL values represent compressor run 

time rather than clock time. 

In order to address Fisher & Paykel’s 

comment, DOE has modified the 

sections of the test procedure that use 

CT in the energy use equations (e.g. 

sections 5.2.1.2 through 5.2.1.5 of the 

new Appendix A) to help clarify that 

these values represent compressor run 

time rather than clock time. DOE notes 

that not all of these sections required 

exactly the same modifications. Similar 

adjustments have also been made in 

Appendices A1, B1, and B. 

Energy Testing and Energy Use Equation 

for Products With Dual Automatic 

Defrost 

DOE proposed to amend Appendix 

A1 to correct certain errors in the 

instructions for testing dual automatic 

defrost-equipped products. These 

proposed amendments affected two 

areas. First, DOE proposed to modify the 

text in section 4.1.2.4 of Appendix A1 

to explicitly include the compressor and 

defrost heater in the list of components 

associated with each system that must 

have their energy use separately 

measured. Second, DOE proposed to 

correct errors in the energy use equation 

that addresses this class of products 

(section 5.2.1.5 of Appendix A1 of the 

current test procedure). 75 FR 29841. 

DOE received no comments objecting 

to these proposed changes. However, 

AHAM suggested that DOE adopt a 

different approach. Specifically, AHAM 

suggested removing the dual compressor 

system equations of section 5.2.1.4, 

removing the proposed test procedure 

for products with multiple defrost cycle 

types (proposed as section 5.2.1.6 of 

Appendix A—see section III.E.2 below), 

and inserting a more general procedure 

addressing multiple compressor systems 

as well as single-compressor systems 

with more than one active defrost cycle. 

AHAM’s written comments included a 

draft test procedure for DOE’s 

consideration. AHAM explained that 

the modified equations would be 

simpler and more efficient, and that, 

because they are under consideration by 

the IEC and other countries, their 

adoption would enhance international 

standards harmonization. (AHAM, No. 

16.1 at p. 7) Sub Zero supported 

AHAM’s comment regarding this issue. 

(Sub-Zero, No. 23.1 at p. 1) 

DOE notes that a key distinction 

between the energy use calculations of 

proposed section 5.2.1.6 and the 

calculations of section 5.2.1.4 is that the 

former applies to products with a single 

compressor with multiple defrost cycle 

types, while the latter applies to 

products with two compressors. DOE 

believes that testing products equipped 

with two compressors is significantly 

more complicated than testing products 

with single compressors and multiple 

defrost cycle types because, when 

conducting the second part of the test 

that measures defrost cycle energy use 

for one of the two or more refrigeration 

systems, the operation of these other 

compressors continues. Unless the 

average energy use of these compressors 

and their fans is the same during the 

second part of the test conducted for the 

first compressor as it is for the first part 

of the test, the difference in their energy 

use for the two parts of the test will be 

added to or subtracted from the firstcompressor defrost cycle energy 

measurement. The only way to avoid 

this addition or subtraction is by 

separately measuring the systems during 

both the first part of the test and during 

the second part of the test. In contrast, 

for a system with a single compressor 

but multiple evaporators, the 

compressor turns off during the defrost 

cycle for any of the evaporators, which 

allows the product’s measured overall 

energy use to accurately measure defrost 

cycle energy use. Hence, establishing 

the proposed section 5.2.1.6 will both 

permit a simpler approach to testing 

single-compressor products with 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78831 

multiple defrost cycle types and ensure 

that energy measurement for these 

products is accurate. 

After analyzing this alternative 

proposal for multiple compressors, DOE 

does not believe that it simplifies testing 

of systems with two or more 

compressors. In particular, it does not 

alleviate the test procedure burden 

associated with having to separately 

measure the energy use for the different 

systems, which is part of the procedure 

of the current dual-compressor product 

test procedure. DOE understands that 

this is a key difficulty in testing such 

systems since it introduces burden and 

that, in some cases, it may be impossible 

to accomplish, depending on the details 

of the internal wiring of such products. 

DOE is not convinced that AHAM’s 

approach avoids the need for a separate 

measurement. AHAM’s proposed 

equation includes a term EP2j that is 

defined as the average power for system 

‘‘j’’ while system ‘‘i’’ is in defrost and 

recovery. Measuring the average power 

for this system would still require a 

separate measurement, as provided 

under the current test procedure for 

dual compressor systems. Thus, the 

AHAM-proposed procedure appears to 

represent little or no improvement over 

the current procedure. 

DOE acknowledges that this final rule 

does not eliminate the difficulty of 

obtaining separate energy use 

measurements required in the test 

procedure for dual compressor 

products. However, as discussed above, 

neither does the AHAM-proposed 

approach. Additionally, as far as DOE is 

aware, the AHAM procedure has not 

been subject to the review of interested 

parties. It is a fairly complex procedure 

and its adoption into DOE’s regulations 

would require review and comment by 

the public. In light of DOE’s statutory 

obligation to finalize the refrigeration 

product energy conservation standard 

rulemaking by the end of this year, a 

complete evaluation of AHAM’s 

procedure is not possible within the 

context of this rulemaking. Hence, DOE 

has retained in Appendices A1 and A, 

the dual-compressor system test 

procedure with the modifications 

proposed in the NOPR. DOE may 

consider further revising this part of the 

procedure in a future rulemaking to 

address the measurement issues 

discussed in this section and may 

reconsider AHAM’s proposal at that 

time. 

Freezer Variable Defrost 

This section discusses an issue 

independently raised by stakeholders 

and is not directly related to any of the 

specific NOPR proposals. In the test 

procedures set out for variable defrostequipped freezers, AHAM pointed out 

that the energy use equations are 

missing the freezer correction factor k. 

(AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 11) The factor k 

adjusts the measured energy use for 

freezers for consistency with consumer 

usage patterns of these products. Its 

value is 0.85 for upright freezers and 0.7 

for chest freezers. Applying these values 

means that the calculated energy use of 

upright freezers is 15% lower than the 

measured energy use. Correspondingly, 

the calculated energy use of chest 

freezers is 30% lower than the measured 

energy use. 

DOE notes that the other energy use 

equations of the current version of 

Appendix B1 (sections 5.2.1.1 and 

5.2.1.2), which collectively address 

products that are not equipped with 

variable defrost, include the factor k. 

Variable defrost was introduced into the 

test procedures for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers in the 

1989 final rule. 54 FR 36238. That final 

rule did not address the omission of the 

freezer correction factor in the equations 

for energy use of freezers with variable 

defrost. From the absence of any 

discussion of this issue in the preamble, 

there is nothing to suggest that DOE 

intended to treat variable defrost 

freezers differently from freezers not 

having this type of control. Hence, 

today’s final rule corrects this oversight. 

12. Including in Certification Reports 

Basic Information Clarifying Energy 

Measurements 

This section describes amendments 

for reporting that were proposed in the 

NOPR but will be adopted in the CCE 

rulemaking. 75 FR 56819. DOE 

proposed to modify its regulation to 

require that certification reports explain 

how products with advanced controls 

features (e.g. variable defrost control or 

variable anti-sweat heater control) or 

with temperature sensor locations 

different from the standard locations are 

tested. 75 FR 29841–42. The energy use 

of such products cannot be measured 

properly without knowing specific 

information regarding these control 

systems or how the temperature sensor 

locations have been modified from their 

standard locations. This information 

impacts how such a product is tested 

and how its energy use is calculated. In 

order to allow verification of the energy 

use ratings for such products by parties 

other than their manufacturers, DOE 

proposed that information clarifying 

these test details be included in 

certification reports. Id. 

DOE proposed that manufacturers 

identify in their certification reports 

whether the product has (1) variable 

defrost control, and if so, the values of 

CTL and CTM used in the energy use 

calculation, (2) variable anti-sweat 

heater control, and (3) internal design 

details requiring adjustment during 

testing of temperature sensor locations 

from their standard locations. The 

NOPR proposed modifying 10 CFR 

430.62(a)(4)(xii) to implement these 

changes. This section of the CFR lists 

the information specific to refrigeration 

products that must be provided in 

certification reports. The NOPR 

proposed that the relocation of 

temperature sensors from standard 

locations be allowed without petitioning 

for a waiver only if the new locations 

are no more than 2 inches from the 

standard locations. Id. 

DOE sought comment and suggestions 

on its proposal. AHAM and Whirlpool 

supported adding the proposed data to 

the certification report reporting 

requirements if parallel changes are 

made to DOE’s online data submission 

template. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 11; 

Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 8) However, 

AHAM added that the temperature 

sensor locations would need to remain 

confidential until the certification 

reports are submitted to DOE. (AHAM, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 

48) As described in section III.D.3, 

stakeholders opposed using the waiver 

process for reporting any deviation from 

the standard locations. DOE has decided 

not to include a requirement for waivers 

in case of temperature sensor relocation 

since it will be receiving this 

information as part of a certification 

report. 

Stakeholders also encouraged DOE to 

add a requirement to report the wattage 

values used in the variable anti-sweat 

heating energy use calculation. See 

Section III.D.9, above. Based on these 

comments and the absence of any 

objections, DOE is modifying this 

proposal within the context of the CCE 

rulemaking to require manufacturers to 

report the wattages used in the variable 

anti-sweat heating energy use 

calculation for products having this type 

of control system. 

Any such changes that DOE may 

make to these reporting requirements 

would be made through the ongoing 

CCE rulemaking and would be set out in 

a new 10 CFR part 429. 75 FR 56819. 

DOE will also make any necessary 

updates to its online data submission 

template as appropriate. 

13. Rounding Off Energy Test Results 

DOE requested comment on whether 

it needed to clarify the test procedure to 

specify the required precision in 

reporting refrigeration product energy 

use. 75 FR 29847. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
78832 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

AHAM and Whirlpool both supported 

rounding annual energy use to the 

nearest kilowatt-hour. (AHAM, No. 16.1 

at p. 10–11; AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at p. 162; Whirlpool, 

No. 12.1 at p. 7) No commenters 

objected to this approach. Hence, with 

this final rule, DOE will implement this 

requirement in 10 CFR 430.23(a), for 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, 

and in 10 CFR 430.23(b), for freezers. 

DOE recognizes that, if energy use is 

reported to the nearest kilowatt-hour, 

the specification of maximum allowable 

energy use must also be rounded to the 

nearest kilowatt-hour to prevent a 

reporting error. For example, if the 

energy standard was 500.7 kWh for a 

product whose energy use measurement 

was 500.6 kWh, rounding the 

measurement to 501 kWh might appear 

to show energy use higher than the 

maximum allowable under the standard. 

Hence, DOE also proposed that the 

maximum allowable energy use under 

the energy conservation standard be 

rounded to the nearest kilowatt-hour as 

part of the energy conservation standard 

rulemaking. 75 FR 59570. 

Because this change is primarily 

clerical and does not represent a change 

in the measured energy use of these 

products, DOE is not delaying the 

implementation of this provision as part 

of the new standards that are under 

consideration for 2014. Accordingly, 

this provision will be inserted into 10 

CFR part 430, subpart C, section 32(a). 

E. Amendments To Take Effect 

Simultaneously With a New Energy 

Conservation Standard 

This section discusses additional 

proposed changes that would apply to 

manufacturers when demonstrating 

compliance with any standard levels 

that DOE sets as part of its parallel 

rulemaking for amended energy 

conservation standards, scheduled to 

take effect in 2014. DOE had initially 

proposed that two of these changes be 

required for testing products prior to the 

compliance date of the new energy 

conservation standards, but, due to 

stakeholders comments, DOE has 

shifted these so that they will be 

required for testing starting on the 

compliance date of the new energy 

standards. These two changes include 

(1) modifying the test procedures for 

products with long-time or variable 

defrost functions to capture precooling 

energy use and (2) establishing test 

procedures for products with multiple 

defrost cycle types. (Sections III.E.1 and 

III.E.2 below discuss these 

amendments.) DOE further notes that 

some of the amendments that it had 

proposed have been modified to 

mitigate their potential impacts. These 

include the proposed amendments 

affecting convertible and special 

compartments and test procedures for 

products with variable anti-sweat heater 

control, discussed in sections III.D.5 and 

III.D.9 above. These changes were made 

to help ensure that manufacturers obtain 

test results that are representative of 

average consumer use. 

Responding to the NOPR, 

stakeholders commented that DOE 

should adjust the new energy 

conservation standard to address the 

potential changes in measured energy 

use associated with several of the 

proposed test procedure amendments. 

AHAM and ACEEE jointly commented 

that if DOE adopts the energy standards 

jointly proposed by industry and energy 

advocates, the standards should be 

revised to ensure that there is no change 

in the stringency of the allowable energy 

use before and after the changes to the 

test procedures. (Joint Comments, No. 

20.1 at p. 3) The standard levels 

proposed in the energy conservation 

standard NOPR (see 75 FR 59471– 

59472) were set taking into 

consideration the impacts of the 

compartment temperature changes and 

the modified volume calculation 

method. These test procedure 

amendments are described below in 

sections III.E.4 and III.E.5. Commenters 

indicated that additional adjustment of 

the new energy conservation standards 

might be necessary. These issues are 

discussed in other sections of this 

notice. However, DOE notes that the 

adjustment of the energy conservation 

standard is not within the scope of 

today’s notice and does not provide a 

final resolution of these issues. 

1. Modification of Long-Time and 

Variable Defrost Test Method To 

Capture Precooling and TemperatureRecovery Energy 

DOE proposed to revise the test 

procedures for products with long-time 

or variable defrost to capture precooling 

energy. 75 FR 29837–29839. Long-time 

defrost is defrost control in which 

compressor run time between defrosts 

exceeds 14 hours. Variable defrost is a 

type of defrost control in which the time 

interval between defrosts is adjusted 

based on need, i.e. when a sufficient 

amount of moisture has collected on the 

evaporator as frost to reduce 

refrigeration performance. 

Precooling involves cooling the 

compartment(s) of a refrigerator-freezer 

to temperatures significantly lower than 

the user-selected temperature settings 

prior to an automatic defrost cycle. This 

technique may be employed in certain 

systems to limit maximum freezer 

compartment temperature during 

defrost cycles. A precooling control 

system initiates an extra long 

compressor run before the defrost cycle 

to reduce the temperature of the cabinet 

or one of its compartments significantly 

more than would occur during a normal 

compressor cycle. An extra long 

compressor run is one where the 

compressor on-cycle continues for at 

least 10% longer than the length of a 

typical compressor on-cycle after the 

compartment temperature has dropped 

down to the temperature at which the 

compressor typically turns off during 

steady state cycling operation between 

defrosts. 

Although precooling consumes energy 

in refrigeration products used by 

consumers, the current test procedure 

does not include this energy use. The 

current long-time defrost test (used also 

for products with variable defrost) 

consists of two parts. The first part 

measures the steady cycling energy use 

of the refrigerator-freezer with no 

contribution from the defrost cycle. The 

second part measures the energy use 

contribution associated with the defrost 

cycle. The second part of the test starts 

when the last compressor cycle before 

the defrost stops. Appendix A1, section 

4.1.2.1. If this last compressor cycle is 

a precooling cycle, representing more 

average energy use than is measured 

during part 1 of the test, the test cannot 

measure all of the energy use associated 

with the defrost cycle. This situation 

presents a potential loophole in the 

current test procedure that the 

amendment described in this section is 

closing. 

The DOE test procedure for products 

with automatic defrost in which defrost 

cycles are separated by less than 14 

hours of compressor run time specify 

that the test period be ‘‘from one point 

during a defrost period to the same 

point during the next defrost period.’’ 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A1, 

section 4.1.2. In 1982, DOE amended the 

test procedures to include the 

alternative procedure for long-time 

defrost (section 4.1.2.1 of Appendix A1) 

to accommodate long periods of time 

between defrosts (i.e. significantly 

greater than 24 hours of test time) 

without making the energy test period 

unduly burdensome. 47 FR 34517 

(August 10, 1982). This change, made to 

reduce test burden, was made at a time 

when control systems capable of 

precooling were not in general use— 

hence, the time period defined for the 

test did not include precooling 

compressor cycles. The change does not 

imply that DOE had intended that part 

of the energy use associated with defrost 

does not need to be measured. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78833 

The variable defrost test, introduced 

in 1989, accommodates even longer 

times between defrosts compared to the 

time periods in the long-time defrost 

test. (See 54 FR 36238 discussing 

calculated values of CT (hours of 

compressor run time between defrosts to 

be used in the equation for energy 

consumption) with values ranging from 

28.96 to 45 hours, as compared to 

approximately 14 hours for long-time 

defrost). 

DOE proposed to make the following 

modifications to address precooling 

energy use: 

• Modifying the long-time defrost test 

procedure description to read as 

follows. 

4.1.2.1 Long-time Automatic Defrost. 

If the model being tested has a long-time 

automatic defrost system, the two-part 

test described in this section may be 

used. The first part is the same as the 

test for a unit having no defrost 

provisions (section 4.1.1). The second 

part starts when the compressor turns 

off at the end of a period of steady-state 

cycling operation just before initiation 

of the defrost control sequence. If the 

compressor does not cycle during 

steady-state operation between defrosts, 

the second part starts at a time when the 

compartment temperatures are within 

their ranges measured during steady 

state operation, or within 0.5 °F of the 

average during steady state operation for 

a compartment with a temperature range 

during steady state operation no greater 

than 1 °F. This control sequence may 

include additional compressor 

operation prior to energizing the defrost 

heater. The second part terminates 

when the compressor turns on the 

second time after the defrost control 

sequence or 4 hours after the defrost 

heater is energized, whichever occurs 

first. See Figure 1. 75 FR 29838–39. 

• Modifying Figure 1, which shows 

the long-time defrost test period to 

reflect the proposed language discussed 

above and adding a second illustration 

showing the appropriate measurement 

technique when there is precooling. Id. 

ACEEE, NRDC, and the IOUs 

supported the proposed language for the 

long-time automatic defrost test method 

(ACEEE, No. 19.1 at p. 3; NRDC, No. 

21.1 at p. 4; IOUs, No. 14.1 at p. 5) 

Whirlpool supported modifying the test 

procedure to clarify that the second part 

of the test starts when the compartment 

temperatures are at steady state 

operation, adding parenthetically that 

this could be interpreted to mean within 

0.5 °F. (Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 6) GE 

supported the inclusion of a means to 

measure precooling energy use in the 

test procedure. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at p. 97) 

AHAM suggested that the test 

procedure specify that the average 

temperatures be the averages calculated 

from the first part of the long-time 

defrost test. AHAM also commented 

that the test procedure should rely on 

temperature control cycles instead of 

compressor time in order to address 

variable speed compressors. (AHAM, 

No. 16.1 at p. 8; AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at p. 105) 

Fisher & Paykel supported starting 

(and stopping) the defrost and recovery 

measurements in steady state 

conditions. (Fisher & Paykel, No. 24.2 at 

p. 2) 

Electrolux expressed two key 

concerns regarding the proposed test 

procedure language. It noted that (1) the 

procedure must be able to address both 

cycling and variable-speed compressors 

and (2) the proposed test procedure 

does not sufficiently clarify how to 

determine when the test starts, i.e. what 

temperature criteria are used. 

(Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell H74) 

AHAM, Whirlpool, GE, Electrolux, 

PRC, and NIST noted that the proposed 

modification to the test procedure for 

pre-cooling energy would affect tested 

energy use. (AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at p. 104; AHAM, No. 

16.1 at p. 8; Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 

6; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 

at pp. 96–97; Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 

1, cell H74; PRC, No. 15.1 at p. 4; NIST, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 

103–104) AHAM, Whirlpool, GE, and 

NIST also indicated that this impact 

should be considered as part of the new 

energy conservation standard and that 

the test procedure amendment should 

not be implemented prior to 2014. Id. 

DOE notes the contrast between 

statements of Fisher-Paykel indicating 

that the proposed language (‘‘steady 

state conditions’’) is sufficient to 

describe the starting point for the 

second part of the test and those of 

Electrolux indicating that the start time 

is ambiguous. (Fisher-Paykel, No. 24.2 

at p. 2; Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell 

H74) Whirlpool suggested that DOE 

quantify the temperature criterion for 

the start time of the second part of the 

test, i.e. 0.5 °F (Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at 

p. 6) DOE received later clarification 

that this statement meant that the 

second part of the test should start when 

the compartment temperature is within 

0.5 °F of the average temperature of the 

first part of the test. (Clarification of 

Written Comments Submitted by 

Whirlpool Corporation, No. 35 at p. 2) 

DOE recognizes the value of providing 

a set specification, and the interim final 

rule addresses this concern. 

As described below, DOE considered 

what criterion could be used to specify 

start of the second part of the test. 

DOE notes that specifying a start time 

for the second part of the test when the 

compartment temperature is within 0.5 

°F of its first-part average is not 

generally appropriate, because this 

requirement would conflict with the 

typical start time of the second part 

under the current test procedure for a 

product with a cycling compressor—at 

the end of a compressor on-cycle, when 

the compartment temperature should be 

near the minimum temperature 

measured during the first part of the 

test. However, DOE notes that selecting 

a start time for the second part when the 

compartment temperature is within 0.5 

°F of its minimum temperature 

measured during the first part is also 

inappropriate, since a manufacturer 

could program a control to provide one 

temperature minimum during the first 

part at a low extreme and repeat this 

low extreme just prior to the defrost. 

The added energy use associated with 

the extended compressor operation to 

achieve this low extreme during the first 

part of the test might be mitigated in the 

energy use calculation because (a) an 

extended compressor shutdown as the 

compartment temperature rises again 

would lower measured energy use, (b) 

the relatively long duration of the first 

part of the test reduces the average 

power impact of the single extended 

compressor run, and (c) the average 

compartment temperature during this 

extended compressor run and its 

subsequent off period would be lower 

than during steady state operation, thus 

reducing the temperature measured for 

the first part of the test, which reduces 

the energy use calculated as described 

in Appendix A1, section 6.2. Such a 

control approach (initiating one 

extended compressor run during the 

first part of the test) could eliminate 

precooling energy from the energy use 

measurement without a significant 

energy use penalty (i.e. without a 

significant increase in the energy use 

measured during the first part of the test 

as a result of the single extended 

compressor run). 

DOE considered a start for the second 

part of the test when the compartment 

temperature is within 0.5 °F of the 

average of the minimum temperatures 

achieved at the ends of each of the 

compressor runs during the first part. 

However, such a requirement would be 

complicated and potentially 

burdensome to calculate. 

DOE will instead provide a 

specification based on the averaging of 

compartment temperatures over a full 

compressor cycle to clarify what it 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
78834 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

means to be at the end of such a period 

of steady state operation. The clauses 

describing the starting time for cycling 

compressor systems during the second 

part of the test is as follows: ‘‘* * * the 

second part starts at the termination of 

the last regular compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle. 

The average temperature of the 

compartment measured from the 

termination of the previous compressor 

‘‘on’’ cycle to the termination of the last 

regular compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle must be 

within 0.5 °F of the average temperature 

of the compartment measured for the 

first part of the test.’’ This change 

responds to stakeholders’ desires for a 

specification based on temperature 

measurement. 

In response to the concerns expressed 

by AHAM and Electrolux regarding the 

treatment of products with variablespeed compressors, DOE’s proposed 

language specifies how to start the test 

for such products. To cover these 

systems, the proposal included the 

following language: ‘‘If the compressor 

does not cycle during steady-state 

operation between defrosts, the second 

part starts at a time when the 

compartment temperatures are within 

their ranges measured during steady 

state operation, or within 0.5 °F of the 

average during steady state operation for 

a compartment with a temperature range 

during steady state operation no greater 

than 1 °F.’’ 75 FR 29839. However, DOE 

agrees with AHAM that the reference to 

steady state operation for this part of the 

test procedure should clarify that the 

reference is to the steady state operation 

of the first part of the test. Hence, DOE 

will modify this text to read, ‘‘the 

second part starts at a time before 

defrost during stable operation when the 

compartment temperature is within 0.5 

°F of the average temperature of the 

compartment measured for the first part 

of the test.’’ The clause uses ‘‘stable 

operation’’ rather than ‘‘steady state’’ to 

distinguish from the definition of steady 

state in Appendix A1 section 2.5. 

Responding to comments that the 

proposed test procedure amendment to 

address precooling would alter the 

measured energy use, DOE has decided 

to remove this proposed language from 

Appendices A1 and B1 and to retain 

them for Appendices A and B. In DOE’s 

view, the overall objective of the test 

procedure is to measure the product’s 

energy consumption during a 

representative average use cycle or 

period of use. 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3). To 

ensure that its procedures sufficiently 

measure the energy consumption of 

these regulated products, DOE believes 

it is necessary to capture the energy 

consumption of precooling systems. 

Amendments To Address Partial 

Recovery 

DOE also requested comment on 

whether DOE should consider an 

amendment in the long-time and 

variable defrost test procedure to 

capture energy use associated with 

temperature recovery after the end of 

the second part of the test currently 

contained in the test procedure. (the 

‘‘partial recovery’’ issue) 75 FR 29839. 

The energy use associated with the 

defrost cycle includes energy used by 

the refrigeration system to remove the 

heat added to the compartment by the 

defrost heater and the thermal load 

added to the compartment while the 

compressor was not operating. The 

compressor runs for an extra long period 

after defrost to remove this heat and 

bring the compartment temperature 

down to the levels typical for steady 

state. For a cycling compressor system, 

this generally means that the 

temperature at the end of this long run 

would be close to the typical 

temperature measured during the first 

part of the test after each regular 

compressor on-cycle. The second part of 

the test ends when the compressor starts 

the second time after defrost (see 

Appendix A1 section 4.1.2.1). If the 

compartment temperature at the end of 

the first long compressor run after 

defrost is still significantly warmer than 

the typical first part compressor-stop 

temperature, a portion of the postdefrost cooldown is not captured by the 

second part of the test, and part of the 

energy used during consumer use is not 

measured by the test. As with 

precooling, this is a loophole in the test 

procedure that the amendments 

described in this section are closing. 

DOE did not propose a specific 

method to address partial recovery. 

Instead, DOE raised three possible 

options for stakeholders to consider, 

including (1) providing a temperature 

recovery specification for the 

compartment to define the end of the 

second part of the test, (2) extending the 

test by a specific amount of time after 

the defrost to assure temperature 

recovery, or (3) considering the average 

compartment temperature measured 

during the second part of the test when 

determining the average temperature 

that is used in the energy use 

calculation interpolation. 75 FR 29839. 

Stakeholders generally supported 

amending the procedure to capture the 

energy use associated with temperature 

recovery. NIST suggested that test 

procedure changes should be made to 

address partial recovery. It noted 

Working Group 12 of Technical 

Committee 59 of the IEC, which is 

developing IEC 62552, an international 

standard for testing refrigeration 

products, is considering incorporating 

the temperature of the second part of the 

test when calculating energy use. (NIST, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at 

p. 104) Fisher & Paykel commented that 

the second part of the test should both 

start and end during steady state 

conditions. (Fisher & Paykel, No. 24.2 at 

p. 2) ACEEE and the IOUs supported 

DOE’s proposal to address partial 

temperature recovery. However, the 

IOUs noted that SCE found through its 

own testing of several products that the 

impact of partial recovery on energy use 

was small. (ACEEE, No. 19.1 at p. 3; 

IOUs, No. 14.1 at p. 5) ACEEE 

recommended that DOE specify that the 

automatic defrost test continue until 

average freezer temperature is within 

0.5 °F of the average lowest temperature 

attained during steady-state operation. 

(ACEEE, No. 19.1 at p. 3) 

AHAM requested that DOE use a 

holistic approach in modifying the test 

procedure to address both precooling 

and partial recovery. (AHAM, No. 16.1 

at p. 8) 

DOE considered different approaches 

to address partial recovery in the second 

part of the test, as described below. 

DOE first considered the approach 

suggested by NIST in treating partial 

recovery. DOE concluded that such an 

approach would increase the measured 

energy use of refrigeration products, 

whether or not they exhibit partial 

recovery, since the energy use 

interpolation would be based on a 

measurement associated with a higher 

temperature. This result would occur 

because the energy use is calculated as 

an interpolation, which is a weighted 

average of the two measurements made 

at the two different temperature control 

settings. (See, e.g., Appendix A1, 

section 6.2.2.2) The first equation in this 

section is E = ET1 + ((ET2¥ET1) × 

(45.0¥TR1)/(TR2¥TR1)), where E is 

the energy use, ET1 and ET2 are the 

energy use measurements for the first 

and second tests, respectively, and TR1 

and TR2 are the fresh food compartment 

temperatures for the first and second 

tests, respectively. In those cases where 

T2 is warmer than T1, ET2 would be 

less than ET1 (less energy would be 

measured when the compartments are 

warmer). The equation can be 

rearranged to read: 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78835 

8 DOE is also simplifying the numbering of 

section 4, which currently includes a section 4.1, 

but no section 4.2. The ‘‘1.’’ representing the second 

level of the numbering system will be removed from 

all of the current section numbers. 

If both T1 and T2 were raised by a 

fixed increment, associated with 

including the temperature measured 

during the second part of the test in the 

compartment temperature measurement, 

the value used to multiply ET1 in the 

equation would increase, and the value 

used to multiply ET2 would decrease. 

This result would increase the 

weighting of ET1, the higher energy use 

measurement, in the calculation for ET. 

In order to maintain better consistency 

with the current test procedure and 

avoid an energy standard adjustment to 

be applied to all products with longtime or variable anti-sweat heater 

control, DOE rejected applying the 

compartment temperature measured 

during the second part of the test to this 

equation. 

DOE next considered the approach 

suggested by ACEEE to require the 

second part of the test to continue until 

the compartment temperature is within 

0.5 °F of the average lowest temperature 

attained during steady state operation. 

DOE points out two issues with this 

approach, as follows. 

First, the current test procedure 

requires the second part of the test to 

stop when the compressor cycles on the 

second time after the defrost. 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B, appendix A1, 

section 4.1.2.1. The test stop time 

suggested by ACEEE, when the 

compartment temperature is within 0.5 

°F of a minimum temperature measured 

in the first part of the test, is a time at 

the end of a period of compressor 

operation, since the compressor must 

operate to bring the temperature down 

to this minimum, and the compartment 

temperature starts to increase again 

shortly after the compressor stops. 

Using a stop time for the second part of 

the test when the compressor stops 

would make a significant impact on the 

measured energy use, as reported in the 

NOPR public meeting presentation. 

(Public Meeting Presentation, No. 9 at 

p. 53) 

Second, the ‘‘average lowest 

temperature’’ is the average of the series 

of minimum temperatures associated 

with the ends of compressor on-cycles 

during the first part of the test. Such an 

average would be burdensome to 

calculate, as described above in the 

discussion of precooling. 

DOE agrees, however, with using a 

temperature specification rather than a 

compressor event to determine the stop 

time for the second part of the test. DOE 

feels this is appropriate because the 

temperature is an indicator of the 

thermal state of the product, while the 

control system could start and stop the 

compressor at any time, whether or not 

stable conditions have been reached. 

Consistent with the amendment 

described above associated with the 

start time of the test, the new 

amendment will provide a means to 

indicate for systems with cycling 

compressors whether a given system has 

re-entered steady state operation. This 

amendment will provide that ‘‘[t]he test 

period for the second part of the test 

ends at the initiation of the first regular 

compressor cycle after the compartment 

temperatures have fully recovered to 

their stable conditions.’’ Additionally, 

‘‘[t]he average temperature of the 

compartment measured from this 

initiation of the first regular compressor 

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

regular compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle must be 

within 0.5 °F of the average temperature 

of the compartment measured for the 

first part of the test.’’ These changes will 

appear in Appendices A and B in a new 

section 4.2.1.1. 

For products with variable speed 

compressors, specifying a stop time for 

the second part of the test is similar to 

the specification of start time. In this 

instance, ‘‘[t]he second part stops at a 

time after defrost during stable 

operation when the compartment 

temperature is within 0.5 °F of the 

average temperature of the compartment 

measured for the first part of the test.’’ 

This is a simple requirement, consistent 

with the requirement for start of the 

second part of the test, and consistent 

with the recommendations of AHAM to 

address variable speed compressors. 

The selection of stop times for the 

second part of the test, as described 

above addresses both cycling and 

variable speed compressors. It also uses 

compartment temperature rather than 

compressor cycling to define the test— 

both of these test characteristics were 

specifically requested by stakeholders. 

See the discussion above in this section. 

For non-cycling compressors, this 

amendment also reduces test time by 

allowing for the second part of the test 

to terminate prior to the four hours 

currently required by the test procedure. 

The current procedure specifies that the 

second part ‘‘terminates at the second 

turn ‘‘on’’ of the compressor or four 

hours from the initiation of the defrost 

heater, whichever comes first.’’ 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B, appendix A1, 

section 4.1.2.1. DOE will, however, 

retain the 4-hour limit for the second 

part of the test, to limit test duration in 

case of extremely slow recovery. 

The modified procedure for the 

second part of the test that DOE is 

adopting today for incorporation as 

section 4.2.1 reads as follows: 8

4.2.1 Long-time Automatic Defrost 

If the model being tested has a long-time 

automatic defrost system, the two-part test 

described in this section may be used. The 

first part is a stable period of compressor 

operation that includes no portions of the 

defrost cycle, such as precooling or recovery, 

that is otherwise the same as the test for a 

unit having no defrost provisions (section 

4.1). The second part is designed to capture 

the energy consumed during all of the events 

occurring with the defrost control sequence 

that are outside of stable operation. 

4.2.1.1 Cycling Compressor System 

For a system with a cycling compressor, 

the second part starts at the termination of 

the last regular compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle. The 

average temperature of the compartment 

measured from the termination of the 

previous compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle to the 

termination of the last regular compressor 

‘‘on’’ cycle must be within 0.5 °F of the 

average temperature of the compartment 

measured for the first part of the test. If any 

compressor cycles occur prior to the defrost 

heater being energized that cause the average 

temperature in the compartment to deviate 

from the first part temperature by more than 

0.5 °F, these compressor cycles are not 

considered regular compressor cycles and 

must be included in the second part of the 

test. As an example, a ‘‘precool’’ cycle, which 

is an extended compressor cycle that lowers 

the compartment temperature prior to 

energizing the defrost heater, must be 

included in the second part of the test. The 

test period for the second part of the test ends 

at the initiation of the first regular 

compressor cycle after the compartment 

temperatures have fully recovered to their 

stable conditions. The average temperature of 

the compartment measured from this 

initiation of the first regular compressor ‘‘on’’ 

cycle until the initiation of the next regular 

compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle must be within 0.5 °F 

of the average temperature of the 

compartment measured for the first part of 

the test. The second part of the test may be 

terminated after 4 hours if the above 

conditions cannot be met. See Figure 1. 

4.2.1.2 Non-cycling Compressor System 

For a system with a non-cycling 

compressor, the second part starts at a time 

before defrost during stable operation when 

the compartment temperature is within 0.5 °F 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2ER16DE10.004</MATH>
78836 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

9See, for example, the data acquisition products 

offered by National Instruments, http:// 

www.ni.com/. 

of the average temperature of the 

compartment measured for the first part of 

the test. The second part stops at a time after 

defrost during stable operation when the 

compartment temperature is within 0.5 °F of 

the average temperature of the compartment 

measured for the first part of the test. The 

second part of the test may be terminated 

after 4 hours if the above conditions cannot 

be met. See Figure 2. 

To help clarify these procedures, DOE 

is modifying the already existing Figure 

1 by adding both power input and 

compartment temperature information. 

Accordingly, Figure 1 will show the 

relationship between compressor power 

input and compartment temperature. 

DOE has also provided a figure 

illustrating the second part test period 

for a non-cycling compressor system as 

a new Figure 2. 

Additional Test Period and Temperature 

Measurement Procedure Changes 

DOE determined that some additional 

test procedure changes are needed 

because of the compartmenttemperature-based determination of 

start and stop times for the second part 

of the test. These changes include (1) 

further emphasis that the first part of the 

test does not include any portion of the 

defrost cycle such as precooling or 

temperature recovery, (2) use of the 

same test period for both energy and 

temperature measurements, and (3) 

clarification that if the defrosting of 

evaporators in both the freezer and fresh 

food compartments occurs 

simultaneously, the freezer 

compartment temperature shall serve as 

the basis of the second part start and 

stop. The first two changes are 

discussed in this section, while the 

third change is discussed in section 

III.E.2, below. 

The current specifications for the first 

part of the test for products with longtime or variable defrost prescribe that 

‘‘[a] first part would be the same as the 

test for a unit having no defrost 

provisions (current section 4.1.1).’’ 

(Appendix A1, section 4.1.2.1) Current 

section 4.1.1 specifies a test period at 

least three hours long and consisting of 

two or more whole number of 

compressor cycles; for non-cycling 

compressors, a three-hour test period is 

specified. (Appendix A1, section 4.1.1) 

This definition of the first part of the 

test does not clearly indicate that it may 

not include any portion of a precooling 

period or a recovery period. The 

inclusion of such periods would add to 

the energy measurement for the first 

part of the test some of the defrost cycle 

energy use, which is intended to be 

included only in the measurement for 

the second part of the test. 

However, because of the current 

specification for determining the 

compartment temperature, including 

precooling and/or recovery periods 

within the first part of the test could 

also weaken the temperature-based 

definition for the start and stop of the 

second part of the test. Appendix A1, 

section 5.1.2.1, which applies to 

products with cycling compressors, 

specifies that the temperature 

measurement includes a number of 

complete compressor cycles equal to the 

number of minutes between temperature 

measurements rounded up to the 

nearest whole number. It also specifies 

that the last complete compressor cycle 

of the test period should be included in 

this measurement. 

DOE believes that all testing is 

currently conducted using modern 

computer-based data acquisition 

systems 9 that provide much greater 

measurement capabilities at much lower 

cost than systems that were in use when 

the test procedures were first written. 

DOE believes that the time interval 

between measurements does not 

generally exceed 1 minute, which 

allows a technician to use the last 

complete compressor cycle of the test 

period of the first part of the test to 

determine the compartment 

temperature. If a test period is chosen 

that occurs just before a defrost cycle 

and includes a precooling cycle, the 

criterion for the start of the second part 

of the test may be the comparison of the 

average temperature for this precooling 

compressor cycle to itself, which is a 

meaningless comparison. Even if the 

last compressor cycle in the test period 

is not a precooling cycle, but is the last 

regular compressor cycle during stable 

operation, the criterion for the second 

part of the test could still be the 

comparison of the temperature 

measured for this period to itself, 

because (1) this last regular compressor 

cycle could be the basis of the 

temperature measurement for the first 

part of the test if it is the last compressor 

cycle in the test period, and (2) the new 

approach for determining start of the 

second part of the test compares the 

temperature average for this last regular 

compressor cycle to the temperature 

measurement for the first part of the 

test. 

To remedy this situation, DOE is first 

modifying the current section 4.1.2.1 (to 

be renumbered section 4.2.1) to specify 

that the first part of the test includes 

only the stable system operation 

between defrosts that do not include 

any portions of the defrost cycle, ‘‘such 

as precooling or recovery’’. Second, DOE 

is modifying the temperature 

measurement procedures by requiring 

that temperature measurements be 

averages for the full test period specified 

in section 4. This will ensure 

examination of at least two compressor 

cycles to obtain the temperature 

measurement for the first part of the 

test, thus avoiding the meaningless 

comparison of a temperature to itself to 

determine start of the second part of the 

test. For non-cycling and incompletecycling systems, requiring examination 

of the same test period for energy use 

measurement and temperature 

measurement also strengthens the 

temperature-based determination of 

start and stop times for the second part 

of the test, because it avoids the current 

focus of the temperature measurement 

on the end of the test period used for 

energy measurement. (The current 

temperature measurement for noncycling systems is for the last 32 

minutes of the 3-hour test period (see 

Appendix A1 sections 4.1.1 and 5.1.2.2) 

and for incomplete-cycling systems it is 

for the last 3 hours of the 24-hour test 

period (see Appendix A1 sections 4.1.1 

and 5.1.2.3)). In any case in which the 

control system reduces temperature (i.e. 

engages precooling) for the short 

temperature-measurement period, the 

new temperature-based determination of 

second-part start can be shifted to a time 

after this precooling has occurred. 

Hence, DOE is extending the 

temperature measurement to cover the 

entire test period for all of these system 

types. 

These changes to sections 4 and 5 

have been made in Appendices A and 

B. 

2. Establishing Test Procedures for 

Multiple Defrost Cycle Types 

DOE proposed adding procedures to 

address products with one compressor 

and two or more evaporators in which 

each evaporator undergoes active 

defrost cycles that use electric defrost 

heaters to melt frost. Also, DOE 

proposed adding a definition for 

‘‘defrost cycle type’’ by defining this 

term as ‘‘a distinct sequence of control 

whose function is to remove frost and/ 

or ice from a refrigerated surface.’’ 75 FR 

29839. DOE noted in this proposed 

definition that there may be variations 

in the defrost control sequence, such as 

the number of defrost heaters energized, 

and that each of these variations 

establishes a separate distinct defrost 

cycle type. DOE also noted that defrost 

achieved regularly during the 

compressor off-cycles by warming of the 

evaporator without active heat addition 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78837 

is not a defrost cycle type. See generally 

75 FR 29839. 

Products with one compressor and 

multiple evaporators with active defrost 

may use multiple defrost cycle types. 

This amendment would not address 

products that are equipped with two or 

more evaporators that defrost 

simultaneously. In this case, there is 

only one defrost cycle type, which 

includes the defrosting of all of the 

evaporators. The procedure would also 

not address a product equipped with a 

freezer evaporator that undergoes 

conventional automatic defrost and a 

fresh food evaporator that undergoes offcycle defrost (in which frost is melted 

between compressor cycles by the fresh 

food compartment air, which is above 

freezing temperature). Such a product 

also would have just one defrost cycle 

type, which consists of defrosting only 

the freezer evaporator. 

DOE proposed these amendments to 

address primarily those products 

equipped with long-time or variable 

defrost. Id. Long-time defrost refers to 

defrost control in which defrost cycles 

are separated by 14 or more hours of 

compressor operation. Variable defrost 

refers to defrost control in which the 

compressor operation time between 

defrosts varies (and generally exceeds 

14 hours). The proposal also clarified 

how to determine which defrost cycle 

test procedure should be used for 

products with multiple defrost cycle 

types—i.e. long-time, variable, or the 

simplified automatic defrost control 

procedure. (See, e.g. 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix A1, section 4.1.2) 

This proposed clarification indicated 

that, assuming the defrost control is not 

variable, the test technician would 

consider the number of hours of 

compressor operation between defrosts 

for each of the defrost cycle types. If the 

largest of these numbers of hours is less 

than 14 hours, the current procedure 

from Appendix A1 section 4.1.2 

(automatic defrost) would apply. 

Otherwise, the proposed test procedure 

for these products would apply. 75 FR 

29839. 

The point of the amended test 

procedure is to ensure that the energy 

use from each defrost cycle type, using 

the appropriate factors representing its 

frequency, is included in the total 

energy use calculation. Currently, the 

energy use for products with long-time 

or variable defrost (for conventional 

products having a single defrost cycle 

type) is calculated by adding the energy 

use from the measured steady-state 

operation between defrosts (the first part 

of the test) to the energy use from the 

defrost cycle (the second part of the 

test). See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendix A1, sections 5.2.1.2 (long-time 

defrost) and 5.2.1.3 (variable defrost). 

The energy use per defrost cycle is 

adjusted in this energy use equation to 

account for defrost frequency. DOE 

proposed an energy use equation for 

products with multiple defrost cycle 

types that adds the energy use 

separately for each defrost cycle type 

and adjusts for the different defrost 

cycle frequencies that may be present. 

75 FR 29839. The energy use equation 

provided in the proposal was generic, 

allowing for any number of defrost cycle 

types by using summation notation 

indicating that the defrost energy use 

contribution would be summed for all 

defrost cycle types. Id. at 29863. 

Whirlpool supported the proposed 

changes that would address products 

with multiple defrost cycle types. 

(Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 6) However, 

Whirlpool also indicated that this 

proposed amendment was one of several 

in the NOPR that would have a 

significant impact on a product’s 

measured energy use, manufacturer 

cost, facilities, testing capability and/or 

lead time, and requested that it not take 

effect until 2014. (Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at 

p. 2) AHAM generally supported the 

proposal, but expressed several 

concerns. (AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 108–109; 

AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 9) These concerns 

included (a) the proposed time between 

defrosts of the freezer section may not 

apply to the fresh food section, (b) the 

presence of off-cycle defrost in the fresh 

food compartment should not make the 

proposed procedure applicable to a 

particular product, (c) DOE should 

clarify that the optional third part of the 

test to determine typical intervals 

between defrosts is not required, and (d) 

the proposed amendment would affect 

measured energy use and should be 

considered when DOE sets its new 

energy conservation standards for 

refrigeration products. AHAM also 

agreed with DOE’s conclusion that the 

defrost cycle type with the longest 

compressor run time between defrosts 

should be the basis upon which to 

determine whether the long-time defrost 

test method would be applicable, and 

with DOE’s decision not to include this 

amendment in test procedures for 

freezers. Id. However, AHAM indicated 

that it would prefer that DOE adopt the 

procedure proposed by AHAM for 

multiple compressor systems, intending 

that it apply to both multiple 

compressor products and products with 

single compressors and multiple active 

evaporator defrosts. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at 

p. 7; Clarification of Written Comments 

Submitted by AHAM, No. 34 at p. 2) 

Electrolux also supported the need to 

capture all defrost energy use in the test 

procedure, but expressed concern about 

the near-term introduction of this 

amendment, arguing that it should be 

delayed until 2014, when the new 

energy conservation standards take 

effect. (Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell 

H89) 

Based on the stakeholder comments 

indicating that this test procedure 

amendment would impact measured 

energy use, DOE has decided to apply 

this amendment to Appendix A, thus, 

making it mandatory for manufacturers 

to use during product testing once the 

standards that DOE promulgates for 

2014 must be met. This slight delay in 

implementation will also provide 

manufacturers with time to adjust to 

this new requirement. Consistent with 

the proposal, this amendment does not 

apply to freezers. 

In DOE’s view, the current energy test 

procedure does not include test 

procedures for products with multiple 

defrost cycle types. For this reason, 

there is no basis for manufacturers’ 

claims that the amendment would 

impact energy use measurements. DOE 

has no documentation regarding the test 

procedures manufacturers are using to 

certify these products, and has received 

no petitions for waivers suggesting the 

need for any such test procedures. 

Hence, DOE has no information on 

which to form a decision on how to 

adjust the new energy conservation 

standard to account for these 

amendments. Until these amendments 

are required in conjunction with the 

2014 standards, manufacturers 

introducing products equipped with 

multiple defrost cycle types should, 

consistent with 10 CFR 430.27, petition 

for a waiver since the modified version 

of Appendix A1 set out in today’s notice 

will not include a specified method for 

capturing this energy usage. 

Manufacturers who attempt to measure 

the energy use of such products without 

a waiver would be unable to certify 

these products. 

As for AHAM’s comment regarding 

the need to consider the different time 

intervals between defrosts of the fresh 

food and freezer compartments, DOE 

agrees that such a need exists. This is 

the reason that DOE proposed this 

amendment. The procedure adds the 

energy use of the defrost cycles in 

accordance with their frequencies of 

occurrence (i.e. their different time 

intervals). However, the test procedure 

is designed to address defrost cycle 

types separately rather than fresh food 

and freezer compartment defrosts 

separately, as suggested by the AHAM 

comment. DOE proposed this approach 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
78838 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

10Let the ‘‘compressor operation time’’, COT of 

successive dual-compartment defrosts be 0 hours, 

18 hours, 36 hours, etc. The COTs of the fresh-foodonly defrosts are 6 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours, 30 

hours, etc. The difference in COTs between 

successive fresh-food-only defrosts is 6 hours or 12 

hours, depending on which pair of such defrosts is 

considered. 

because if the fresh food and freezer 

compartments are defrosted at the same 

time, it is impossible to measure the 

energy use associated with these defrost 

cycles separately. Even if the energy 

consumption of the two defrost heaters 

were separately measured, it is 

impossible to allocate the energy use of 

the single compressor separately to the 

two compartments. The entire defrost 

cycle type involving defrost of both 

compartments can be considered 

individually. 

However, DOE recognizes that 

additional clarification must be 

provided for the defrost test period for 

defrost cycle types involving the 

defrosting of more than one 

compartment. Applying the 

compartment-temperature-based 

specifications for the start and stop 

times of the second part of the test as 

described in section III.E.1, rather than 

the current procedure’s use of 

compressor start/stop times, raises the 

question of which compartment’s 

temperatures serve as the basis of the 

specification. DOE believes that the 

temperature of the freezer compartment 

would provide a better indication of 

appropriate start of the second part of 

the test (prior to any precooling 

operation of the compressor), and would 

also provide a better indication of when 

steady state operation has been achieved 

after completion of the defrost cycle. 

This is because the melting temperature 

to which the evaporators must be heated 

to melt frost is a much greater deviation 

from normal compartment temperature 

for the freezer compartment than it is for 

the fresh food compartment. Hence, the 

amended procedure clarifies that the 

start and stop times for the second part 

of the test for defrost cycle types 

involving defrost of both fresh food and 

freezer compartments are determined by 

the freezer compartment temperatures. 

DOE notes that this clarification would 

apply even if there is only one defrost 

cycle type. 

DOE also agrees with AHAM’s 

comment that off-cycle defrost does not 

represent a defrost cycle type, and has 

modified the definition of defrost cycle 

type to make this clarification. 

Regarding the optional third part of 

the test, DOE has eliminated this test 

from its test procedures, making further 

clarification unnecessary. (see section 

III.D.10). 

Finally, DOE considered an additional 

complication associated with applying 

the proposed test procedure to 

refrigeration products. In particular, it is 

possible that there may be more than 

one interval in the compressor run time 

between the occurrences of a particular 

defrost cycle type. For instance, a 

product may employ a control system 

that initiates a defrost of both the fresh 

food and freezer compartment every 18 

hours of compressor run time, and 

initiates defrost of only the fresh food 

compartment at intervals of 6 hours and 

12 hours of compressor run time after 

the dual-compartment defrost. For such 

a product, the compressor run time 

interval between instances of the freshfood-only defrost cycle type is both 6 

hours and 12 hours.10 For such 

instances, selection of the appropriate 

value for CTi for use in the energy use 

equation (see proposed section 5.2.1.6 of 

Appendix A (75 FR 29863)) is unclear. 

Determining the appropriate value for 

CTi should be based on the fact that the 

12/CTi ratio is intended to represent the 

frequency of occurrence of defrost cycle 

type ‘‘i’’ in a 24-hour period, subject to 

the assumption that compressor run 

time averages 50%. 

DOE is unaware of any refrigeration 

products on the market to which this 

issue applies. However, in order to 

clarify the test procedure and to cover 

this possibility, DOE has inserted 

additional language as follows, in the 

section describing energy use 

calculation for systems with multiple 

defrost cycle types: ‘‘For cases in which 

there are more than one fixed CT value 

(for long-time defrost models) or more 

than one CTM and/or CTL value (for 

variable defrost models) for a given 

defrost cycle type, an average fixed CT 

value or average CTM and CTL values 

shall be selected for this cycle type so 

that 12 divided by this value or values 

is the frequency of occurrence of the 

defrost cycle type in a 24 hour period, 

assuming 50% compressor run time.’’ 

In summary, the interim final rule 

makes four changes to the proposal 

affecting products with multiple defrost 

cycle types. First, manufacturers need to 

comply with these amendments once 

the new standards for refrigeration 

products apply, rather than sooner. 

Second, it clarifies the definition for 

‘‘defrost cycle type’’ by excluding offcycle defrost. Third, it clarifies how to 

determine CT values in those products 

equipped with multiple defrost types if 

there is more than one compressor run 

time interval between instances of a 

particular defrost cycle type. And 

fourth, it clarifies that for defrost cycle 

types in which both fresh food and 

freezer compartments are defrosted, that 

the freezer compartment temperature is 

the basis of the start and stop times of 

the second part of the test. 

3. Incorporating by Reference AHAM 

Standard HRF–1–2008 for Measuring 

Energy and Internal Volume of 

Refrigerating Appliances 

DOE proposed to incorporate 

references to AHAM Standard HRF–1– 

2008 in new Appendices A and B. 75 FR 

29842. 

The current DOE test procedures for 

refrigeration products reference sections 

of AHAM Standard HRF–1–1979. The 

referenced sections specify the test 

facility, test sample set-up, 

measurement procedure, and volume 

calculation requirements that 

manufacturers must follow when testing 

their products. DOE proposed to adopt 

the most recent version of this industry 

procedure, HRF–1–2008, for products 

subject to the new energy conservation 

standards that DOE is currently 

considering for 2014. Id. HRF–1–2008 

incorporates many changes, including 

new compartment temperatures and 

new volume calculation methods, 

which are discussed further in sections 

III.E.4 and III.E.5. Adopting the 

provisions in HRF–1–2008 for new 

compartment temperatures will alter the 

measured energy use of these products, 

as described in the NOPR. Id. The 

temperature and volume calculation 

method changes will change the 

adjusted volume (which is integral to 

the calculated energy use) because (1) 

the temperature changes affect the 

volume adjustment factors (adjusted 

volume is equal to the fresh food 

compartment volume plus the volume 

adjustment factor multiplied by the 

freezer compartment volume), and (2) 

the volume measurements themselves 

will change. Because the energy 

standards for refrigeration products 

express energy use as a function of 

adjusted volume, the temperature and 

volume changes necessitate a change in 

the energy conservation standard. DOE 

proposed that these amendments 

referencing HRF–1–2008 would take 

effect once any new energy conservation 

standards that DOE decides to adopt as 

part of its current standards rulemaking 

become required. Id. 

Besides updating the existing test 

procedure references to HRF–1–2008, 

DOE also proposed including a 

reference to the definitions section of 

HRF–1–2008. Id. 

In addition, DOE proposed including 

language explaining that in cases where 

the referenced sections of HRF–1–2008 

and the regulatory language of 10 CFR 

part 430 conflict, the regulatory 

language takes precedence. Id. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78839 

11Preliminary Technical Support Document: U.S. 

Department of Energy–Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy. Energy Efficiency Program 

For Consumer Products: Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers. November 2009. 

Washington, DC. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/

ref_frz_prenopr_prelim_tsd.pdf. 

AHAM and Whirlpool generally 

agreed with this proposal, mentioning 

that it would incorporate the most upto-date industry standards and 

practices. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 4; 

Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 2) General 

Electric asked whether DOE would 

adopt updates of HRF–1 beyond HRF– 

1–2008 when they are established. 

(General Electric, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at p. 124) DOE is 

open to considering these updates for 

inclusion if and when they are finalized. 

Because no concerns were raised by 

stakeholders regarding these proposals, 

the interim final rule includes the 

amendments as proposed. The new 

Appendices A and B, referencing HRF– 

1–2008, will be required for testing to 

determine compliance with energy 

standards when manufacturers are 

required to comply with the new energy 

conservation standards. 

4. Establishing New Compartment 

Temperatures 

DOE proposed to adopt the new 

compartment temperatures described in 

section 5.6.2 of HRF–1–2008 and their 

associated volume adjustment factors 

found in section 6.3 of HRF–1–2008 into 

the DOE test procedures. 75 FR 29842– 

29843. These amendments will improve 

the test procedure’s consistency with 

the actual use of refrigeration products 

in the field. The amendment will also 

help facilitate the international 

harmonization of appliance test 

procedures with IEC 62552. Reducing 

the energy test compartment 

temperatures for refrigerators (excluding 

all-refrigerators) and refrigerator-freezers 

will result in higher measured energy 

use because of the higher thermal load 

associated with the increased 

temperature difference between ambient 

conditions and the compartments. 

These compartment temperature 

changes also led AHAM to change the 

volume adjustment factors, which 

depend on compartment temperatures. 

Consistent with HRF–1–2008, DOE also 

proposed to make similar changes to its 

volume adjustment factors. DOE had 

proposed to implement these changes 

by adding appropriate regulatory text 

into Appendices A and B, rather than 

simply referencing HRF–1–2008. Id. 

DOE invited interested parties to 

comment on this proposed change. 

ACEEE, AHAM, the IOUs, and 

Whirlpool generally supported the 

proposal to adopt the new compartment 

temperatures. (ACEEE, No. 19.1 at p. 2; 

AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 8; IOUs, No. 14.1 

at p. 4–5; Whirlpool, No. 16.1 at p. 5) 

GE and Whirlpool added that 

establishing new compartment 

temperatures will impact the energy 

conservation standard. (GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 130– 

131; Whirlpool, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 128–129) After 

considering these comments and 

considering the potential impacts that 

this change would be likely to have, 

DOE has decided to implement these 

changes as part of the amended test 

procedure that will be required with the 

new standards that DOE is considering. 

75 FR 59470. 

Specifically, ACEEE and the IOUs 

also expressed concerns related to 

DOE’s examination of the potential 

changes in measured energy use 

stemming from the proposed 

amendments. These commenters 

suggested that DOE investigate the 

nonlinearity of energy use for products 

with smaller volumes. (ACEEE, No. 19.1 

at p. 2; IOUs, No. 14.1 at p. 4–5) The 

preliminary TSD that DOE had 

published previously suggested the 

possibility of this nonlinearity. See 

Preliminary TSD, section 5.4.2.3 

(Engineering Analysis 11). DOE has not, 

however, received sufficient data to 

either confirm this nonlinearity or to 

permit it to develop a nonlinear energy 

use equation for these products. 

Accordingly, DOE could not account for 

this possibility within the context of the 

test procedure. 

Under today’s interim final rule, these 

new compartment temperatures and 

their associated volume adjustment 

factors will be incorporated into new 

Appendices A and B. 

5. Establishing New Volume Calculation 

Method 

DOE proposed to add the volume 

calculation procedure used in HRF–1– 

2008 to new Appendices A and B that 

would apply to all compliance testing 

for products required to meet the new 

2014 standards that DOE is currently 

considering. 75 FR 29843. The proposed 

volume calculation method is simpler 

than the one contained in the current 

procedure and removes the subjective 

nature of the current method that test 

technicians use when estimating 

volume. 

The NOPR invited interested parties 

to comment on this proposed change. 

ACEEE, AHAM, and Whirlpool 

supported the DOE decision to adopt 

new volume calculation methods. 

(ACEEE, No. 19.1 at p. 3; AHAM, No. 

16.1 at p. 8; Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 

5) 

In light of this support, and the 

absence of any comments objecting to 

its adoption, DOE is adopting this new 

method as part of the new test 

procedures contained in Appendices A 

and B. Adopting this new method offers 

a critical advantage over the current 

method. First, the use of this new 

method will improve the accuracy of 

volume reporting. Second, because the 

energy use equation that serves as the 

basis for each standard depends on the 

calculated adjusted volume for each 

product class, a more accurate volume 

calculation will also improve the 

accuracy of the calculation of the energy 

standard. As a result, the amendment 

will help improve compliance with the 

standard. 

Additionally, DOE noted that HRF–1– 

2008 does not explicitly address how to 

treat automatic icemakers and ice 

storage bins within the context of the 

volume calculation method. (See section 

4, ‘‘Method for Computing Refrigerated 

Volume of Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, Wine Chillers, and Freezers’’ of 

HRF–1–2008.) To address this 

shortcoming, DOE proposed that these 

elements be considered part of the 

internal volume for refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers (covered in 

Appendix A). DOE also proposed to 

apply this clarification to freezers 

(covered in Appendix B), since freezers 

could also be equipped with automatic 

icemakers. DOE sought comment on this 

approach. 75 FR 29843. 

AHAM supported DOE’s proposed 

clarification for automatic icemakers 

and ice storage bins, including its 

application to freezers. (AHAM, No. 

16.1 at p. 8; AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at p. 133) There were 

no comments objecting to this proposed 

amendment. In light of the additional 

clarity that this change would provide 

manufacturers when testing their 

products and the absence of any 

objections, DOE is amending its 

procedure to cover these icemakingrelated components as part of the 

internal volume of refrigeration 

products as applicable. These 

clarifications will appear in both 

Appendices A and B. 

Fisher & Paykel also raised an issue 

regarding the proposed volume 

calculation method. It noted that some 

manufacturers have tested products that 

have TTD ice service with their ice 

delivery chutes filled or covered. By 

testing products in this way, 

manufacturers would be able to reduce 

that product’s measured energy use. The 

adjusted volume measurement may also 

be reduced (as would the calculated 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
78840 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

energy standard for the product), but 

only slightly, because the volume 

reduction multiplied by the energy 

standard equation slope is generally less 

than the energy use reduction, thus 

providing the manufacturer an 

advantage with respect to compliance 

with the energy standard. Fisher & 

Paykel asserted that using such an 

approach may constitute circumvention 

of the test procedures. To address this 

potential problem, Fisher & Paykel 

suggested that DOE add an additional 

clarification to the proposed changes to 

the volume calculation method by 

requiring that ‘‘all chutes and throats 

required for the delivery of ice shall be 

free of packing, covers or other 

blockages that may be fitted for shipping 

or when the icemaker is not in use.’’ 

After considering Fisher & Paykel’s 

concern and its proposed solution, DOE 

is adopting this clarification. DOE wants 

to ensure that the procedure that it 

adopts today provides sufficient clarity 

without leaving potential room for 

circumvention. To achieve this goal, 

DOE is inserting this additional 

requirement into section 2 of new 

Appendices A and B, as well as 

amended Appendices A1 and B1, to 

help clarify the test preparation process. 

DOE also believes that, as a practical 

matter, consumers will remove any such 

packing material or temporary covers 

during actual use of these products 

since they are likely to use these 

features (e.g., TTD ice service) rather 

than opt to let them remain dormant. 

Consequently, removing such packing 

material and/or covers is more 

consistent with consumer use of the 

product than permitting this material to 

remain in place during testing. 

As with the incorporation of new 

compartment temperatures, DOE will 

incorporate the proposed volume 

calculation changes as part of the 

procedures that manufacturers must use 

when certifying compliance to the new 

energy standards that will be required 

for refrigeration products to meet in 

2014. 

6. Control Settings for Refrigerators and 

Refrigerator-Freezers During Testing 

Section III.D.4 above discusses two 

temperature control amendments that 

manufacturers must use prior to the 

promulgation of the new energy 

conservation standards that will apply 

in 2014. These amendments include (a) 

addressing products equipped with 

electronic controls for which exact 

median settings cannot be selected, and 

(b) modifying the DOE test procedure to 

include two standardized temperatures 

for products with both fresh food and 

freezer compartments. This latter 

change would help achieve some 

consistency with the test approach 

already used by manufacturers when 

selecting temperature settings for the 

second test that must be run. 

The remaining amendments that will 

be required when determining 

compliance with the standards under 

consideration for products 

manufactured in 2014 are discussed in 

this section. 

Refrigerator-Freezers and Refrigerators 

With Freezer Compartments 

The NOPR discussed gaps present in 

the current procedure regarding 

refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators 

with freezer compartments. In 

particular, in certain cases, depending 

on the results of the first test, the 

current instructions in section 3.2 of 

Appendix A1 do not address: (1) 

Control settings for the second test and/ 

or third test, and (2) which energy test 

results to use in the energy use 

calculations. The NOPR presented a 

chart illustrating the logic behind the 

temperature setting requirements 

according to the current test procedure 

for refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators 

with freezer compartments. The table is 

reproduced below as Table III.3. 

The logic in the chart was presented 

to be consistent with the typical test 

practice of using the warm/warm setting 

only if both compartment temperatures 

are lower than the standardized 

temperatures in the first test. While this 

practice is inconsistent with the current 

DOE test procedure, as described above 

in section III.D.4, it is consistent with 

current manufacturer test practices. As 

discussed in the NOPR, the current 

procedure does not clearly address the 

temperature setting requirements for the 

second test, nor does it clearly indicate 

which test results to use when 

calculating total energy use, for Cases 2, 

5, and 6 shown in Table III.3. DOE 

proposed to amend the test procedure to 

address this deficiency. 75 FR 29844– 

29845. 

TABLE III.3—TEMPERATURE SETTING CHART FOR REFRIGERATORS AND REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS

First test Second test 

Third test settings Energy calculation 

based on: 

Case 

No. Settings Results Settings Results 

Fzr Mid FF Mid ........ Fzr Low FF Low ..... Fzr Warm FF Warm Fzr Low FF Low ..... None ....................... Second Test Only .. 1 

Fzr Low FF High .... None ....................... Not Clear ................ 2 

Fzr High FF Low .... None ....................... First and Second 

Tests.

3 

Fzr High FF High ... None ....................... First and Second 

Tests.

4 

Fzr Low FF High .... Fzr Cold FF Cold ... Fzr Low FF High .... None ....................... Not Clear ................ 5 

Fzr Low FF Low ..... None ....................... Not Clear ................ 6 

Fzr High FF Low .... Fzr Cold FF Cold ... Fzr High FF Low .... Fzr Warm FF Warm Second and Third 

Tests.

7 

Fzr Low FF Low ..... None ....................... First and Second 

Tests.

8 

Fzr High FF High ... Fzr Cold FF Cold ... Fzr Low FF Low ..... None ....................... First and Second 

Tests.

9 

Fzr Low FF High .... None ....................... First and Second 

Tests.

10 

Fzr High FF Low .... Fzr Warm FF Warm Second and Third 

Tests.

11 

Fzr High FF High ... Fzr Warm FF Warm Second and Third 

Tests.

12 

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


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78841 

In particular, DOE proposed to 

include a modified temperature setting 

logic chart in the test procedure in 

section 3.2 of Appendix A to clarify the 

temperature setting instructions. DOE 

pointed out that, under some scenarios, 

one or both of the compartments might 

not achieve the required standardized 

temperature when the temperature 

controls are in their coldest settings. Id. 

DOE requested comment on the 

proposed amendments but also asked 

stakeholders to consider whether 

disallowing an energy rating would be 

a more appropriate solution in those 

cases where a particular product’s 

compartment temperatures cannot 

achieve the required standardized 

temperatures. In other words, what 

should happen to products that have 

compartments that are set to the coldest 

temperature setting but are warmer than 

the standardized temperatures 

prescribed in the test procedure? 

As DOE explained in the NOPR, the 

inability to achieve the standardized 

temperatures may create a potential 

conflict with the product definitions. 

DOE offered a few examples to illustrate 

this situation. For example, if a 

refrigerator’s fresh food compartment 

exceeds the standardized temperature 

for fresh food compartments during an 

energy test, the product might be 

considered not to meet the current 

refrigerator definition, which specifies 

the use of ‘‘temperatures above 32 °F 

and below 39 °F’’. (10 CFR 430.2) Thus, 

the questions presented to DOE are (1) 

whether such products can still be 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, or 

freezers even if they are unable to attain 

the required standardized temperatures 

during testing and (2) whether these 

products should even be rated. 

DOE received no specific comments 

on either the proposed temperature 

setting logic or the temperature setting 

instructions proposed for the currently 

undefined cases described above. 

Comments were received, however, 

regarding DOE’s suggestion to prevent 

certification of products that do not 

reach the standardized temperatures 

when tested with their coldest 

temperature settings. ACEEE, AHAM, 

the IOUs, Earthjustice, Fisher & Paykel, 

NRDC, and Whirlpool all supported this 

approach. (ACEEE, No. 19.1 at p. 4–5; 

AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 10; IOUs, No. 14.1 

at p. 5–6; Earthjustice, No. 22.1 at p. 2; 

Fisher & Paykel, No. 24.2 at p. 3; 

Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 7) In response 

to these comments, DOE will adopt the 

proposed revisions in temperature 

setting requirements, but with 

modifications to indicate that products 

that are incapable of meeting required 

test conditions (i.e., achieving the 

standardized temperatures when all 

controls are at their coldest settings) are 

not considered compliant with the 

applicable standards. These changes 

will be adopted in Appendices A and B. 

The definitions for refrigerator, 

refrigerator-freezer, and freezer and the 

changes DOE is making to these 

definitions are discussed in sections 

III.A and III.B. Products that meet any 

of these definitions are considered to be 

covered products that are subject to 

DOE regulations. The new definitions 

all include temperature ranges for the 

products’ compartments to help classify 

product types. However, as mentioned 

in section III.B, these temperature 

ranges are not strictly defined to apply 

solely to energy test conditions. Hence, 

if a refrigerator cannot maintain 39 °F 

compartment temperature with 

temperature controls in the coldest 

setting during an energy test, this does 

not mean the product is not a 

refrigerator and exempt from coverage. 

The new definitions specify that the 

product is designed to be capable of 

attaining the 39 °F temperature without 

specifying the ambient or other 

conditions. The implication is that a 

product designed to be a refrigerator 

that fails to meet 39 °F compartment 

temperature during energy testing 

cannot be certified. However, since it is 

a covered product, it cannot be sold as 

a product other than a refrigerator. 

Similar restrictions apply to the other 

products, i.e., the refrigerator-freezer 

and freezer. 

DOE’s temperature setting 

modifications will take effect once any 

new standards affecting products 

manufactured in 2014 become required. 

These amendments will appear in new 

Appendices A and B. The instructions 

will include the amendment, discussed 

above in section III.D.4, that modifies 

the test procedure for consistency with 

current industry practice (i.e., 

consideration of standardized 

temperatures for both compartments 

and use of the warm/warm setting only 

if both compartments are lower than 

their standardized temperatures in the 

first test). The procedure will also 

indicate that a product cannot be 

certified if it fails to achieve the 

required compartment standardized 

temperatures. Also, DOE will add to the 

test procedure a modified version of the 

test setting logic chart for basic 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers 

that is consistent with the new 

requirements. This modified table is 

presented as Table III.4 below. 

TABLE III.4—INTERIM FINAL TEMPERATURE SETTING CHART FOR REFRIGERATORS AND REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS

First test Second test 

Energy calculation based on: 

Settings Results Settings Results 

Fzr Mid .............................

FF Mid ..............................

Fzr Low ...........................

FF Low ............................

Fzr Warm ........................

FF Warm .........................

Fzr Low ...........................

FF Low ............................

Second Test Only. 

Fzr Low ...........................

FF High ...........................

First and Second Tests. 

Fzr High ...........................

FF Low ............................

First and Second Tests. 

Fzr High ...........................

FF High ...........................

First and Second Tests. 

Fzr Low ...........................

FF High ...........................

Fzr Cold ...........................

FF Cold ...........................

Fzr Low ...........................

FF High ...........................

No Energy Use Rating. 

Fzr Low ...........................

FF Low ............................

First and Second Tests. 

Fzr High ...........................

FF Low ............................

Fzr Cold ...........................

FF Cold ...........................

Fzr High ...........................

FF Low ............................

No Energy Use Rating. 

Fzr Low ...........................

FF Low ............................

First and Second Tests. 

Fzr High ...........................

FF High ...........................

Fzr Cold ...........................

FF Cold ...........................

Fzr Low ...........................

FF Low ............................

First and Second Tests. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
78842 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE III.4—INTERIM FINAL TEMPERATURE SETTING CHART FOR REFRIGERATORS AND REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS— 

Continued 

First test Second test 

Energy calculation based on: 

Settings Results Settings Results 

Fzr Low ...........................

FF High ...........................

No Energy Use Rating. 

Fzr High ...........................

FF Low ............................

No Energy Use Rating. 

Fzr High ...........................

FF High ...........................

No Energy Use Rating. 

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

All-Refrigerators and Freezers 

DOE also proposed that a logic chart 

for single-compartment products be 

provided for all-refrigerators and 

freezers. 75 FR 29846. 

Based on stakeholder comments, the 

test instructions for these products have 

been modified to prevent the rating of 

any product that fails to achieve the 

standardized temperature during testing 

with controls set at the coldest position. 

The logic chart for these products has 

also been modified accordingly. The 

modified chart is shown below as Table 

III.5. 

TABLE III.5—TEMPERATURE SETTING CHART FOR ALL-REFRIGERATORS AND FREEZERS

First test Second test Energy calculation 

based on: Settings Results Settings Results 

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

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

Tests. 

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

Tests. 

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

DOE believes the test instructions 

listed in Table III.4 and Table III.5 

should adequately address all test result 

possibilities for their respective 

products. First, for single-compartment 

products, the measured temperature for 

each test could either be higher or lower 

than the standardized temperature for 

each compartment. This scenario 

represents two possibilities for each of 

two tests, indicating a total of two 

multiplied by two, or four possibilities. 

Second, for two-compartment products, 

the temperature of each of the two 

compartments could be higher or lower 

than their standardized temperatures. 

This scenario represents four 

possibilities for each test. Hence, the 

maximum number of possible outcomes 

for such products is sixteen (fours tests 

multiplied by four possible outcomes). 

However, four of these possibilities are 

very unlikely. For example, if the 

freezer temperature is lower than the 

standardized temperature for the first 

test, which is conducted with the 

settings at the median position, and the 

next test is conducted with the settings 

in the coldest position, it is unlikely 

that the freezer temperature will rise 

above its first-test measurement during 

the second test to exceed the 

standardized temperature. Four of the 

sixteen possible outcomes are 

eliminated based on similar 

considerations. All of these test 

procedure changes will become 

mandatory for testing on the compliance 

date of any new energy conservation 

standards that DOE decides to adopt for 

products manufactured in 2014. 

7. Icemakers and Icemaking 

The current test procedure for 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers 

does not measure the energy use 

associated with ice production (HRF–1– 

1979, section 7.4.2). As stated in the 

NOPR, DOE estimates that the energy 

use associated with automatic 

icemaking is in the range of 64 to 73 

kWh and represents 10 percent to 15 

percent of the rated energy use of 

typical refrigeration products. 75 FR 

29846–29847. Because of the potential 

magnitude of this energy use, DOE is 

considering developing a test procedure 

to account for the energy consumed by 

automatic icemaking systems. However, 

as the NOPR discussed, developing a 

robust and repeatable test procedure 

will take longer than the current 

rulemaking cycle will allow. Hence, 

instead of proposing to amend the test 

procedure to include a measurement of 

icemaking energy use, DOE proposed to 

modify the test procedure to incorporate 

a fixed placeholder value to represent 

icemaking energy use. DOE intends to 

continue working on the development 

of an icemaking test procedure with the 

intent of eventually integrating it into 

the test procedure in place of the fixed 

placeholder as soon as possible. 

DOE selected a fixed placeholder 

value for icemaking energy use based on 

‘‘AHAM Update to DOE on Status of Ice 

Maker Energy Test Procedure.’’ (No. 5.1 

at p. 11) That document specifies a daily 

production rate of 1.8 pounds of ice. 

The average energy usage measurement 

from this test was 128 Watt-hours per 

pound. Thus, the average daily energy 

use associated with icemaking of these 

preliminary measurements is 0.23 kWh 

and the average annual energy use is 84 

kWh. DOE proposed to implement this 

value in the test procedure by 

integrating the icemaking energy use 

value, designated IET and measured in 

kWh per cycle, into the equations for 

energy use per cycle, which would be 

included in the proposed Appendices A 

and B in section 6.2. 75 FR 29846– 

29847. 

Most stakeholders agreed with this 

approach. The Joint Comments, ACEEE, 

AHAM, the IOUs, NDRC, NIST, SubZero and Whirlpool all accepted the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78843 

proposed approach to address 

icemaking and also the temporary 

placeholder value. (Joint Comments, No. 

20.1 at p. 5; ACEEE, No. 19.1 at p. 3– 

4; AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 10; IOUs, No. 

14.1 at p. 1–2; NDRC, No. 21.1 at p. 5; 

NIST, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 

at p. 148; Sub Zero, No. 10 at p. 150– 

151; Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 6–7) The 

value of 0.23 kWh per day was of 

concern to Electrolux, who asserted that 

the value is too low and does not truly 

represent the icemaking energy across 

all refrigerators-freezers. (Electrolux, No. 

17.2 at p. 1, cell H155) Electrolux 

provided in their comments the same 

data that AHAM submitted to DOE in 

November 2009 (Electrolux, No. 17.2 at 

p. 3) These same data were used by DOE 

in developing these placeholder values. 

Since no new data were provided, nor 

did Electrolux state specific arguments 

as to why the AHAM data might be 

flawed, DOE does not believe there is 

sufficient evidence or guidance to either 

raise or lower the proposed value. 

There was interest from the IOUs, 

NDRC, and NIST to define the daily ice 

production factor in kWh/pound rather 

than kWh/year, to allow flexibility for 

variation in icemaking capacity. (IOUs, 

No. 14.1 at p. 3; NIST, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at p. 147; NRDC, No. 

21.1 at p. 5–6) A production factor in 

kWh/pound, when coupled with a 

standardized ice production rate of lbs/ 

day, would enable a metric in units of 

kWh/year to be calculated. This metric 

could then be added to the total energy 

use of the product. The IOUs 

additionally suggested differentiating 

the placeholder value energy use 

depending on the functional differences 

between refrigerators and freezers with 

automatic icemakers. However, the 

available data provides an insufficient 

basis on which to establish such 

variation in the placeholder value based 

on product characteristics. Also, since 

DOE is instituting a fixed placeholder 

value for automatic icemaker energy 

use, DOE perceives no value in 

representing the energy use on a kWh 

per pound basis at this time. Hence, the 

placeholder value will be represented in 

kWh per year and added to the 

measured energy use to provide a single 

metric for refrigeration product 

performance. 

GE suggested that adding the energy 

use of automatic icemakers into the 

energy use calculation, but not 

providing a similar placeholder for 

manual icemaking, misleads consumers 

because it implies that there is no 

energy associated with manual 

icemaking. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at p. 156–157) 

Currently, DOE has data only on 

automatic icemaking and none on 

manual icemaking that would permit 

DOE to create a comparable placeholder 

value for this task. The available 

information, as described by the IOUs, 

suggests that much of the automatic 

icemaking energy use is associated with 

the electric heater used to free the ice 

from the mold. (IOUs, No. 14.1 at p. 2) 

In comparison, manual icemaking 

involves the additional energy use 

associated with opening the freezer door 

to insert the ice, which is likely to be 

small when compared to the heater 

impact from automatic icemaking 

systems. 

Taking these factors into account, 

DOE will incorporate a single, 

temporary placeholder value that will 

apply to products that have automatic 

icemakers. This value would apply to 

products equipped either with or 

without TTD ice service. Because 

automatic icemaking is possible in both 

refrigerator-freezers and freezers, the 

modifications will be made in both 

Appendices A and B. 

Development of a Test Method 

DOE sought comment on developing 

a test method to determine icemaking 

energy use. DOE expects to work with 

AHAM to develop such a procedure. 

Electrolux voiced concern that the 

proper development of a robust and 

reproducible icemaking test procedure 

will take longer than the time permitted 

under this rulemaking. (Electrolux, No. 

17.2 at p. 1, cell H159) The Joint 

Comments provided a draft timeline for 

development of a procedure including 

(1) development of a test procedure by 

January 1, 2012, (2) a test procedure 

rulemaking to modify the DOE test 

procedure to adopt this procedure 

starting on January 1, 2012, and 

culminating in a final rule by December 

31, 2012, (3) an energy conservation 

standard rulemaking culminating in a 

final rule by July 1, 2013, that would 

adjust the energy conservation 

standards to address any differences 

between the current placeholder value 

and the average automatic icemaker 

energy use measured using the new 

procedure, and (4) an effective date for 

the adjusted standards three years after 

the energy standard rulemaking final 

rule. (Joint Comment, No. 20.1 at p. 5– 

6) This schedule extends beyond the 

final rule of this rulemaking, as 

suggested by Electrolux. DOE intends to 

support the development of a test 

method for measurement of icemaking 

energy use, and will act to amend the 

test procedure and energy standard 

accordingly, once a test method has 

been developed. 

Other comments addressed how the 

test method should report the results to 

the consumer. The IOUs and Electrolux 

believe that the kWh per year value for 

icemaking from the future test method 

should be communicated to the 

consumer on the product as a visible 

separate value from the kWh per year 

value. (IOUs, No. 14.1 at p. 1–2; 

Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell H157) 

The development of EnergyGuide 

requirements is under the jurisdiction of 

the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 

rather than DOE. Hence, FTC will 

ultimately decide on the content of the 

label. 

Ice in the Bin During Testing 

DOE requested comment on whether 

the test procedure should provide 

instructions regarding whether ice bins 

should contain ice during testing. 

AHAM, GE, and Whirlpool asserted that 

no ice should be present because the 

amount of ice in the bin could vary from 

unit to unit and its presence introduces 

a thermal load that can affect 

temperature measurements. (AHAM, 

No. 16.1 at p. 10; GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at p. 143–145; 

Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 7) DOE 

acknowledges that adding ice during 

testing would affect the thermal 

loading—and overall measured energy 

consumption—of a refrigerator-freezer 

equipped with automatic defrost. 

Whirlpool also asserted that there may 

be significant impacts on measured 

energy use, manufacturer cost, facilities, 

testing capability, lead time, or any 

combination of these if this amendment 

is introduced prior to the compliance 

date for the new energy conservation 

standards. (Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 2) 

Under the current procedure 

(Appendix A1, section 2.3), refrigeratorfreezers with automatic defrost are 

tested with no thermal load in their 

freezer compartments. Hence, the 

thermal load associated with a full ice 

bin could represent a significant 

additional thermal mass, which would 

lengthen the compressor on-cycles 

during testing, and may reduce the 

measured energy use by reducing offcycle losses. To avoid this result, in 

DOE’s view, refrigerator-freezers with 

automatic defrost should be tested with 

empty ice bins. To ensure consistency 

among test procedures of different 

products, DOE is requiring that all ice 

bins remain empty for all products 

during testing. To address concerns 

regarding potential changes in measured 

energy use, this change will apply to 

new Appendices A and B. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
78844 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

F. Other Issues 

This section discusses comments 

made by stakeholders regarding items 

for which DOE has not made 

corresponding changes in the test 

procedure. 

1. Electric Heaters 

Refrigeration products use electric 

heaters for a variety of functions. The 

NOPR discussed these functions, 

described current approaches to heater 

operation during energy testing, and 

highlighted possible modifications to 

the current test requirements for heaters. 

Five types of heaters were discussed— 

anti-sweat, defrost, temperature control, 

automatic icemaker, and exterior 

heaters. The NOPR asked whether these 

heaters serve any other functions and 

whether other types of electric 

resistance heaters are present in 

refrigeration products. DOE sought to 

understand any additional heater 

applications, how they contribute to 

energy use in normal operating 

conditions and during testing under the 

current DOE energy test, and whether 

the current procedure requires any 

amending to more accurately reflect 

their actual energy usage in the field. 75 

FR 29848–29849. 

Whirlpool commented that they were 

unaware of additional uses for electric 

resistance heaters in refrigeration 

products. (Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 7) 

NDRC commented generally, stating that 

better insulation in many cases could be 

used to ameliorate the need for 

resistance heating. (NDRC, No. 21.1 at p. 

6) Because stakeholders identified no 

new functions for electric heaters, DOE 

has made no additional test procedure 

amendments to address their energy use 

at this time. 

2. Vacuum Insulation Panel 

Performance 

DOE did not propose any test 

procedure changes specifically 

associated with vacuum insulation 

panel (VIP) performance in the NOPR. 

Nanopore commented that the test 

procedure should include a lifetime 

performance test to evaluate the longterm efficiency of products. Nanopore 

made this recommendation to address 

some low quality vacuum panels that 

can lose as much as 80 percent of their 

thermal resistance over the timeframe of 

a few months. Suggested procedures to 

measure long-term performance 

included (1) requiring a measurement 6 

or 12 months after manufacture, (2) 

aging of vacuum insulation panels in an 

80 °C environment for a period of time 

and then testing them, and (3) aging of 

the entire product and subsequently 

testing it. (Nanopore, No. 11.1 at p. 1). 

Additionally, ThermoCor provided 

details of an accelerated life test (ALT) 

developed by Panasonic, a vacuum 

panel manufacturer. ThermoCor 

proposed that this test could be 

conducted for the entire refrigeration 

cabinet to assess long-term performance, 

and that a different test could be 

developed to assess the long-term 

performance of the compressor. The 

ALT uses cycling between 80 °C and 

¥30 °C. A first test is conducted prior 

to the accelerated aging. Subsequently, 

the test is repeated three times after 

three separate periods of 9 days of 

temperature cycling. (ThermoCor, No. 

18.1 at pp. 1–3) 

Testing of the long-term efficiency of 

products has not yet been introduced in 

DOE test procedures, although it has 

been proposed for refrigerated walk-in 

enclosures. See 75 FR 55068, 55074 

(September 9, 2010). DOE recognizes the 

importance of such a test, particularly 

for a component that may have a 

degraded lifetime performance as 

suggested by Nanopore. However, 

applying such lifetime performance 

tests to entire refrigeration products 

(i.e., rather than to individual vacuum 

panels) has, to DOE’s knowledge, not 

been evaluated to confirm the accuracy 

of this approach. DOE further notes that 

this type of test could represent a 

significant additional test burden. In 

light of these concerns, the adoption of 

such a procedure into DOE’s regulations 

would require additional input from the 

public. Consequently, DOE is not 

adopting a lifetime performance test at 

this time. 

3. Metric Units 

DOE did not propose in the NOPR any 

test procedure changes specifically 

addressing the use of metric units. See 

generally, 75 FR 29824. 

Fisher & Paykel commented that all 

dimensions detailed in the test 

procedures should be expressed in 

rounded metric units and that Imperial 

(i.e., English) units should be provided 

in parentheses. In Fisher & Paykel’s 

view, such a change would be justified 

since all other international markets 

other than the U.S. use the metric 

system. The company added that 

making this change would also remove 

potential sources of error. (Fisher & 

Paykel, No. 24.2 at p. 1) DOE notes that 

the Imperial system, using inches, feet, 

and Fahrenheit for some of the key 

measurements made for refrigeration 

products, is the primary system used by 

U.S. consumers. Since some of the 

measurements, such as product 

volumes, are used in marketing 

literature as well as in the test 

procedure and test reports, converting to 

metric would potentially affect 

consumers. Fisher & Paykel did not 

identify any particular instances of test 

procedure values being in round 

Imperial units that introduce errors in 

testing, nor did they indicate whether 

converting to round metric units could 

cause any change in measured energy 

use, making it difficult for DOE to fully 

evaluate this recommendation. Further, 

prior to making such a change, DOE 

would, ideally, obtain comments from 

other stakeholders involved in testing 

and reporting product performance to 

determine if this concern is widely 

shared. Hence, DOE is declining to 

adopt the change suggested by Fisher & 

Paykel. DOE may revisit this issue in a 

future rulemaking. 

G. Compliance With Other EPCA 

Requirements 

In addition, DOE examined its other 

obligations under EPCA in developing 

this final rule and interim final rule. 

These requirements are addressed in 

greater detail below. 

1. Test Burden 

Section 323(b)(3) of EPCA requires 

that ‘‘any test procedures prescribed or 

amended under this section shall be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results which measure energy 

efficiency, energy use * * * or 

estimated annual operating cost of a 

covered product during a representative 

average use cycle or period of use * * * 

and shall not be unduly burdensome to 

conduct.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) For the 

reasons that follow, DOE has concluded 

that the amendments being adopted 

today satisfy this requirement. 

The amendments generally 

incorporate minor adjustments to test 

sample set-up procedures, the treatment 

of certain product features such as 

convertible compartments, compartment 

temperatures, and volume calculation 

methods. Most of these amendments 

require no changes in the current 

requirements for equipment and 

instrumentation for testing or the time 

required for testing. 

With respect to the test method for 

variable anti-sweat heaters, the 

procedure DOE is adopting today 

applies the test procedure found in the 

GE waiver (see discussion in section 

III.D.9 above) rather than the more 

complicated approach proposed in the 

NOPR that would have required the use 

of a humidity-controlled test chamber 

and the conducting of three tests to 

measure energy use for steady-state 

cycling operation of a refrigeratorfreezer. By adopting this modified 

approach, the new procedure reduces 

the number of tests required for 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78845 

products with anti-sweat heater 

switches and relies on a calculated 

value to represent the anti-sweat heater 

energy use contribution when 

calculating the total energy usage of a 

given product. This change considerably 

reduces the testing burden 

manufacturers would have faced under 

the proposal while providing a 

definitive method to account for antisweat heater energy use. 

Regarding heated-temperature-control 

special compartments, the procedure in 

the interim final rule requires the 

averaging of tests conducted with the 

temperature control settings in the 

coldest and warmest positions. This 

approach doubles the test time for 

products with such special 

compartments. However, as described in 

section III.D.5, few products have such 

compartments. DOE estimates that these 

products represent less than 5% of 

standard-size refrigerator-freezers, based 

on (1) estimates that 20% of such 

products have special compartments 

(see the discussion in section III.D.5 

reviewing major manufacturers’ product 

details), and (2) the observation that of 

the two refrigerator-freezers examined 

for reverse engineering as part of the 

refrigeration product energy 

conservation standard rulemaking that 

had special compartments, neither 

utilized heating to achieve temperature 

control. The averaging of two tests 

potentially represents a smaller test 

burden than the proposed approach of 

requiring the highest energy use 

position. Under the proposed approach, 

AHAM indicated that manufacturers 

would have to run tests at each setting 

to determine which represents the 

highest energy use. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at 

p. 5) DOE notes that the averaging of 

such tests that is being adopted today is 

justified because it provides better 

consistency with a representative 

average use cycle, as required by EPCA. 

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

2. Potential Amendments To Include 

Standby and Off Mode Energy 

Consumption 

EPCA directs DOE to amend test 

procedures ‘‘to include standby mode 

and off mode energy consumption 

* * * with such energy consumption 

integrated into the overall energy 

efficiency, energy consumption, or other 

energy descriptor for each covered 

product, unless the Secretary 

determines that—(i) the current test 

procedures for a covered product 

already fully account for and 

incorporate the standby and off mode 

energy consumption of the covered 

product * * *’’ 42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)(A)(i). 

The procedure that DOE is adopting 

today already satisfies these 

requirements. The DOE test procedures 

for refrigeration products involve 

measuring the energy use of these 

products during extended time periods 

that include periods when the 

compressor and other key components 

are cycled off. All of the energy these 

products use during the ‘‘off cycles’’ is 

included in the measurements. The 

refrigeration product could include any 

auxiliary features which draw power in 

a standby or off mode. HRF–1–1979 and 

HRF–1–2008 provide instructions that 

certain auxiliary features should be set 

to the lowest power position during 

testing. In this lowest power position, 

any standby or off mode energy use of 

such auxiliary features would be 

included in the energy measurement. 

Hence, no separate changes are needed 

to account for standby and off mode 

energy consumption, since the current 

procedures (and as modified in this 

final rule and interim final rule) address 

these modes. 

3. Addressing Changes in Measured 

Energy Use 

Section 323(e)(1) of EPCA requires 

that DOE consider whether a new test 

procedure alters the measured energy 

use of any covered product. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(e)(1)) Further, section 323(e)(2) of 

EPCA requires DOE to amend the 

applicable standards if DOE determines 

that a new test procedure would alter 

the measured energy use of a covered 

product. The amended standard would 

be based on the average measurements 

made for a representative sample of 

minimally compliant products. (42 

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

As discussed above, DOE has made a 

number of changes to account for the 

concerns raised by industry regarding 

the timing of certain provisions that 

DOE had proposed to make effective 30 

days after the publication of the final 

rule. These changes include providing 

manufacturers with additional time 

(2014) to use certain procedures when 

conducting the test procedure. As a 

result, the interim final rule sets out the 

procedures manufacturers must follow 

starting in 2014 with respect to special 

compartments with heated temperature 

control, long-time or variable defrost in 

order to capture pre-cooling and partial 

recovery energy use, and multiple 

defrost cycles. The interim final rule 

also addresses compartment 

temperature changes and volume 

calculations. 

Also as discussed above, industry and 

efficiency advocates negotiated a 

consensus agreement, dated July 30, 

2010, that sets forth a series of standard 

levels for refrigeration products. DOE’s 

parallel standards rulemaking proposed 

levels that are based on the levels 

submitted as part of that agreement. The 

industry has since raised concerns about 

the interplay between these proposed 

standards and the test procedure that 

DOE ultimately adopts. These concerns 

revolve around the following issues: (1) 

Modification of the set-up procedures 

for special compartments with heated 

temperature control; (2) modification of 

the long-time defrost test procedure to 

capture pre-cooling energy use; and (3) 

establishment of test procedures for 

products with multiple defrost cycle 

types. 

DOE notes that its test procedure 

NOPR was published on May 27, 2010, 

over two months before the date of the 

consensus agreement. Given this fact, 

DOE believes that industry negotiators 

had an ample opportunity to consider 

the potential impacts of the proposed 

test procedure amendments prior to 

finalizing the consensus agreement 

standards. The industry has not asserted 

that it has had an insufficient amount of 

time to consider the NOPR’s provisions 

in developing the consensus standard 

levels. Accordingly, DOE believes that 

the standards set forth in that agreement 

were based on a serious and thoughtful 

consideration of the new changes to the 

test procedure that DOE proposed in 

May 2010. 

In spite of these facts, DOE is 

modifying its scheduled 

implementation of certain provisions to 

provide manufacturers with additional 

time to adjust to the new procedures. By 

implementing these particular changes 

through the interim final rule, DOE 

seeks to mitigate the potential burdens 

on industry while ensuring that the test 

procedure is sufficiently robust and 

comprehensive to capture the energy 

use from refrigeration products. 

Additionally, by following this 

approach, DOE invites the submission 

of additional input from the public 

regarding the procedures to address 

special compartments with heated 

temperature control, long-time or 

variable defrost in order to capture precooling and partial recovery energy use, 

and multiple defrost cycles. DOE will 

consider these comments and, to the 

extent necessary, consider any needed 

adjustments. 

IV. Procedural Requirements 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has determined that test procedure 

rulemakings do not constitute 

‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
78846 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 

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

action was not subject to review under 

the Executive Order by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis for any rule that by law must 

be proposed for public comment, unless 

the agency certifies that the proposed 

rule, if promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. As 

required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site (http://www.gc. 

doe.gov). 

DOE reviewed the test procedures in 

today’s final rule and interim final rule 

under the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the procedures and 

policies published on February 19, 

2003. This final rule and interim final 

rule prescribe test procedures that will 

be used to test compliance with energy 

conservation standards for the products 

that are the subject of this rulemaking. 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) considers an entity to be a small 

business if, together with its affiliates, it 

employs less than a threshold number of 

workers specified in 13 CFR part 121, 

which relies on size standards and 

codes established by the North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS). The threshold number 

for NAICS code 335222, which applies 

to Household Refrigerator and Home 

Freezer Manufacturing, is 1,000 

employees. 

DOE searched the SBA Web site 

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

dsp_dsbs.cfm) to identify manufacturers 

within this NAICS code that produce 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and/ 

or freezers. Most of the manufacturers 

supplying these products are large 

multinational corporations with more 

than 1,000 employees. There are several 

small businesses involved in the sale of 

refrigeration products that are listed on 

the SBA Web site under the NAICS code 

for this industry. However, DOE 

believes that only U-Line Corporation of 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin is a small 

business that manufactures these 

products. U-Line primarily 

manufactures compact refrigerators and 

related compact products such as wine 

coolers and icemakers (these icemakers 

are distinguished from the automatic 

icemakers installed in many residential 

refrigeration products in that they are 

complete icemaking appliances using 

either typical residential icemaking 

technology or the clear icemaking 

technology used extensively in 

commercial icemakers—they are 

distinguished from refrigerators in that 

their sole purpose is production and 

storage of ice). 

DOE had tentatively concluded that 

the final rule and interim final rule will 

not have a significant impact on small 

manufacturers under the provisions of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act. DOE 

received no comments objecting to this 

conclusion. Accordingly, the final rule 

and the interim final rule amend DOE’s 

energy test procedures for refrigeration 

products. These amendments do not 

require use of test facilities or test 

equipment that differ significantly from 

the test facilities or test equipment that 

manufacturers currently use to evaluate 

the energy efficiency of these products. 

Further, the amended test procedures 

will not be significantly more difficult 

or time-consuming to conduct than 

current DOE energy test procedures. 

For these reasons, DOE concludes and 

certifies that the proposed rule would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis 

for this rulemaking. DOE has 

transmitted the certification and 

supporting statement of factual basis to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

SBA for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

Manufacturers of refrigeration 

products must certify to DOE that their 

products comply with any applicable 

energy conservation standard. In 

certifying compliance, manufacturers 

must test their products according to the 

DOE test procedure for refrigeration 

products, including any amendments 

adopted for that test procedure. DOE has 

proposed regulations for the 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial equipment, 

including the refrigeration products 

addressed by today’s final rule and 

interim final rule. 75 FR 56796 (Sept. 

16, 2010). The collection-of-information 

requirement for the certification and 

recordkeeping is subject to review and 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement 

has been submitted to OMB for 

approval. 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. 

Public comment is sought regarding: 

whether this proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

the accuracy of the burden estimate; 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information, 

including through the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. Send comments 

on these or any other aspects of the 

collection of information to Subid 

Wagley (see ADDRESSES) and by e-mail 

to Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

In this notice, DOE amends its test 

procedure for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers. These 

amendments will improve the ability of 

DOE’s procedures to more accurately 

account for the energy consumption of 

products that incorporate a variety of 

new technologies that were not 

contemplated when the current 

procedure was promulgated. The 

amendments also will be used to 

develop and implement future energy 

conservation standards for refrigeration 

products. DOE has determined that this 

final rule and interim final rule fall into 

a class of actions that are categorically 

excluded from review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE’s 

implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 

1021. Specifically, this rule amends an 

existing rule without changing its 

environmental effect, and, therefore, is 

covered by the Categorical Exclusion in 

10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, paragraph 

A5. The exclusion applies because this 

rule establishes revisions to existing test 

procedures that will not affect the 

amount, quality, or distribution of 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78847 

energy usage, and, therefore, will not 

result in any environmental impacts. 

Accordingly, neither an environmental 

assessment nor an environmental 

impact statement is required. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

imposes certain requirements on 

agencies formulating and implementing 

policies or regulations that preempt 

State law or that have Federalism 

implications. 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 

1999). The Executive Order requires 

agencies to examine the constitutional 

and statutory authority supporting any 

action that would limit the 

policymaking discretion of the States 

and to carefully assess the necessity for 

such actions. The Executive Order also 

requires agencies to have an accountable 

process to ensure meaningful and timely 

input by State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

that it will follow in developing such 

regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE 

examined this final rule and interim 

final rule and determined that it will not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the products that are the subject of 

today’s final rule and interim final rule. 

States can petition DOE for exemption 

from such preemption to the extent, and 

based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 

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

required by Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard; and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation specifies the following: (1) 

The preemptive effect, if any; (2) any 

effect on existing Federal law or 

regulation; (3) a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction; (4) 

the retroactive effect, if any; (5) 

definitions of key terms; and (6) other 

important issues affecting clarity and 

general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

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

determine whether they are met or 

whether it is unreasonable to meet one 

or more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this final 

rule and interim final rule meet the 

relevant standards of Executive Order 

12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

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

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

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. For a regulatory action 

resulting in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish estimates of 

the resulting costs, benefits, and other 

effects on the national economy. (2 

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

a Federal agency to develop an effective 

process to permit timely input by 

elected officers of State, local, and 

Tribal governments on a proposed 

‘‘significant intergovernmental 

mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan 

for giving notice and opportunity for 

timely input to potentially affected 

small governments before establishing 

any requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect such 

governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 

12820. (The policy is also available at 

http://www.gc.doe.gov). Today’s final 

rule and interim final rule contain 

neither an intergovernmental mandate 

nor a mandate that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

any year, so these requirements do not 

apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. 

Today’s final rule and interim final rule 

would not have any impact on the 

autonomy or integrity of the family as 

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

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

for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

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

today’s rule under OMB and DOE 

guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in 

those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OIRA a Statement 

of Energy Effects for any significant 

energy action. A ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ is defined as any action by an 

agency that promulgates or is expected 

to lead to promulgation of a final rule 

and that (1) is a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866, or 

any successor order; and (2) is likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy; or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any significant energy action, the agency 

must give a detailed statement of any 

adverse effects on energy supply, 

distribution, or use if the regulation is 

implemented, and of reasonable 

alternatives to the action and their 

expected benefits on energy supply, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
78848 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

distribution, and use. Today’s regulatory 

action is not a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866. It 

has likewise not been designated as a 

significant energy action by the 

Administrator of OIRA. Moreover, it 

would not have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy. Therefore, it is not a 

significant energy action, and, 

accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under section 301 of the DOE 

Organization Act (Pub. L. 95–91; 42 

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

with section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974, as amended 

by the Federal Energy Administration 

Authorization Act of 1977 (FEAA). (15 

U.S.C. 788) Section 32 essentially 

provides in part that, where a proposed 

rule authorizes or requires use of 

commercial standards, the rulemaking 

must inform the public of the use and 

background of such standards. In 

addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to 

consult with the Attorney General and 

the Chairman of the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) concerning the 

impact of the commercial or industry 

standards on competition. 

The proposed modifications to the 

test procedures addressed by this action 

incorporate testing methods contained 

in certain sections of the commercial 

standards, AHAM Standards HRF–1– 

1979 and HRF–1–2008. DOE has 

evaluated these two versions of this 

standard and is unable to conclude 

whether it fully complies with the 

requirements of section 32(b) of the 

FEAA (i.e., whether it was developed in 

a manner that fully provides for public 

participation, comment, and review.) 

DOE has consulted with both the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the FTC about the impact on 

competition of using the methods 

contained in these standards and has 

received no comments objecting to their 

use. 

M. Congressional Notification 

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

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of today’s rule before its effective date. 

The report will state that it has been 

determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major 

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

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of these final rules. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Small 

businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 

18, 2010. 

Cathy Zoi, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

DOE amends part 430 of chapter II of 

title 10, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as set forth below: 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2461 note. 

■ 2. Section 430.2 is amended by 

revising the definitions for ‘‘electric 

refrigerator’’ and ‘‘electric refrigeratorfreezer’’ to read as follows: 

§ 430.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Electric refrigerator means a cabinet 

designed for the refrigerated storage of 

food, designed to be capable of 

achieving storage temperatures above 32 

°F (0 °C) and below 39 °F (3.9 °C), and 

having a source of refrigeration 

requiring single phase, alternating 

current electric energy input only. An 

electric refrigerator may include a 

compartment for the freezing and 

storage of food at temperatures below 

32°F (0 °C), but does not provide a 

separate low temperature compartment 

designed for the freezing and storage of 

food at temperatures below 8 °F (¥13.3 

°C). 

Electric refrigerator-freezer means a 

cabinet which consists of two or more 

compartments with at least one of the 

compartments designed for the 

refrigerated storage of food and designed 

to be capable of achieving storage 

temperatures above 32 °F (0 °C) and 

below 39 °F (3.9 °C), and with at least 

one of the compartments designed for 

the freezing and storage of food at 

temperatures below 8 °F (¥13.3 °C) 

which may be adjusted by the user to a 

temperature of 0 °F (¥17.8 °C) or below. 

The source of refrigeration requires 

single phase, alternating current electric 

energy input only. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 430.3 is amended by 

redesignating paragraph (g)(1) as (g)(2) 

and adding new paragraphs (g)(1) and 

(g)(3), to read as follows: 

§ 430.3 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

(g) * * * 

(1) ANSI/AHAM HRF–1–1979, 

(Revision of ANSI B38.1–1970), (‘‘HRF– 

1–1979’’), American National Standard, 

Household Refrigerators, Combination 

Refrigerator-Freezers and Household 

Freezers, approved May 17, 1979, IBR 

approved for Appendices A1 and B1 to 

Subpart B. 

* * * * * 

(3) AHAM Standard HRF–1–2008, 

(‘‘HRF–1–2008’’), Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers, Energy and 

Internal Volume of Refrigerating 

Appliances (2008), including Errata to 

Energy and Internal Volume of 

Refrigerating Appliances, Correction 

Sheet issued November 17, 2009, IBR 

approved for Appendices A and B to 

Subpart B. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 430.23 is amended by 

■ a. Adding an introductory paragraph 

before paragraph (a); and 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 430.23 Test procedures for the 

measurement of energy and water 

consumption. 

When the test procedures of this 

section call for rounding off of test 

results, and the results fall equally 

between two values of the nearest 

dollar, kilowatt-hour, or other specified 

nearest value, the result shall be 

rounded up to the nearest higher value. 

(a) Refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers. (1) The estimated annual 

operating cost for electric refrigerators 

and electric refrigerator-freezers without 

an anti-sweat heater switch shall be the 

product of the following three factors, 

the resulting product then being 

rounded off to the nearest dollar per 

year: 

(i) The representative average-use 

cycle of 365 cycles per year; 

(ii) The average per-cycle energy 

consumption for the standard cycle in 

kilowatt-hours per cycle, determined 

according to 6.2 (6.3.6 for externally 

vented units) of Appendix A1 of this 

subpart before Appendix A becomes 

mandatory and 6.2 (6.3.6 for externally 

vented units) of Appendix A of this 

subpart after Appendix A becomes 

mandatory (see the note at the beginning 

of Appendix A); and 

(iii) The representative average unit 

cost of electricity in dollars per 

kilowatt-hour as provided by the 

Secretary. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78849 

(2) The estimated annual operating 

cost for electric refrigerators and electric 

refrigerator-freezers with an anti-sweat 

heater switch shall be the product of the 

following three factors, the resulting 

product then being rounded off to the 

nearest dollar per year: 

(i) The representative average-use 

cycle of 365 cycles per year; 

(ii) Half the sum of the average percycle energy consumption for the 

standard cycle and the average per-cycle 

energy consumption for a test cycle type 

with the anti-sweat heater switch in the 

position set at the factory just before 

shipping, each in kilowatt-hours per 

cycle, determined according to 6.2 (6.3.6 

for externally vented units) of Appendix 

A1 of this subpart before Appendix A 

becomes mandatory and 6.2 (6.3.6 for 

externally vented units) of Appendix A 

of this subpart after Appendix A 

becomes mandatory (see the note at the 

beginning of Appendix A); and 

(iii) The representative average unit 

cost of electricity in dollars per 

kilowatt-hour as provided by the 

Secretary. 

(3) The estimated annual operating 

cost for any other specified cycle type 

for electric refrigerators and electric 

refrigerator-freezers shall be the product 

of the following three factors, the 

resulting product then being rounded 

off to the nearest dollar per year: 

(i) The representative average-use 

cycle of 365 cycles per year; 

(ii) The average per-cycle energy 

consumption for the specified cycle 

type, determined according to 6.2 (6.3.6 

for externally vented units) of Appendix 

A1 to this subpart before Appendix A 

becomes mandatory and 6.2 (6.3.6 for 

externally vented units) of Appendix A 

of this subpart after Appendix A 

becomes mandatory (see the note at the 

beginning of Appendix A); and 

(iii) The representative average unit 

cost of electricity in dollars per 

kilowatt-hour as provided by the 

Secretary. 

(4) The energy factor for electric 

refrigerators and electric refrigeratorfreezers, expressed in cubic feet per 

kilowatt-hour per cycle, shall be: 

(i) For electric refrigerators and 

electric refrigerator-freezers without an 

anti-sweat heater switch, the quotient 

of: 

(A) The adjusted total volume in 

cubic feet, determined according to 6.1 

of Appendix A1 of this subpart before 

Appendix A becomes mandatory and 

6.1 of Appendix A of this subpart after 

Appendix A becomes mandatory (see 

the note at the beginning of Appendix 

A), divided by— 

(B) The average per-cycle energy 

consumption for the standard cycle in 

kilowatt-hours per cycle, determined 

according to 6.2 (6.3.6 for externally 

vented units) of Appendix A1 of this 

subpart before Appendix A becomes 

mandatory and 6.2 (6.3.6 for externally 

vented units) of Appendix A of this 

subpart after Appendix A becomes 

mandatory (see the note at the beginning 

of Appendix A), the resulting quotient 

then being rounded off to the second 

decimal place; and 

(ii) For electric refrigerators and 

electric refrigerator-freezers having an 

anti-sweat heater switch, the quotient 

of: 

(A) The adjusted total volume in 

cubic feet, determined according to 6.1 

of Appendix A1 of this subpart before 

Appendix A becomes mandatory and 

6.1 of Appendix A of this subpart after 

Appendix A becomes mandatory (see 

the note at the beginning of Appendix 

A), divided by — 

(B) Half the sum of the average percycle energy consumption for the 

standard cycle and the average per-cycle 

energy consumption for a test cycle type 

with the anti-sweat heater switch in the 

position set at the factory just before 

shipping, each in kilowatt-hours per 

cycle, determined according to 6.2 (6.3.6 

for externally vented units) of Appendix 

A1 of this subpart before Appendix A 

becomes mandatory and 6.2 (6.3.6 for 

externally vented units) of Appendix A 

of this subpart after Appendix A 

becomes mandatory (see the note at the 

beginning of Appendix A), the resulting 

quotient then being rounded off to the 

second decimal place. 

(5) The annual energy use of electric 

refrigerators and electric refrigeratorfreezers, expressed in kilowatt-hours per 

year, shall be the following, rounded to 

the nearest kilowatt-hour per year: 

(i) For electric refrigerators and 

electric refrigerator-freezers without an 

anti-sweat heater switch, the 

representative average use cycle of 365 

cycles per year multiplied by the 

average per-cycle energy consumption 

for the standard cycle in kilowatt-hours 

per cycle, determined according to 6.2 

(6.3.6 for externally vented units) of 

Appendix A1 of this subpart before 

Appendix A becomes mandatory and 

6.2 (6.3.6 for externally vented units) of 

Appendix A of this subpart after 

Appendix A becomes mandatory (see 

the note at the beginning of Appendix 

A), and 

(ii) For electric refrigerators and 

electric refrigerator-freezers having an 

anti-sweat heater switch, the 

representative average use cycle of 365 

cycles per year multiplied by half the 

sum of the average per-cycle energy 

consumption for the standard cycle and 

the average per-cycle energy 

consumption for a test cycle type with 

the anti-sweat heater switch in the 

position set at the factory just before 

shipping, each in kilowatt-hours per 

cycle, determined according to 6.2 (6.3.6 

for externally vented units) of Appendix 

A1 of this subpart before Appendix A 

becomes mandatory and 6.2 (6.3.6 for 

externally vented units) of Appendix A 

of this subpart after Appendix A 

becomes mandatory (see the note at the 

beginning of Appendix A). 

(6) Other useful measures of energy 

consumption for electric refrigerators 

and electric refrigerator-freezers shall be 

those measures of energy consumption 

for electric refrigerators and electric 

refrigerator-freezers that the Secretary 

determines are likely to assist 

consumers in making purchasing 

decisions which are derived from the 

application of Appendix A1 of this 

subpart before Appendix A becomes 

mandatory Appendix A of this subpart 

after Appendix A becomes mandatory 

(see the note at the beginning of 

Appendix A). 

(7) The estimated regional annual 

operating cost for externally vented 

electric refrigerators and externally 

vented electric refrigerator-freezers 

without an anti-sweat heater switch 

shall be the product of the following 

three factors, the resulting product then 

being rounded off to the nearest dollar 

per year: 

(i) The representative average-use 

cycle of 365 cycles per year, 

(ii) The regional average per-cycle 

energy consumption for the standard 

cycle in kilowatt-hours per cycle, 

determined according to 6.3.7 of 

Appendix A1 of this subpart before 

Appendix A becomes mandatory and 

6.3.7 of Appendix A of this subpart after 

Appendix A becomes mandatory (see 

the note at the beginning of Appendix 

A); and 

(iii) The representative average unit 

cost of electricity in dollars per 

kilowatt-hour as provided by the 

Secretary. 

(8) The estimated regional annual 

operating cost for externally vented 

electric refrigerators and externally 

vented electric refrigerator-freezers with 

an anti-sweat heater switch shall be the 

product of the following three factors, 

the resulting product then being 

rounded off to the nearest dollar per 

year: 

(i) The representative average-use 

cycle of 365 cycles per year; 

(ii) Half the sum of the average percycle energy consumption for the 

standard cycle and the regional average 

per-cycle energy consumption for a test 

cycle with the anti-sweat heater switch 

in the position set at the factory just 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
78850 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

before shipping, each in kilowatt-hours 

per cycle, determined according to 6.3.7 

of Appendix A1 of this subpart before 

Appendix A becomes mandatory and 

6.3.7 of Appendix A of this subpart after 

Appendix A becomes mandatory (see 

the note at the beginning of Appendix 

A); and 

(iii) The representative average unit 

cost of electricity in dollars per 

kilowatt-hour as provided by the 

Secretary. 

(9) The estimated regional annual 

operating cost for any other specified 

cycle for externally vented electric 

refrigerators and externally vented 

electric refrigerator-freezers shall be the 

product of the following three factors, 

the resulting product then being 

rounded off to the nearest dollar per 

year: 

(i) The representative average-use 

cycle of 365 cycles per year; 

(ii) The regional average per-cycle 

energy consumption for the specified 

cycle, in kilowatt-hours per cycle, 

determined according to 6.3.7 of 

Appendix A1 of this subpart before 

Appendix A becomes mandatory and 

6.3.7 of Appendix A of this subpart after 

Appendix A becomes mandatory (see 

the note at the beginning of Appendix 

A); and 

(iii) The representative average unit 

cost of electricity in dollars per 

kilowatt-hour as provided by the 

Secretary. 

(10) The following principles of 

interpretation should be applied to the 

test procedure. The intent of the energy 

test procedure is to simulate typical 

room conditions (approximately 70 °F 

(21 °C)) with door openings, by testing 

at 90 °F (32.2 °C) without door 

openings. Except for operating 

characteristics that are affected by 

ambient temperature (for example, 

compressor percent run time), the unit, 

when tested under this test procedure, 

shall operate in a manner equivalent to 

the unit in typical room conditions. The 

energy used by the unit shall be 

calculated when a calculation is 

provided by the test procedure. Energy 

consuming components that operate in 

typical room conditions (including as a 

result of door openings, or a function of 

humidity), and that are not exempted by 

this test procedure, shall operate in an 

equivalent manner during energy testing 

under this test procedure, or be 

accounted for by all calculations as 

provided for in the test procedure. If: 

(i) A product contains energy 

consuming components that operate 

differently during the prescribed testing 

than they would during representative 

average consumer use and 

(ii) Applying the prescribed test to 

that product would evaluate it in a 

manner that is unrepresentative of its 

true energy consumption (thereby 

providing materially inaccurate 

comparative data), a manufacturer must 

obtain a waiver in accordance with the 

relevant provisions of 10 CFR part 430. 

Examples: 

A. Energy saving features that are 

designed to be activated by a lack of 

door openings shall not be functional 

during the energy test. 

B. The defrost heater should not 

either function or turn off differently 

during the energy test than it would 

when operating in typical room 

conditions. 

C. Electric heaters that would 

normally operate at typical room 

conditions with door openings should 

also operate during the energy test. 

D. Energy used during adaptive 

defrost shall continue to be tested and 

adjusted per the calculation provided 

for in this test procedure. 

(b) Freezers. (1) The estimated annual 

operating cost for freezers without an 

anti-sweat heater switch shall be the 

product of the following three factors, 

the resulting product then being 

rounded off to the nearest dollar per 

year: 

(i) The representative average-use 

cycle of 365 cycles per year; 

(ii) The average per-cycle energy 

consumption for the standard cycle in 

kilowatt-hours per cycle, determined 

according to 6.2 of Appendix B1 of this 

subpart before Appendix B becomes 

mandatory and 6.2 of Appendix B of 

this subpart after Appendix B becomes 

mandatory (see the note at the beginning 

of Appendix B); and 

(iii) The representative average unit 

cost of electricity in dollars per 

kilowatt-hour as provided by the 

Secretary. 

(2) The estimated annual operating 

cost for freezers with an anti-sweat 

heater switch shall be the product of the 

following three factors, the resulting 

product then being rounded off to the 

nearest dollar per year: 

(i) The representative average-use 

cycle of 365 cycles per year; 

(ii) Half the sum of the average percycle energy consumption for the 

standard cycle and the average per-cycle 

energy consumption for a test cycle type 

with the anti-sweat heater switch in the 

position set at the factory just before 

shipping, each in kilowatt-hours per 

cycle, determined according to 6.2 of 

Appendix B1 of this subpart before 

Appendix B becomes mandatory and 6.2 

of Appendix B of this subpart after 

Appendix B becomes mandatory (see 

the note at the beginning of Appendix 

B); and 

(iii) The representative average unit 

cost of electricity in dollars per 

kilowatt-hour as provided by the 

Secretary. 

(3) The estimated annual operating 

cost for any other specified cycle type 

for freezers shall be the product of the 

following three factors, the resulting 

product then being rounded off to the 

nearest dollar per year: 

(i) The representative average-use 

cycle of 365 cycles per year; 

(ii) The average per-cycle energy 

consumption for the specified cycle 

type, determined according to 6.2 of 

Appendix B1 of this subpart before 

Appendix B becomes mandatory and 6.2 

of Appendix B of this subpart after 

Appendix B becomes mandatory (see 

the note at the beginning of Appendix 

B); and 

(iii) The representative average unit 

cost of electricity in dollars per 

kilowatt-hour as provided by the 

Secretary. 

(4) The energy factor for freezers, 

expressed in cubic feet per kilowatthour per cycle, shall be: 

(i) For freezers not having an antisweat heater switch, the quotient of: 

(A) The adjusted net refrigerated 

volume in cubic feet, determined 

according to 6.1 of Appendix B1 of this 

subpart before Appendix B becomes 

mandatory and 6.1 of Appendix B of 

this subpart after Appendix B becomes 

mandatory (see the note at the beginning 

of Appendix B), divided by— 

(B) The average per-cycle energy 

consumption for the standard cycle in 

kilowatt-hours per cycle, determined 

according to 6.2 of Appendix B1 of this 

subpart before Appendix B becomes 

mandatory and 6.2 of Appendix B of 

this subpart after Appendix B becomes 

mandatory (see the note at the beginning 

of Appendix B), the resulting quotient 

then being rounded off to the second 

decimal place; and 

(ii) For freezers having an anti-sweat 

heater switch, the quotient of: 

(A) The adjusted net refrigerated 

volume in cubic feet, determined 

according to 6.1 of Appendix B1 of this 

subpart before Appendix B becomes 

mandatory and 6.1 of Appendix B of 

this subpart after Appendix B becomes 

mandatory (see the note at the beginning 

of Appendix B), divided by— 

(B) Half the sum of the average percycle energy consumption for the 

standard cycle and the average per-cycle 

energy consumption for a test cycle type 

with the anti-sweat heater switch in the 

position set at the factory just before 

shipping, each in kilowatt-hours per 

cycle, determined according to 6.2 of 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78851 

Appendix B1 of this subpart before 

Appendix B becomes mandatory and 6.2 

of Appendix B of this subpart after 

Appendix B becomes mandatory (see 

the note at the beginning of Appendix 

B), the resulting quotient then being 

rounded off to the second decimal 

place. 

(5) The annual energy use of all 

freezers, expressed in kilowatt-hours per 

year, shall be the following, rounded to 

the nearest kilowatt-hour per year: 

(i) For freezers not having an antisweat heater switch, the representative 

average use cycle of 365 cycles per year 

multiplied by the average per-cycle 

energy consumption for the standard 

cycle in kilowatt-hours per cycle, 

determined according to 6.2 of 

Appendix B1 of this subpart before 

Appendix B becomes mandatory and 6.2 

of Appendix B of this subpart after 

Appendix B becomes mandatory (see 

the note at the beginning of Appendix 

B), and 

(ii) For freezers having an anti-sweat 

heater switch, the representative average 

use cycle of 365 cycles per year 

multiplied by half the sum of the 

average per-cycle energy consumption 

for the standard cycle and the average 

per-cycle energy consumption for a test 

cycle type with the anti-sweat heater 

switch in the position set at the factory 

just before shipping, each in kilowatthours per cycle, determined according 

to 6.2 of Appendix B1 of this subpart 

before Appendix B becomes mandatory 

and 6.2 of Appendix B of this subpart 

after Appendix B becomes mandatory 

(see the note at the beginning of 

Appendix B). 

(6) Other useful measures of energy 

consumption for freezers shall be those 

measures the Secretary determines are 

likely to assist consumers in making 

purchasing decisions and are derived 

from the application of Appendix B1 of 

this subpart before Appendix B becomes 

mandatory and Appendix B of this 

subpart after Appendix B becomes 

mandatory (see the note at the beginning 

of Appendix B). 

(7) The following principles of 

interpretation should be applied to the 

test procedure. The intent of the energy 

test procedure is to simulate typical 

room conditions (approximately 70 °F 

(21 °C)) with door openings, by testing 

at 90 °F (32.2 °C) without door 

openings. Except for operating 

characteristics that are affected by 

ambient temperature (for example, 

compressor percent run time), the unit, 

when tested under this test procedure, 

shall operate in a manner equivalent to 

the unit in typical room conditions. The 

energy used by the unit shall be 

calculated when a calculation is 

provided by the test procedure. Energy 

consuming components that operate in 

typical room conditions (including as a 

result of door openings, or a function of 

humidity), and that are not exempted by 

this test procedure, shall operate in an 

equivalent manner during energy testing 

under this test procedure, or be 

accounted for by all calculations as 

provided for in the test procedure. If: 

(i) A product contains energy 

consuming components that operate 

differently during the prescribed testing 

than they would during representative 

average consumer use and 

(ii) Applying the prescribed test to 

that product would evaluate it in a 

manner that is unrepresentative of its 

true energy consumption (thereby 

providing materially inaccurate 

comparative data), a manufacturer must 

obtain a waiver in accordance with the 

relevant provisions of 10 CFR part 430. 

Examples: 

A. Energy saving features that are 

designed to be activated by a lack of 

door openings hall not be functional 

during the energy test. 

B. The defrost heater should not 

either function or turn off differently 

during the energy test than it would 

when in typical room conditions. 

C. Electric heaters that would 

normally operate at typical room 

conditions with door openings should 

also operate during the energy test. 

D. Energy used during adaptive 

defrost shall continue to be tested and 

adjusted per the calculation provided 

for in this test procedure. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Add a new Appendix A to subpart 

B of part 430 to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Electric 

Refrigerators and Electric RefrigeratorFreezers 

The provisions of Appendix A shall apply 

to all products manufactured on or after the 

effective date of any amended standards 

promulgated by DOE pursuant to Section 

325(b)(4) of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975, as amended by the 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 

2007 (to be codified at 42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(4)). 

1. Definitions 

Section 3, Definitions, of HRF–1–2008 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) 

applies to this test procedure. 

1.1 ‘‘Adjusted total volume’’ means the 

sum of: 

(i) The fresh food compartment volume as 

defined in HRF–1–2008 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3) in cubic feet, and 

(ii) The product of an adjustment factor 

and the net freezer compartment volume as 

defined in HRF–1–2008 in cubic feet. 

1.2 ‘‘All-refrigerator’’ means an electric 

refrigerator that does not include a 

compartment for the freezing and long time 

storage of food at temperatures below 32°F 

(0.0 °C). It may include a compartment of 

0.50 cubic-foot capacity (14.2 liters) or less 

for the freezing and storage of ice. 

1.3 ‘‘Anti-sweat heater’’ means a device 

incorporated into the design of a refrigerator 

or refrigerator-freezer to prevent the 

accumulation of moisture on the exterior or 

interior surfaces of the cabinet. 

1.4 ‘‘Anti-sweat heater switch’’ means a 

user-controllable switch or user interface 

which modifies the activation or control of 

anti-sweat heaters. 

1.5 ‘‘Automatic defrost’’ means a system 

in which the defrost cycle is automatically 

initiated and terminated, with resumption of 

normal refrigeration at the conclusion of the 

defrost operation. The system automatically 

prevents the permanent formation of frost on 

all refrigerated surfaces. Nominal refrigerated 

food temperatures are maintained during the 

operation of the automatic defrost system. 

1.6 ‘‘Automatic icemaker’’ means a 

device, that can be supplied with water 

without user intervention, either from a 

pressurized water supply system or by 

transfer from a water reservoir located inside 

the cabinet, that automatically produces, 

harvests, and stores ice in a storage bin, with 

means to automatically interrupt the 

harvesting operation when the ice storage bin 

is filled to a pre-determined level. 

1.7 ‘‘Cycle’’ means the period of 24 hours 

for which the energy use of an electric 

refrigerator or electric refrigerator-freezer is 

calculated as though the consumer activated 

compartment temperature controls were set 

to maintain the standardized temperatures 

(see section 3.2). 

1.8 ‘‘Cycle type’’ means the set of test 

conditions having the calculated effect of 

operating an electric refrigerator or electric 

refrigerator-freezer for a period of 24 hours, 

with the consumer activated controls other 

than those that control compartment 

temperatures set to establish various 

operating characteristics. 

1.9 ‘‘Defrost cycle type’’ means a distinct 

sequence of control whose function is to 

remove frost and/or ice from a refrigerated 

surface. There may be variations in the 

defrost control sequence such as the number 

of defrost heaters energized. Each such 

variation establishes a separate distinct 

defrost cycle type. However, defrost achieved 

regularly during the compressor off-cycles by 

warming of the evaporator without active 

heat addition is not a defrost cycle type. 

1.10 ‘‘Externally vented refrigerator or 

refrigerator-freezer’’ means an electric 

refrigerator or electric refrigerator-freezer that 

has an enclosed condenser or an enclosed 

condenser/compressor compartment and a 

set of air ducts for transferring the exterior air 

from outside the building envelope into, 

through, and out of the refrigerator or 

refrigerator-freezer cabinet; is capable of 

mixing exterior air with the room air before 

discharging into, through, and out of the 

condenser or condenser/compressor 

compartment; may include thermostatically 

controlled dampers or controls that mix the 

exterior and room air at low outdoor 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
78852 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

temperatures and exclude exterior air when 

the outdoor air temperature is above 80 °F 

(26.7 °C) or the room air temperature; and 

may have a thermostatically actuated exterior 

air fan. 

1.11 ‘‘HRF–1–2008’’ means AHAM 

Standard HRF–1–2008, Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers, Energy and 

Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances 

(2008), including Errata to Energy and 

Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances, 

Correction Sheet issued November 17, 2009. 

Only sections of HRF–1–2008 (incorporated 

by reference; see § 430.3) specifically 

referenced in this test procedure are part of 

this test procedure. In cases where there is 

a conflict, the language of the test procedure 

in this appendix takes precedence over HRF– 

1–2008. 

1.12 ‘‘Long-time automatic defrost’’ means 

an automatic defrost system whose 

successive defrost cycles are separated by 14 

hours or more of compressor operating time. 

1.13 ‘‘Separate auxiliary compartment’’ 

means a freezer compartment or a fresh food 

compartment of a refrigerator or refrigeratorfreezer having more than two compartments 

that is not the first freezer compartment or 

the first fresh food compartment. Access to 

a separate auxiliary compartment is through 

a separate exterior door or doors rather than 

through the door or doors of another 

compartment. Separate auxiliary 

compartments may be convertible (e.g., from 

fresh food to freezer). Separate auxiliary 

freezer compartments may not be larger than 

the first freezer compartment and separate 

auxiliary fresh food compartments may not 

be larger than the first fresh food 

compartment, but such size restrictions do 

not apply to separate auxiliary convertible 

compartments. 

1.14 ‘‘Special compartment’’ means any 

compartment other than a butter conditioner, 

without doors directly accessible from the 

exterior, and with separate temperature 

control (such as crispers convertible to meat 

keepers) that is not convertible from fresh 

food temperature range to freezer 

temperature range. 

1.15 ‘‘Stabilization period’’ means the 

total period of time during which steady-state 

conditions are being attained or evaluated. 

1.16 ‘‘Standard cycle’’ means the cycle 

type in which the anti-sweat heater control, 

when provided, is set in the highest energyconsuming position. 

1.17 ‘‘Variable anti-sweat heater control’’ 

means an anti-sweat heater control that 

varies the average power input of the antisweat heater(s) based on operating condition 

variable(s) and/or ambient condition 

variable(s). 

1.18 ‘‘Variable defrost control’’ means an 

automatic defrost system in which successive 

defrost cycles are determined by an operating 

condition variable or variables other than 

solely compressor operating time. This 

includes any electrical or mechanical device 

performing this function. A control scheme 

that changes the defrost interval from a fixed 

length to an extended length (without any 

intermediate steps) is not considered a 

variable defrost control. A variable defrost 

control feature should predict the 

accumulation of frost on the evaporator and 

react accordingly. Therefore, the times 

between defrost should vary with different 

usage patterns and include a continuum of 

lengths of time between defrosts as inputs 

vary. 

2. Test Conditions 

2.1 Ambient Temperature. The ambient 

temperature shall be 90.0 ± 1 °F (32.2 ± 0.6 

°C) during the stabilization period and the 

test period. 

2.2 Operational Conditions. The electric 

refrigerator or electric refrigerator-freezer 

shall be installed and its operating conditions 

maintained in accordance with HRF–1–2008, 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), 

section 5.3 through section 5.5.5.5 (excluding 

section 5.5.5.4). Exceptions and clarifications 

to the cited sections of HRF–1–2008 are 

noted in sections 2.3 through 2.8, and 5.1 of 

this test procedure. 

2.3 Anti-Sweat Heaters. The anti-sweat 

heater switch is to be on during one test and 

off during a second test. In the case of an 

electric refrigerator-freezer equipped with 

variable anti-sweat heater control, the 

standard cycle energy use shall be the result 

of the calculation described in 6.2.3. 

2.4 Conditions for Automatic Defrost 

Refrigerator-Freezers. For automatic defrost 

refrigerator-freezers, the freezer 

compartments shall not be loaded with any 

frozen food packages during testing. 

Cylindrical metallic masses of dimensions 

1.12 ± 0.25 inches (2.9 ± 0.6 cm) in diameter 

and height shall be attached in good thermal 

contact with each temperature sensor within 

the refrigerated compartments. All 

temperature measuring sensor masses shall 

be supported by low-thermal-conductivity 

supports in such a manner to ensure that 

there will be at least 1 inch (2.5 cm) of air 

space separating the thermal mass from 

contact with any interior surface or hardware 

inside the cabinet. In case of interference 

with hardware at the sensor locations 

specified in section 5.1, the sensors shall be 

placed at the nearest adjacent location such 

that there will be a 1-inch air space 

separating the sensor mass from the 

hardware. 

2.5 Conditions for All-Refrigerators. 

There shall be no load in the freezer 

compartment during the test. 

2.6 The cabinet and its refrigerating 

mechanism shall be assembled and set up in 

accordance with the printed consumer 

instructions supplied with the cabinet. Setup of the refrigerator or refrigerator-freezer 

shall not deviate from these instructions, 

unless explicitly required or allowed by this 

test procedure. Specific required or allowed 

deviations from such set-up include the 

following: 

(a) Connection of water lines and 

installation of water filters are not required; 

(b) Clearance requirements from surfaces of 

the product shall be as described in section 

2.8 of this appendix; 

(c) The electric power supply shall be as 

described in HRF–1–2008 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3), section 5.5.1; 

(d) Temperature control settings for testing 

shall be as described in section 3 below. 

Settings for convertible compartments and 

other temperature-controllable or special 

compartments shall be as described in 

section 2.7 of this appendix; 

(e) The product does not need to be 

anchored or otherwise secured to prevent 

tipping during energy testing; 

(f) All the product’s chutes and throats 

required for the delivery of ice shall be free 

of packing, covers, or other blockages that 

may be fitted for shipping or when the 

icemaker is not in use; and 

(g) Ice storage bins shall be emptied 

of ice. 

For cases in which set-up is not 

clearly defined by this test procedure, 

manufacturers must submit a petition 

for a waiver (see section 7). 

2.7 Compartments that are 

convertible (e.g., from fresh food to 

freezer) shall be operated in the highest 

energy use position. For the special case 

of convertible separate auxiliary 

compartments, this means that the 

compartment shall be treated as a 

freezer compartment or a fresh food 

compartment, depending on which of 

these represents higher energy use. 

Special compartments shall be tested 

with controls set to provide the coldest 

temperature. However, for special 

compartments in which temperature 

control is achieved using the addition of 

heat (including resistive electric 

heating, refrigeration system waste heat, 

or heat from any other source, but 

excluding the transfer of air from 

another part of the interior of the 

product) for any part of the controllable 

temperature range of that compartment, 

the product energy use shall be 

determined by averaging two sets of 

tests. The first set of tests shall be 

conducted with such special 

compartments at their coldest settings, 

and the second set of tests shall be 

conducted with such special 

compartments at their warmest settings. 

The requirements for the warmest or 

coldest temperature settings of this 

section do not apply to features or 

functions associated with temperature 

control (such as fast chill 

compartments) that are initiated 

manually and terminated automatically 

within 168 hours. 

2.8 The space between the back of 

the cabinet and a vertical surface (the 

test room wall or simulated wall) shall 

be the minimum distance in accordance 

with the manufacturer’s instructions. 

However, the clearance shall not be 

greater than 2 inches (51 mm) from the 

plane of the cabinet’s back panel to the 

vertical surface. If permanent rear 

spacers extend further than this 

distance, the appliance shall be located 

with the spacers in contact with the 

vertical surface. 

2.9 Steady-State Condition. Steadystate conditions exist if the temperature 

measurements in all measured 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78853 

compartments taken at 4-minute 

intervals or less during a stabilization 

period are not changing at a rate greater 

than 0.042 °F (0.023 °C) per hour as 

determined by the applicable condition 

of A or B, described below. 

A. The average of the measurements 

during a 2-hour period if no cycling 

occurs or during a number of complete 

repetitive compressor cycles occurring 

through a period of no less than 2 hours 

is compared to the average over an 

equivalent time period with 3 hours 

elapsing between the two measurement 

periods. 

B. If A above cannot be used, the 

average of the measurements during a 

number of complete repetitive 

compressor cycles occurring through a 

period of no less than 2 hours and 

including the last complete cycle before 

a defrost period (or if no cycling occurs, 

the average of the measurements during 

the last 2 hours before a defrost period) 

are compared to the same averaging 

period before the following defrost 

period. 

2.10 Exterior Air for Externally 

Vented Refrigerator or RefrigeratorFreezer. An exterior air source shall be 

provided with adjustable temperature 

and pressure capabilities. The exterior 

air temperature shall be adjustable from 

30 ± 1 °F (1.7 ± 0.6 °C) to 90 ± 1 °F (32.2 

± 0.6 °C). 

2.10.1 Air Duct. The exterior air 

shall pass from the exterior air source to 

the test unit through an insulated air 

duct. 

2.10.2 Air Temperature 

Measurement. The air temperature 

entering the condenser or condenser/ 

compressor compartment shall be 

maintained to ± 3 °F (1.7 °C) during the 

stabilization and test periods and shall 

be measured at the inlet point of the 

condenser or condenser/compressor 

compartment (‘‘condenser inlet’’). 

Temperature measurements shall be 

taken from at least three temperature 

sensors or one sensor per 4 square 

inches (25.8 square cm) of the air duct 

cross-sectional area, whichever is 

greater, and shall be averaged. For a unit 

that has a condenser air fan, a minimum 

of three temperature sensors at the 

condenser fan discharge shall be 

required. Temperature sensors shall be 

arranged to be at the centers of equally 

divided cross-sectional areas. The 

exterior air temperature, at its source, 

shall be measured and maintained to ± 

1 °F (0.6 °C) during the test period. The 

temperature measuring devices shall 

have an error no greater than ± 0.5 °F 

(± 0.3 °C). Measurements of the air 

temperature during the test period shall 

be taken at regular intervals not to 

exceed 4 minutes. 

2.10.3 Exterior Air Static Pressure. 

The exterior air static pressure at the 

inlet point of the unit shall be adjusted 

to maintain a negative pressure of 0.20′′ 

± 0.05′′ water column (62 Pascals ± 12.5 

Pascals) for all air flow rates supplied to 

the unit. The pressure sensor shall be 

located on a straight duct with a 

distance of at least 7.5 times the 

diameter of the duct upstream and a 

distance of at least 3 times the diameter 

of the duct downstream. There shall be 

four static pressure taps at 90° angles 

apart. The four pressures shall be 

averaged by interconnecting the four 

pressure taps. The air pressure 

measuring instrument shall have an 

error no greater than 0.01’’ water column 

(2.5 Pascals). 

3. Test Control Settings 

3.1 Model with no User Operable 

Temperature Control. A test shall be 

performed to measure the compartment 

temperatures and energy use. A second 

test shall be performed with the 

temperature control electrically short 

circuited to cause the compressor to run 

continuously. 

3.2 Models with User Operable 

Temperature Control. Testing shall be 

performed in accordance with one of the 

following sections using the following 

standardized temperatures: 

All-Refrigerator: 39 °F (3.9 °C) fresh 

food compartment temperature; 

Refrigerator: 15 °F (¥9.4 °C) freezer 

compartment temperature, 39 °F (3.9 °C) 

fresh food compartment temperature; 

Refrigerator-Freezer: 0 °F (¥17.8 °C) 

freezer compartment temperature, 39 °F 

(3.9 °C) fresh food compartment 

temperature. 

For the purposes of comparing 

compartment temperatures with 

standardized temperatures, as described 

in sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, the freezer 

compartment temperature shall be as 

specified in section 5.1.4, and the fresh 

food compartment temperature shall be 

as specified in section 5.1.3. 

3.2.1 A first test shall be performed 

with all compartment temperature 

controls set at their median position 

midway between their warmest and 

coldest settings. For mechanical control 

systems, knob detents shall be 

mechanically defeated if necessary to 

attain a median setting. For electronic 

control systems, the test shall be 

performed with all compartment 

temperature controls set at the average 

of the coldest and warmest settings—if 

there is no setting equal to this average, 

the setting closest to the average shall be 

used. If there are two such settings 

equally close to the average, the higher 

of these temperature control settings 

shall be used. A second test shall be 

performed with all controls set at their 

warmest setting or all controls set at 

their coldest setting (not electrically or 

mechanically bypassed). For allrefrigerators, this setting shall be the 

appropriate setting that attempts to 

achieve compartment temperatures 

measured during the two tests which 

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

below) the standardized temperature for 

all-refrigerators. For refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers, the second test 

shall be conducted with all controls at 

their coldest setting, unless all 

compartment temperatures measured 

during the first part of the test are lower 

than the standardized temperatures, in 

which case the second test shall be 

conducted with all controls at their 

warmest setting. Refer to Table 1 for allrefrigerators or Table 2 for refrigerators 

with freezer compartments and 

refrigerator-freezers to determine which 

test results to use in the energy 

consumption calculation. If any 

compartment is warmer than its 

standardized temperature for a test with 

all controls at their coldest position, the 

tested unit fails the test and cannot be 

rated. 

TABLE 1—TEMPERATURE SETTINGS FOR ALL-REFRIGERATORS

First test Second test 

Energy calculation based on: 

Settings Results Settings Results 

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

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

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

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


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
78854 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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

First test Second test 

Energy calculation based on: 

Settings Results Settings Results 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fzr Low FF High ............. No Energy Use Rating. 

Fzr High FF Low ............. No Energy Use Rating. 

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

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

3.2.2 Alternatively, a first test may 

be performed with all temperature 

controls set at their warmest setting. If 

all compartment temperatures are below 

the appropriate standardized 

temperatures, then the result of this test 

alone will be used to determine energy 

consumption. If this condition is not 

met, then the unit shall be tested in 

accordance with 3.2.1. 

3.2.3 Temperature Settings for 

Separate Auxiliary Convertible 

Compartments. For separate auxiliary 

convertible compartments tested as 

freezer compartments, the median 

setting shall be within 2 °F (1.1 °C) of 

the standardized temperature, and the 

warmest setting shall be above 5 °F 

(¥15 °C). For separate auxiliary 

convertible compartments tested as 

fresh food compartments, the median 

setting shall be within 2 °F (1.1 °C) of 

the standardized temperature, and the 

coldest setting shall be below 34 °F (1.1 

°C). For compartments where control 

settings are not expressed as particular 

temperatures, the measured temperature 

of the convertible compartment rather 

than the settings shall meet the 

specified criteria. 

4. Test Period 

Tests shall be performed by 

establishing the conditions set forth in 

section 2, and using the control settings 

set forth in section 3. 

4.1 Nonautomatic Defrost. If the 

model being tested has no automatic 

defrost system, the test time period shall 

start after steady-state conditions have 

been achieved and be no less than 3 

hours in duration. During the test 

period, the compressor motor shall 

complete two or more whole 

compressor cycles. (A compressor cycle 

is a complete ‘‘on’’ and a complete ‘‘off’’ 

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

will occur, as determined during the 

stabilization period, the test period shall 

be 3 hours. If incomplete cycling occurs 

(i.e. less than two compressor cycles 

during a 24-hour period), the results of 

the 24-hour period shall be used. 

4.2 Automatic Defrost. If the model 

being tested has an automatic defrost 

system, the test time period shall start 

after steady-state conditions have been 

achieved and be from one point during 

a defrost period to the same point 

during the next defrost period. If the 

model being tested has a long-time 

automatic defrost system, the alternative 

provisions of 4.2.1 may be used. If the 

model being tested has a variable defrost 

control, the provisions of section 4.2.2 

shall apply. If the model has a dual 

compressor system with automatic 

defrost for both systems, the provisions 

of 4.2.3 shall apply. If the model being 

tested has long-time automatic or 

variable defrost control involving 

multiple defrost cycle types, such as for 

a product with a single compressor and 

two or more evaporators in which the 

evaporators are defrosted at different 

frequencies, the provisions of section 

4.2.4 shall apply. If the model being 

tested has multiple defrost cycle types 

for which compressor run time between 

defrosts is a fixed time of less than 14 

hours for all such cycle types, and for 

which the compressor run time between 

defrosts for different defrost cycle types 

are equal to or multiples of each other, 

the test time period shall be from one 

point of the defrost cycle type with the 

longest compressor run time between 

defrosts to the same point during the 

next occurrence of this defrost cycle 

type. For such products not using the 

section 4.2.4 procedures, energy 

consumption shall be calculated as 

described in section 5.2.1.1. 

4.2.1 Long-time Automatic Defrost. 

If the model being tested has a long-time 

automatic defrost system, the two-part 

test described in this section may be 

used. The first part is a stable period of 

compressor operation that includes no 

portions of the defrost cycle, such as 

precooling or recovery, that is otherwise 

the same as the test for a unit having no 

defrost provisions (section 4.1). The 

second part is designed to capture the 

energy consumed during all of the 

events occurring with the defrost 

control sequence that are outside of 

stable operation. 

4.2.1.1 Cycling Compressor System. 

For a system with a cycling compressor, 

the second part starts at the termination 

of the last regular compressor ‘‘on’’ 

cycle. The average temperature of the 

compartment measured from the 

termination of the previous compressor 

‘‘on’’ cycle to the termination of the last 

regular compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle must be 

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

temperature of the compartment 

measured for the first part of the test. If 

any compressor cycles occur prior to the 

defrost heater being energized that cause 

the average temperature in the 

compartment to deviate from the first 

part temperature by more than 0.5 °F 

(0.3 °C), these compressor cycles are not 

considered regular compressor cycles 

and must be included in the second part 

of the test. As an example, a ‘‘precool’’ 

cycle, which is an extended compressor 

cycle that lowers the compartment 

temperature prior to energizing the 

defrost heater, must be included in the 

second part of the test. The test period 

for the second part of the test ends at the 

initiation of the first regular compressor 

cycle after the compartment 

temperatures have fully recovered to 

their stable conditions. The average 

temperature of the compartment 

measured from this initiation of the first 

regular compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle until the 

initiation of the next regular compressor 

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

of the average temperature of the 

compartment measured for the first part 

of the test. The second part of the test 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78855 

may be terminated after 4 hours if the above conditions cannot be met. See 

Figure 1. 

Figure 1 

4.2.1.2 Non-cycling Compressor 

System. For a system with a non-cycling 

compressor, the second part starts at a 

time before defrost during stable 

operation when the compartment 

temperature is within 0.5 °F (0.3 °C) of 

the average temperature of the 

compartment measured for the first part 

of the test. The second part stops at a 

time after defrost during stable 

operation when the compartment 

temperature is within 0.5 °F (0.3 °C) of 

the average temperature of the 

compartment measured for the first part 

of the test. The second part of the test 

may be terminated after 4 hours if the 

above conditions cannot be met. See 

Figure 2. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2ER16DE10.005</GPH>
78856 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Figure 2 

4.2.2 Variable Defrost Control. If the 

model being tested has a variable defrost 

control system, the test shall consist of 

the same two parts as the test for longtime automatic defrost (section 4.2.1). 

4.2.3 Dual Compressor Systems with 

Automatic Defrost. If the model being 

tested has separate compressor systems 

for the refrigerator and freezer sections, 

each with its own automatic defrost 

system, then the two-part method in 

4.2.1 shall be used. The second part of 

the method will be conducted 

separately for each automatic defrost 

system. The components (compressor, 

fan motors, defrost heaters, anti-sweat 

heaters, etc.) associated with each 

system will be identified and their 

energy consumption will be separately 

measured during each test. 

4.2.4 Systems with Multiple Defrost 

Frequencies. This section applies to 

models with long-time automatic or 

variable defrost control with multiple 

defrost cycle types, such as models with 

single compressors and multiple 

evaporators in which the evaporators 

have different defrost frequencies. The 

two-part method in 4.2.1 shall be used. 

The second part of the method will be 

conducted separately for each distinct 

defrost cycle type. For defrost cycle 

types involving the defrosting of both 

fresh food and freezer compartments, 

the freezer compartment temperature 

shall be used to determine test period 

start and stop times. 

5. Test Measurements 

5.1 Temperature Measurements. 

Temperature measurements shall be 

made at the locations prescribed in 

Figures 5.1 and 5.2 of HRF–1–2008 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) 

and shall be accurate to within ± 0.5 °F 

(0.3 °C). No freezer temperature 

measurements need be taken in an allrefrigerator model. 

If the interior arrangements of the 

cabinet do not conform with those 

shown in Figure 5.1 and 5.2 of HRF–1– 

2008, the product may be tested by 

relocating the temperature sensors from 

the locations specified in the figures to 

avoid interference with hardware or 

components within the cabinet, in 

which case the specific locations used 

for the temperature sensors shall be 

noted in the test data records 

maintained by the manufacturer, and 

the certification report shall indicate 

that non-standard sensor locations were 

used. 

5.1.1 Measured Temperature. The 

measured temperature of a compartment 

is to be the average of all sensor 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2ER16DE10.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78857 

temperature readings taken in that 

compartment at a particular point in 

time. Measurements shall be taken at 

regular intervals not to exceed 4 

minutes. 

5.1.2 Compartment Temperature. 

The compartment temperature for each 

test period shall be an average of the 

measured temperatures taken in a 

compartment during the test period as 

defined in section 4. For long-time 

automatic defrost models, compartment 

temperatures shall be those measured in 

the first part of the test period specified 

in section 4.2.1. For models with 

variable defrost controls, compartment 

temperatures shall be those measured in 

the first part of the test period specified 

in section 4.2.2. 

5.1.3 Fresh Food Compartment 

Temperature. The fresh food 

compartment temperature shall be 

calculated as: 

Where: 

R is the total number of applicable fresh food 

compartments, which include the first 

fresh food compartment and any number 

of separate auxiliary fresh food 

compartments (including separate 

auxiliary convertible compartments 

tested as fresh food compartments in 

accordance with section 2.7); 

TRi is the compartment temperature of fresh 

food compartment ‘‘i’’ determined in 

accordance with section 5.1.2; and 

VRi is the volume of fresh food compartment 

‘‘i’’. 

5.1.4 Freezer Compartment 

Temperature. The freezer compartment 

temperature shall be calculated as: 

Where: 

F is the total number of applicable freezer 

compartments, which include the first 

freezer compartment and any number of 

separate auxiliary freezer compartments 

(including separate auxiliary convertible 

compartments tested as freezer 

compartments in accordance with 

section 2.7); 

TFi is the compartment temperature of 

freezer compartment ‘‘i’’ determined in 

accordance with section 5.1.2; and 

VFi is the volume of freezer compartment ‘‘i’’. 

5.2 Energy Measurements 

5.2.1 Per-Day Energy Consumption. 

The energy consumption in kilowatthours per day, ET, for each test period 

shall be the energy expended during the 

test period as specified in section 4 

adjusted to a 24-hour period. The 

adjustment shall be determined as 

follows. 

5.2.1.1 Nonautomatic and Automatic 

Defrost Models. The energy 

consumption in kilowatt-hours per day 

shall be calculated equivalent to: 

ET = EP × 1440/T 

Where: 

ET = test cycle energy expended in kilowatthours per day; 

EP = energy expended in kilowatt-hours 

during the test period; 

T = length of time of the test period in 

minutes; and 

1440 = conversion factor to adjust to a 24- 

hour period in minutes per day. 

5.2.1.2 Long-time Automatic Defrost. 

If the two-part test method is used, the 

energy consumption in kilowatt-hours 

per day shall be calculated equivalent 

to: 

ET = (1440 × EP1/T1) + (EP2 ¥ (EP1 × 

T2/T1)) × (12/CT) 

Where: 

ET and 1440 are defined in 5.2.1.1; 

EP1 = energy expended in kilowatt-hours 

during the first part of the test; 

EP2 = energy expended in kilowatt-hours 

during the second part of the test; 

T1 and T2 = length of time in minutes of the 

first and second test parts respectively; 

CT = defrost timer run time or compressor 

run time between defrosts in hours 

required to cause it to go through a 

complete cycle, rounded to the nearest 

tenth of an hour; and 

12 = factor to adjust for a 50-percent run time 

of the compressor in hours per day. 

5.2.1.3 Variable Defrost Control. The 

energy consumption in kilowatt-hours 

per day shall be calculated equivalent 

to: 

ET = (1440 × EP1/T1) + (EP2 ¥ (EP1 × 

T2/T1)) × (12/CT), 

Where: 

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

T2, and 12 are defined in 5.2.1.2; 

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

CTL = least or shortest compressor run time 

between defrosts in hours rounded to the 

nearest tenth of an hour (greater than or 

equal to 6 but less than or equal to 12 

hours); 

CTM = maximum compressor run time 

between defrosts in hours rounded to the 

nearest tenth of an hour (greater than 

CTL but not more than 96 hours); 

F = ratio of per day energy consumption in 

excess of the least energy and the 

maximum difference in per-day energy 

consumption and is equal to 0.20 

For variable defrost models with no values 

for CT L and CTM in the algorithm, the 

default values of 12 and 84 shall be used, 

respectively. 

5.2.1.4 Dual Compressor Systems 

with Dual Automatic Defrost. The twopart test method in section 4.2.4 must be 

used, and the energy consumption in 

kilowatt-hours per day shall be 

calculated equivalent to: 

ET = (1440 × EP1/T1) + (EP2F ¥ (EPF

× T2/T1)) × (12/CTF) + (EP2R ¥ 

(EPR × T3/T1)) × (12/CTR) 

Where: 

1440, EP1, T1, EP2, 12, and CT are defined 

in 5.2.1.2; 

EPF = freezer system energy in kilowatt-hours 

expended during the first part of the test; 

EP2F = freezer system energy in kilowatthours expended during the second part 

of the test for the freezer system; 

EPR = refrigerator system energy in kilowatthours expended during the first part of 

the test; 

EP2R = refrigerator system energy in kilowatthours expended during the second part 

of the test for the refrigerator system; 

T2 and T3 = length of time in minutes of the 

second test part for the freezer and 

refrigerator systems respectively; 

CTF = compressor run time between freezer 

defrosts (in hours rounded to the nearest 

tenth of an hour); and 

CTR = compressor run time between 

refrigerator defrosts (in hours rounded to 

the nearest tenth of an hour). 

5.2.1.5 Long-time or Variable Defrost 

Control for Systems with Multiple 

Defrost cycle Types. The energy 

consumption in kilowatt-hours per day 

shall be calculated equivalent to: 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2ER16DE10.007</GPH> ER16DE10.008</GPH>
78858 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Where: 

1440 is defined in 5.2.1.1 and EP1, T1, and 

12 are defined in 5.2.1.2; 

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

that identifies the distinct defrost cycle 

types applicable for the refrigerator or 

refrigerator-freezer; 

EP2i = energy expended in kilowatt-hours 

during the second part of the test for 

defrost cycle type i; 

T2i = length of time in minutes of the second 

part of the test for defrost cycle type i; 

CTi is the compressor run time between 

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

fixed time in hours rounded to the 

nearest tenth of an hour, and for variable 

defrost control equal to (CTLi × CTMi)/(F 

× (CTMi ¥ CTLi) + CTLi); 

CTLi = least or shortest compressor run time 

between instances of defrost cycle type 

i in hours rounded to the nearest tenth 

of an hour (CTL for the defrost cycle type 

with the longest compressor run time 

between defrosts must be greater than or 

equal to 6 but less than or equal to 12 

hours); 

CTMi = maximum compressor run time 

between instances of defrost cycle type 

i in hours rounded to the nearest tenth 

of an hour (greater than CTLi but not 

more than 96 hours); 

For cases in which there are more than one 

fixed CT value (for long-time defrost 

models) or more than one CTM and/or 

CTL value (for variable defrost models) 

for a given defrost cycle type, an average 

fixed CT value or average CTM and CTL

values shall be selected for this cycle 

type so that 12 divided by this value or 

values is the frequency of occurrence of 

the defrost cycle type in a 24-hour 

period, assuming 50% compressor run 

time. 

F = default defrost energy consumption 

factor, equal to 0.20. 

For variable defrost models with no values 

for CTLi and CTMi in the algorithm, the 

default values of 12 and 84 shall be used, 

respectively. 

D is the total number of distinct defrost cycle 

types. 

5.3 Volume Measurements. The 

electric refrigerator or electric 

refrigerator-freezer total refrigerated 

volume, VT, shall be measured in 

accordance with HRF–1–2008, 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), 

section 3.30 and sections 4.2 through 

4.3, and be calculated equivalent to: 

VT = VF + VFF 

Where: 

VT = total refrigerated volume in cubic feet, 

VF = freezer compartment volume in cubic 

feet, and 

VFF = fresh food compartment volume in 

cubic feet. 

In the case of refrigerators or refrigeratorfreezers with automatic icemakers, the 

volume occupied by the automatic icemaker, 

including its ice storage bin, is to be included 

in the volume measurement. 

5.4 Externally Vented Refrigerator or 

Refrigerator-Freezer Units. All test 

measurements for the externally vented 

refrigerator or refrigerator-freezer shall 

be made in accordance with the 

requirements of other sections of this 

Appendix, except as modified in this 

section or other sections expressly 

applicable to externally vented 

refrigerators or refrigerator-freezers. 

5.4.1 Operability of ‘‘Thermostatic’’ 

and ‘‘Mixing of Air’’ Controls. Before 

conducting energy consumption tests, 

the operability of thermostatic controls 

that permit the mixing of exterior and 

ambient air when exterior air 

temperatures are less than 60 °F (15.6 

°C) must be verified. The operability of 

such controls shall be verified by 

operating the unit under ambient air 

temperature of 90 °F (32.2 °C) and 

exterior air temperature of 45 °F (7.2 °C). 

If the inlet air entering the condenser or 

condenser/compressor compartment is 

maintained at 60 ± 3 °F (15.6 ± 1.7 °C), 

energy consumption of the unit shall be 

measured under 5.4.2.2 and 5.4.2.3. If 

the inlet air entering the condenser or 

condenser/compressor compartment is 

not maintained at 60 ± 3 °F (15.6 ± 1.7 

°C), energy consumption of the unit 

shall also be measured under 5.4.2.4. 

5.4.2 Energy Consumption Tests. 

5.4.2.1 Correction Factor Test. To 

enable calculation of a correction factor, 

K, two full cycle tests shall be 

conducted to measure energy 

consumption of the unit with air mixing 

controls disabled and the condenser 

inlet air temperatures set at 90 °F (32.2 

°C) and 80 °F (26.7 °C). Both tests shall 

be conducted with all compartment 

temperature controls set at the position 

midway between their warmest and 

coldest settings and the anti-sweat 

heater switch off. Record the energy 

consumptions ec90 and ec80, in kWh/ 

day. 

5.4.2.2 Energy Consumption at 90 

°F. The unit shall be tested at 90 °F (32.2 

°C) exterior air temperature to record the 

energy consumptions (e90)i in kWh/day. 

For a given setting of the anti-sweat 

heater, the value i corresponds to each 

of the two states of the compartment 

temperature control positions. 

5.4.2.3 Energy Consumption at 60 

°F. The unit shall be tested at 60 °F (26.7 

°C) exterior air temperature to record the 

energy consumptions (e60)i in kWh/day. 

For a given setting of the anti-sweat 

heater, the value i corresponds to each 

of the two states of the compartment 

temperature control positions. 

5.4.2.4 Energy Consumption if 

Mixing Controls do not Operate 

Properly. If the operability of 

temperature and mixing controls has not 

been verified as required under 5.4.1, 

the unit shall be tested at 50 °F (10.0 °C) 

and 30 °F (-1.1 °C) exterior air 

temperatures to record the energy 

consumptions (e50)i and (e30)i. For a 

given setting of the anti-sweat heater, 

the value i corresponds to each of the 

two states of the compartment 

temperature control positions. 

6. Calculation of Derived Results From 

Test Measurements 

6.1 Adjusted Total Volume. 

6.1.1 Electric Refrigerators. The 

adjusted total volume, VA, for electric 

refrigerators under test shall be defined 

as: 

VA = (VF × CR) + VFF 

Where: 

VA = adjusted total volume in cubic feet; 

VF and VFF are defined in 5.3; and 

CR = dimensionless adjustment factor of 1.47 

for refrigerators other than allrefrigerators, or 1.0 for all-refrigerators. 

6.1.2 Electric Refrigerator-Freezers. 

The adjusted total volume, VA, for 

electric refrigerator-freezers under test 

shall be calculated as follows: 

VA = (VF × CRF) + VFF 

Where: 

VF and VFF are defined in 5.3 and VA is 

defined in 6.1.1, and 

CRF = dimensionless adjustment factor of 

1.76. 

6.2 Average Per-Cycle Energy 

Consumption. 

6.2.1 All-Refrigerator Models. The 

average per-cycle energy consumption 

for a cycle type, E, is expressed in 

kilowatt-hours per cycle to the nearest 

one hundredth (0.01) kilowatt-hour and 

shall depend upon the temperature 

attainable in the fresh food 

compartment as shown below. 

6.2.1.1 If the fresh food 

compartment temperature is always 

below 39.0 °F (3.9 °C), the average percycle energy consumption shall be 

equivalent to: 

E = ET1 

Where: 

ET is defined in 5.2.1; and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2ER16DE10.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78859 

The number 1 indicates the test period 

during which the highest fresh food 

compartment temperature is measured. 

6.2.1.2 If one of the fresh food 

compartment temperatures measured for 

a test period is greater than 39.0 °F (3.9 

°C), the average per-cycle energy 

consumption shall be equivalent to: 

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

(TR2 ¥ TR1)) 

Where: 

ET is defined in 5.2.1; 

TR = fresh food compartment temperature 

determined according to 5.1.3 in degrees 

F; 

The numbers 1 and 2 indicate measurements 

taken during the first and second test 

period as appropriate; and 

39.0 = standardized fresh food compartment 

temperature in degrees F. 

6.2.2 Refrigerators and RefrigeratorFreezers. The average per-cycle energy 

consumption for a cycle type, E, is 

expressed in kilowatt-hours per-cycle to 

the nearest one hundredth (0.01) 

kilowatt-hour and shall be defined in 

one of the following ways as applicable. 

6.2.2.1 If the fresh food 

compartment temperature is at or below 

39 °F (3.9 °C) in both tests and the 

freezer compartment temperature is at 

or below 15 °F (-9.4 °C) in both tests of 

a refrigerator or at or below 0 °F (-17.8 

°C) in both tests of a refrigerator-freezer, 

the per-cycle energy consumption shall 

be: 

E = ET1 + IET 

Where: 

ET is defined in 5.2.1; 

IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle, 

equals 0.23 for a product with an 

automatic icemaker and otherwise equals 

0 (zero); and 

The number 1 indicates the test period 

during which the highest freezer 

compartment temperature was measured. 

6.2.2.2 If the conditions of 6.2.2.1 do 

not exist, the per-cycle energy 

consumption shall be defined by the 

higher of the two values calculated by 

the following two formulas: 

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

(TR2 ¥ TR1)) + IET 

and 

E = ET1 + ((ET2 ¥ ET1) × (k ¥ TF1)/ 

(TF2 ¥ TF1)) + IET 

Where: 

E is defined in 6.2.1.1; 

ET is defined in 5.2.1; 

IET is defined in 6.2.2.1; 

TR and the numbers 1 and 2 are defined in 

6.2.1.2; 

TF = freezer compartment temperature 

determined according to 5.1.4 in degrees 

F; 

39.0 is a specified fresh food compartment 

temperature in degrees F; and 

k is a constant 15.0 for refrigerators or 0.0 for 

refrigerator-freezers, each being 

standardized freezer compartment 

temperatures in degrees F. 

6.2.3 Variable Anti-Sweat Heater 

Models. The standard cycle energy 

consumption of an electric refrigeratorfreezer with a variable anti-sweat heater 

control (Estd), expressed in kilowatthours per day, shall be calculated 

equivalent to: 

Estd = E + (Correction Factor) where E is 

determined by 6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.2, 

6.2.2.1, or 6.2.2.2, whichever is 

appropriate, with the anti-sweat 

heater switch in the ‘‘off’’ position 

or, for a product without an antisweat heater switch, the anti-sweat 

heater in its lowest energy use state. 

Correction Factor = (Anti-sweat Heater 

Power × System-loss Factor) × (24 

hrs/1 day) × (1 kW/1000 W) 

Where: 

Anti-sweat Heater Power = 0.034 * (Heater 

Watts at 5%RH) 

+ 0.211 * (Heater Watts at 15%RH) 

+ 0.204 * (Heater Watts at 25%RH) 

+ 0.166 * (Heater Watts at 35%RH) 

+ 0.126 * (Heater Watts at 45%RH) 

+ 0.119 * (Heater Watts at 55%RH) 

+ 0.069 * (Heater Watts at 65%RH) 

+ 0.047 * (Heater Watts at 75%RH) 

+ 0.008 * (Heater Watts at 85%RH) 

+ 0.015 * (Heater Watts at 95%RH) 

Heater Watts at a specific relative humidity 

= the nominal watts used by all heaters 

at that specific relative humidity, 72 °F 

(22.2 °C) ambient, and DOE reference 

temperatures of fresh food (FF) average 

temperature of 39 °F (3.9 °C) and freezer 

(FZ) average temperature of 0 °F (¥17.8 

°C). 

System-loss Factor = 1.3. 

6.3 Externally vented refrigerator or 

refrigerator-freezers. Per-cycle energy 

consumption measurements for an 

externally vented refrigerator or 

refrigerator-freezer shall be calculated in 

accordance with the requirements of 

this Appendix, as modified in sections 

6.3.1–6.3.7. 

6.3.1 Correction Factor. The 

correction factor, K, shall be calculated 

as: 

K = ec90/ec80

Where: 

ec90 and ec80 are measured in section 5.4.2.1. 

6.3.2 Combining Test Results of 

Different Settings of Compartment 

Temperature Controls. For a given 

setting of the anti-sweat heater, follow 

the calculation procedures of 6.2 to 

combine the test results for energy 

consumption of the unit at different 

temperature control settings for each 

condenser inlet air temperature tested 

under 5.4.2.2, 5.4.2.3, and 5.4.2.4, where 

applicable, (e90)i, (e60)i, (e50)i, and (e30)i. 

The combined values, °90, °60, °50, and 

°30, where applicable, are expressed in 

kWh/day. 

6.3.3 Energy Consumption 

Corrections. For a given setting of the 

anti-sweat heater, adjust the energy 

consumptions °90, °60, °50, and °30

calculated in 6.3.2 by multiplying the 

correction factor K to obtain the 

corrected energy consumptions per day 

in kWh/day: 

E90 = K × °90,

E60 = K × °60,

E50 = K × °50, and 

E30 = K × °30

Where: 

K is determined under section 6.3.1; and °90, 

°60, °50, and °30 are determined under 

section 6.3.2. 

6.3.4 Energy Profile Equation. For a 

given setting of the anti-sweat heater, 

calculate the energy consumption EX, in 

kWh/day, at a specific exterior air 

temperature between 80 °F (26.7 °C) and 

60 °F (26.7 °C) using the following 

equation: 

EX = E60 + (E90 ¥ E60) × (TX ¥ 60)/30 

Where: 

TX is the exterior air temperature in °F; 

60 is the exterior air temperature in °F for the 

test of section 5.4.2.3; 

30 is the difference between 90 and 60; 

E60 and E90 are determined in section 6.3.3. 

6.3.5 Energy Consumption at 80 °F 

(26.7 °C), 75 °F (23.9 °C) and 65 °F (18.3 

°C). For a given setting of the anti-sweat 

heater, calculate the energy 

consumptions at 80 °F (26.7 °C), 75 °F 

(23.9 °C) and 65 °F (18.3 °C) exterior air 

temperatures, E80, E75 and E65, 

respectively, in kWh/day, using the 

equation in 6.3.4. 

6.3.6 National Average Per-Cycle 

Energy Consumption. For a given setting 

of the anti-sweat heater, calculate the 

national average energy consumption, 

EN, in kWh/day, using one of the 

following equations: 

EN = 0.523 × E60 + 0.165 × E65 + 0.181 

× E75 + 0.131 × E80, for units not 

tested under section 5.4.2.4; and 

EN = 0.257 × E30 + 0.266 × E50 + 0.165 

× E65 + 0.181 × E75 + 0.131 × E80, 

for units tested under section 

5.4.2.4 

Where: 

E30, E50, and E60 are defined in 6.3.3; 

E65, E75, and E80 are defined in 6.3.5; 

and 

the coefficients 0.523, 0.165, 0.181, 0.131, 

0.257 and 0.266 are weather-associated 

weighting factors. 

6.3.7 Regional Average Per-Cycle 

Energy Consumption. If regional average 

per-cycle energy consumption is 

required to be calculated for a given 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
78860 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

setting of the anti-sweat heater, 

calculate the regional average per-cycle 

energy consumption, ER, in kWh/day, 

for the regions in Figure 3. Use one of 

the following equations and the 

coefficients in Table A: 

ER = a1 × E60 + c × E65 + d × E75 + e 

× E80, for a unit that is not required 

to be tested under section 5.4.2.4; or 

ER = a × E30 + b × E50 + c × E65 + d × 

E75 + e × E80, for a unit tested under 

section 5.4.2.4 

Where: 

E30, E50, and E60 are defined in section 6.3.3; 

E65, E75, and E80 are defined in section 6.3.5; 

and 

a1, a, b, c, d, and e are weather-associated 

weighting factors for the regions, as 

specified in Table A. 

TABLE A—COEFFICIENTS FOR CALCULATING REGIONAL AVERAGE PER-CYCLE ENERGY CONSUMPTION

[Weighting factors] 

Regions a1 a b c d e 

I .................................................................................................... 0 .282 0 .039 0 .244 0 .194 0 .326 0 .198 

II ................................................................................................... 0 .486 0 .194 0 .293 0 .191 0 .193 0 .129 

III .................................................................................................. 0 .584 0 .302 0 .282 0 .178 0 .159 0 .079 

IV .................................................................................................. 0 .664 0 .420 0 .244 0 .161 0 .121 0 .055 

7. Test Procedure Waivers 

To the extent that the procedures 

contained in this appendix do not 

provide a means for determining the 

energy consumption of a refrigerator or 

refrigerator-freezer, a manufacturer must 

obtain a waiver under 10 CFR 430.27 to 

establish an acceptable test procedure 

for each such product. Such instances 

could, for example, include situations 

where the test set-up for a particular 

refrigerator or refrigerator-freezer basic 

model is not clearly defined by the 

provisions of section 2. For details 

regarding the criteria and procedures for 

obtaining a waiver, please refer to 10 

CFR 430.27. 

■ 6. Appendix A1 to subpart B of part 

430 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding an introductory note after 

the appendix heading; 

■ b. Revising section 1. Definitions; 

■ c. Revising section 2. Test Conditions; 

■ d. In section 3. Test Control Settings, 

by: 

■ 1. Revising sections 3.2 and 3.2.1 

through 3.2.3; 

■ 2. Adding new section 3.2.4; 

■ 3. Removing section 3.3; 

■ e. Revising section 4. Test Period; 

■ f. In section 5. Test Measurements, by: 

■ 1. Revising sections 5.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.2.1, 

5.1.2.2, 5.1.2.3, 5.2.1, 5.2.1.1, 5.2.1.2, 

and 5.2.1.3; 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2ER16DE10.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78861 

■ 2. Adding new sections 5.1.3 and 

5.1.4; 

■ 2. Removing section 5.2.1.4; 

■ 3. Redesignating section 5.2.1.5 as 

5.2.1.4 and revising redesignated 

5.2.1.4; 

■ g. In section 6. Calculation of Derived 

Results from Test Measurements, by: 

■ 1. Revising sections 6.2.1.2 and 

6.2.2.2; 

■ 2. Adding new section 6.2.3; 

■ 3. Revise the Figure at the end of 

section 6; 

■ h. Adding a new section 7. Test 

Procedure Waivers. 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

Appendix A1 to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Electric 

Refrigerators and Electric RefrigeratorFreezers 

The provisions of Appendix A1 shall 

apply to all products manufactured 

prior to the effective date of any 

amended standards promulgated by 

DOE pursuant to Section 325(b)(4) of the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 

1975, as amended by the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(to be codified at 42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(4)). 

1. Definitions 

Section 3, Definitions, of HRF–1–1979 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) 

applies to this test procedure. 

1.1 ‘‘Adjusted total volume’’ means 

the sum of (i) the fresh food 

compartment volume as defined in 

HRF–1–1979 in cubic feet, and (ii) the 

product of an adjustment factor and the 

net freezer compartment volume as 

defined in HRF–1–1979, in cubic feet. 

1.2 ‘‘All-refrigerator’’ means an 

electric refrigerator which does not 

include a compartment for the freezing 

and long time storage of food at 

temperatures below 32 °F (0.0 °C). It 

may include a compartment of 0.50 

cubic feet capacity (14.2 liters) or less 

for the freezing and storage of ice. 

1.3 ‘‘Anti-sweat heater’’ means a 

device incorporated into the design of a 

refrigerator or refrigerator-freezer to 

prevent the accumulation of moisture 

on exterior or interior surfaces of the 

cabinet. 

1.4 ‘‘Anti-sweat heater switch’’ 

means a user-controllable switch or user 

interface which modifies the activation 

or control of anti-sweat heaters. 

1.5 ‘‘Automatic defrost’’ means a 

system in which the defrost cycle is 

automatically initiated and terminated, 

with resumption of normal refrigeration 

at the conclusion of the defrost 

operation. The system automatically 

prevents the permanent formation of 

frost on all refrigerated surfaces. 

Nominal refrigerated food temperatures 

are maintained during the operation of 

the automatic defrost system. 

1.6 ‘‘Automatic icemaker’’ means a 

device that can be supplied with water 

without user intervention, either from a 

pressurized water supply system or by 

transfer from a water reservoir located 

inside the cabinet, that automatically 

produces, harvests, and stores ice in a 

storage bin, with means to automatically 

interrupt the harvesting operation when 

the ice storage bin is filled to a predetermined level. 

1.7 ‘‘Cycle’’ means the period of 24 

hours for which the energy use of an 

electric refrigerator or electric 

refrigerator-freezer is calculated as 

though the consumer activated 

compartment temperature controls were 

set to maintain the standardized 

temperatures (see section 3.2). 

1.8 ‘‘Cycle type’’ means the set of test 

conditions having the calculated effect 

of operating an electric refrigerator or 

electric refrigerator-freezer for a period 

of 24 hours, with the consumer 

activated controls other than those that 

control compartment temperatures set to 

establish various operating 

characteristics. 

1.9 ‘‘Defrost cycle type’’ means a 

distinct sequence of control whose 

function is to remove frost and/or ice 

from a refrigerated surface. There may 

be variations in the defrost control 

sequence such as the number of defrost 

heaters energized. Each such variation 

establishes a separate distinct defrost 

cycle type. However, defrost achieved 

regularly during the compressor offcycles by warming of the evaporator 

without active heat addition is not a 

defrost cycle type. 

1.10 ‘‘Externally vented refrigerator 

or refrigerator-freezer’’ means an electric 

refrigerator or electric refrigeratorfreezer that has an enclosed condenser 

or an enclosed condenser/compressor 

compartment and a set of air ducts for 

transferring the exterior air from outside 

the building envelope into, through, and 

out of the refrigerator or refrigeratorfreezer cabinet; is capable of mixing 

exterior air with the room air before 

discharging into, through, and out of the 

condenser or condenser/compressor 

compartment; may include 

thermostatically controlled dampers or 

controls that mix the exterior and room 

air at low outdoor temperatures and 

exclude exterior air when the outdoor 

air temperature is above 80 °F (26.7 °C) 

or the room air temperature; and may 

have a thermostatically actuated exterior 

air fan. 

1.11 ‘‘HRF–1–1979’’ means the 

Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers standard for household 

refrigerators, combination refrigeratorfreezers, and household freezers, also 

approved as an American National 

Standard as a revision of ANSI B 38.1– 

1970. Only sections of HRF–1–1979 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) 

specifically referenced in this test 

procedure are part of this test 

procedure. In cases where there is a 

conflict, the language of the test 

procedure in this appendix takes 

precedence over HRF–1–1979. 

1.12 ‘‘Long-time Automatic Defrost’’ 

means an automatic defrost system 

where successive defrost cycles are 

separated by 14 hours or more of 

compressor-operating time. 

1.13 ‘‘Separate auxiliary 

compartment’’ means a freezer 

compartment or a fresh food 

compartment of a refrigerator or 

refrigerator-freezer having more than 

two compartments that is not the first 

freezer compartment or the first fresh 

food compartment. Access to a separate 

auxiliary compartment is through a 

separate exterior door or doors rather 

than through the door or doors of 

another compartment. Separate 

auxiliary compartments may be 

convertible (e.g., from fresh food to 

freezer). Separate auxiliary freezer 

compartments may not be larger than 

the first freezer compartment and 

separate auxiliary fresh food 

compartments may not be larger than 

the first fresh food compartment, but 

such size restrictions do not apply to 

separate auxiliary convertible 

compartments. 

1.14 ‘‘Special compartment’’ means 

any compartment other than a butter 

conditioner, without doors directly 

accessible from the exterior, and with 

separate temperature control (such as 

crispers convertible to meat keepers) 

that is not convertible from fresh food 

temperature range to freezer 

temperature range. 

1.15 ‘‘Stabilization Period’’ means 

the total period of time during which 

steady-state conditions are being 

attained or evaluated. 

1.16 ‘‘Standard cycle’’ means the 

cycle type in which the anti-sweat 

heater control, when provided, is set in 

the highest energy consuming position. 

1.17 ‘‘Variable anti-sweat heater 

control’’ means an anti-sweat heater 

control that varies the average power 

input of the anti-sweat heater(s) based 

on operating condition variable(s) and/ 

or ambient condition variable(s). 

1.18 ‘‘Variable defrost control’’ 

means an automatic defrost system in 

which successive defrost cycles are 

determined by an operating condition 

variable or variables other than solely 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
78862 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

compressor operating time. This 

includes any electrical or mechanical 

device performing this function. A 

control scheme that changes the defrost 

interval from a fixed length to an 

extended length (without any 

intermediate steps) is not considered a 

variable defrost control. A variable 

defrost control feature should predict 

the accumulation of frost on the 

evaporator and react accordingly. 

Therefore, the times between defrost 

should vary with different usage 

patterns and include a continuum of 

lengths of time between defrosts as 

inputs vary. 

2. Test Conditions 

2.1 Ambient Temperature. The 

ambient temperature shall be 90.0 ± 1 °F 

(32.2 ± 0.6 °C) during the stabilization 

period and the test period. 

2.2 Operational Conditions. The 

electric refrigerator or electric 

refrigerator-freezer shall be installed and 

its operating conditions maintained in 

accordance with HRF–1–1979, 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), 

section 7.2 through section 7.4.3.3, 

except that the vertical ambient 

temperature gradient at locations 10 

inches (25.4 cm) out from the centers of 

the two sides of the unit being tested is 

to be maintained during the test. Unless 

the area is obstructed by shields or 

baffles, the gradient is to be maintained 

from 2 inches (5.1 cm) above the floor 

or supporting platform to a height 1 foot 

(30.5 cm) above the unit under test. 

Defrost controls are to be operative. 

Other exceptions and provisions to the 

cited sections of HRF–1–1979 are noted 

in sections 2.3 through 2.8, and 5.1 of 

this appendix. 

2.3 Anti-Sweat Heaters. 

The anti-sweat heater switch is to be 

on during one test and off during a 

second test. In the case of an electric 

refrigerator-freezer with variable antisweat heater control, the standard cycle 

energy use shall be the result of the 

calculation described in 6.2.3. 

2.4 Conditions for Automatic Defrost 

Refrigerator-Freezers. For automatic 

defrost refrigerator-freezers, the freezer 

compartments shall not be loaded with 

any frozen food packages during testing. 

Cylindrical metallic masses of 

dimensions 1.12 ± 0.25 inches (2.9 ± 0.6 

cm) in diameter and height shall be 

attached in good thermal contact with 

each temperature sensor within the 

refrigerated compartments. All 

temperature measuring sensor masses 

shall be supported by low-thermalconductivity supports in such a manner 

to ensure that there will be at least 1 

inch (2.5 cm) of air space separating the 

thermal mass from contact with any 

interior surface or hardware inside the 

cabinet. In case of interference with 

hardware at the sensor locations 

specified in section 5.1, the sensors 

shall be placed at the nearest adjacent 

location such that there will be a 1-inch 

air space separating the sensor mass 

from the hardware. 

2.5 Conditions for all-refrigerators. 

There shall be no load in the freezer 

compartment during the test. 

2.6 The cabinet and its refrigerating 

mechanism shall be assembled and set 

up in accordance with the printed 

consumer instructions supplied with 

the cabinet. Set-up of the refrigerator or 

refrigerator-freezer shall not deviate 

from these instructions, unless 

explicitly required or allowed by this 

test procedure. Specific required or 

allowed deviations from such set-up 

include the following: 

(a) Connection of water lines and 

installation of water filters are not 

required; 

(b) Clearance requirements from 

surfaces of the product shall be as 

described in section 2.8 below; 

(c) The electric power supply shall be 

as described in HRF–1–1979 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) 

section 7.4.1; 

(d) Temperature control settings for 

testing shall be as described in section 

3 below. Settings for convertible 

compartments and other temperaturecontrollable or special compartments 

shall be as described in section 2.7 of 

this appendix; 

(e) The product does not need to be 

anchored or otherwise secured to 

prevent tipping during energy testing; 

and 

(f) All the product’s chutes and 

throats required for the delivery of ice 

shall be free of packing, covers, or other 

blockages that may be fitted for shipping 

or when the icemaker is not in use. 

For cases in which set-up is not clearly 

defined by this test procedure, 

manufacturers must submit a petition 

for a waiver (see section 7). 

2.7 Compartments that are 

convertible (e.g., from fresh food to 

freezer) shall be operated in the highest 

energy use position. For the special case 

of convertible separate auxiliary 

compartments, this means that the 

compartment shall be treated as a 

freezer compartment or a fresh food 

compartment, depending on which of 

these represents higher energy use. 

Special compartments shall be tested 

with controls set to provide the coldest 

temperature. This requirement for the 

coldest temperature does not apply to 

features or functions associated with 

temperature control (such as fast chill 

compartments) that are initiated 

manually and terminated automatically 

within 168 hours. 

2.8 The space between the back of 

the cabinet and a vertical surface (the 

test room wall or simulated wall) shall 

be the minimum distance in accordance 

with the manufacturer’s instructions. 

2.9 Steady State Condition. Steady 

state conditions exist if the temperature 

measurements in all measured 

compartments taken at four minute 

intervals or less during a stabilization 

period are not changing at a rate greater 

than 0.042 °F. (0.023 °C.) per hour as 

determined by the applicable condition 

of A or B. 

A. The average of the measurements 

during a two hour period if no cycling 

occurs or during a number of complete 

repetitive compressor cycles through a 

period of no less than two hours is 

compared to the average over an 

equivalent time period with three hours 

elapsed between the two measurement 

periods. 

B. If A above cannot be used, the 

average of the measurements during a 

number of complete repetitive 

compressor cycles through a period of 

no less than two hours and including 

the last complete cycle prior to a defrost 

period, or if no cycling occurs, the 

average of the measurements during the 

last two hours prior to a defrost period; 

are compared to the same averaging 

period prior to the following defrost 

period. 

2.10 Exterior air for externally 

vented refrigerator or refrigeratorfreezer. An exterior air source shall be 

provided with adjustable temperature 

and pressure capabilities. The exterior 

air temperature shall be adjustable from 

35 ± 1 °F (1.7 ± 0.6 °C) to 90 ± 1 °F (32.2 

± 0.6 °C). 

2.10.1 Air duct. The exterior air 

shall pass from the exterior air source to 

the test unit through an insulated air 

duct. 

2.10.2 Air temperature 

measurement. The air temperature 

entering the condenser or condenser/ 

compressor compartment shall be 

maintained to ± 3 °F (1.7 °C) during the 

stabilization and test periods and shall 

be measured at the inlet point of the 

condenser or condenser/compressor 

compartment (‘‘condenser inlet’’). 

Temperature measurements shall be 

taken from at least three temperature 

sensors or one sensor per 4 square 

inches of the air duct cross sectional 

area, whichever is greater, and shall be 

averaged. For a unit that has a 

condenser air fan, a minimum of three 

temperature sensors at the condenser 

fan discharge shall be required. 

Temperature sensors shall be arranged 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78863 

to be at the centers of equally divided 

cross sectional areas. The exterior air 

temperature, at its source, shall be 

measured and maintained to ± 1 °F (0.6 

°C) during the test period. The 

temperature measuring devices shall 

have an error not greater than ± 0.5 °F 

(± 0.3 °C). Measurements of the air 

temperature during the test period shall 

be taken at regular intervals not to 

exceed four minutes. 

2.10.3 Exterior air static pressure. 

The exterior air static pressure at the 

inlet point of the unit shall be adjusted 

to maintain a negative pressure of 0.20′′ 

± 0.05′′ water column (62 Pa ± 12.5 Pa) 

for all air flow rates supplied to the unit. 

The pressure sensor shall be located on 

a straight duct with a distance of at least 

7.5 times the diameter of the duct 

upstream and a distance of at least 3 

times the diameter of the duct 

downstream. There shall be four static 

pressure taps at 90°angles apart. The 

four pressures shall be averaged by 

interconnecting the four pressure taps. 

The air pressure measuring instrument 

shall have an error not greater than 0.01′′ 

water column (2.5 Pa). 

3. Test Control Settings 

* * * * * 

3.2 Model with User Operable 

Temperature Control. Testing shall be 

performed in accordance with one of the 

following sections using the 

standardized temperatures of: 

All-Refrigerator: 38 °F (3.3 °C) fresh 

food compartment temperature; 

Refrigerator: 15 °F (¥9.4 °C) freezer 

compartment temperature, 45 °F (7.2 °C) 

fresh food compartment temperature; 

Refrigerator-Freezer: 5 °F (¥15 °C) 

freezer compartment temperature, 45 °F 

(7.2 °C) fresh food compartment 

temperature. 

For the purposes of comparing 

compartment temperatures with 

standardized temperatures, as described 

in sections 3.2.1 through 3.2.3, the 

freezer compartment temperature shall 

be as specified in section 5.1.4, and the 

fresh food compartment temperature 

shall be as specified in section 5.1.3. 

3.2.1 A first test shall be performed 

with all compartment temperature 

controls set at their median position 

midway between their warmest and 

coldest settings. For mechanical control 

systems, knob detents shall be 

mechanically defeated if necessary to 

attain a median setting. For electronic 

control systems, the test shall be 

performed with all compartment 

temperature controls set at the average 

of the coldest and warmest settings—if 

there is no setting equal to this average, 

the setting closest to the average shall be 

used. If there are two such settings 

equally close to the average, the higher 

of these temperature control settings 

shall be used. A second test shall be 

performed with all controls set at their 

warmest setting or all controls set at 

their coldest setting (not electrically or 

mechanically bypassed). For allrefrigerators, this setting shall be the 

appropriate setting that attempts to 

achieve compartment temperatures 

measured during the two tests which 

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

below) the standardized temperature for 

all-refrigerators. For refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers, the second test 

shall be conducted with all controls at 

their coldest setting, unless all 

compartment temperatures measured 

during the first part of the test are lower 

than the standardized temperatures, in 

which case the second test shall be 

conducted with all controls at their 

warmest setting. If (a) the measured 

temperature of any compartment with 

all controls set at their coldest settings 

is above its standardized temperature, a 

third test shall be performed with all 

controls set at their warmest settings 

and the result of this test shall be used 

with the result of the test performed 

with all controls set at their coldest 

settings to determine energy 

consumption. If (b) the measured 

temperatures of all compartments with 

all controls set at their warmest settings 

are below their standardized 

temperatures then the result of this test 

alone will be used to determine energy 

consumption. If neither (a) nor (b) 

occur, then the results of the first two 

tests shall be used to determine energy 

consumption. 

3.2.2 Alternatively, a first test may 

be performed with all temperature 

controls set at their warmest setting. If 

the measured temperatures of all 

compartments for this test are below 

their standardized temperatures then 

the result of this test alone will be used 

to determine energy consumption. If 

this condition is not met, then the unit 

shall be tested in accordance with 3.2.1 

of this appendix. 

3.2.3 Alternatively, a first test may 

be performed with all temperature 

controls set at their coldest setting. If the 

measured temperature of any 

compartment for this test is above its 

standardized temperature, a second test 

shall be performed with all controls set 

at their warmest settings and the result 

of this test shall be used with the result 

of the test performed with all controls 

set at their coldest settings to determine 

energy consumption. If this condition is 

not met, then the unit shall be tested in 

accordance with 3.2.1 of this appendix. 

3.2.4 Temperature Settings for 

Separate Auxiliary Convertible 

Compartments. For separate auxiliary 

convertible compartments tested as 

freezer compartments, the median 

setting shall be within 2 °F (1.1 °C) of 

the standardized temperature, and the 

warmest setting shall be above 10 °F 

(¥12.2 °C). For separate auxiliary 

convertible compartments tested as 

fresh food compartments, the median 

setting shall be within 2 °F (1.1 °C) of 

the standardized temperature, and the 

coldest setting shall be below 40 °F (4.4 

°C). For compartments where control 

settings are not expressed as particular 

temperatures, the measured temperature 

of the convertible compartment rather 

than the settings shall meet the 

specified criteria. 

* * * * * 

4. Test Period 

Tests shall be performed by 

establishing the conditions set forth in 

section 2, and using the control settings 

set forth in section 3. 

4.1 Nonautomatic Defrost. If the 

model being tested has no automatic 

defrost system, the test time period shall 

start after steady-state conditions have 

been achieved and be no less than 3 

hours in duration. During the test 

period, the compressor motor shall 

complete two or more whole 

compressor cycles. (A compressor cycle 

is a complete ‘‘on’’ and a complete ‘‘off’’ 

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

will occur, as determined during the 

stabilization period, the test period shall 

be 3 hours. If incomplete cycling occurs 

(i.e. less than two compressor cycles 

during a 24-hour period), the results of 

the 24-hour period shall be used. 

4.2 Automatic Defrost. If the model 

being tested has an automatic defrost 

system, the test time period shall start 

after steady-state conditions have been 

achieved and be from one point during 

a defrost period to the same point 

during the next defrost period. If the 

model being tested has a long-time 

automatic defrost system, the alternative 

provisions of 4.2.1 may be used. If the 

model being tested has a variable defrost 

control, the provisions of section 4.2.2 

shall apply. If the model has a dual 

compressor system with automatic 

defrost for both systems, the provisions 

of 4.2.3 shall apply. 

4.2.1 Long-time Automatic Defrost. 

If the model being tested has a long-time 

automatic defrost system, the test time 

period may consist of two parts. The 

first part would be the same as the test 

for a unit having no defrost provisions 

(section 4.1). The second part would 

start when a defrost cycle is initiated 

when the compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle is 

terminated prior to start of the defrost 

heater and terminates at the second turn 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
78864 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘on’’ of the compressor or 4 hours from 

the initiation of the defrost heater, 

whichever comes first. See diagram in 

Figure 1 to this section. 

4.2.2 Variable Defrost Control. If the 

model being tested has a variable defrost 

control system, the test shall consist of 

the same two parts as the test for longtime automatic defrost (section 4.2.1). 

4.2.3 Dual Compressor Systems with 

Automatic Defrost. If the model being 

tested has separate compressor systems 

for the refrigerator and freezer sections, 

each with its own automatic defrost 

system, then the two-part method in 

4.2.1 shall be used. The second part of 

the method will be conducted 

separately for each automatic defrost 

system. The components (compressor, 

fan motors, defrost heaters, anti-sweat 

heaters, etc.) associated with each 

system will be identified and their 

energy consumption will be separately 

measured during each test. 

5. Test Measurements 

5.1 Temperature Measurements. 

Temperature measurements shall be 

made at the locations prescribed in 

Figures 7.1 and 7.2 of HRF–1–1979 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) 

and shall be accurate to within ± 0.5 °F 

(0.3 °C). No freezer temperature 

measurements need be taken in an allrefrigerator model. 

If the interior arrangements of the 

cabinet do not conform with those 

shown in Figure 7.1 and 7.2 of HRF–1– 

1979, the product may be tested by 

relocating the temperature sensors from 

the locations specified in the figures to 

avoid interference with hardware or 

components within the cabinet, in 

which case the specific locations used 

for the temperature sensors shall be 

noted in the test data records 

maintained by the manufacturer, and 

the certification report shall indicate 

that non-standard sensor locations were 

used. 

* * * * * 

5.1.2 Compartment Temperature. 

The compartment temperature for each 

test period shall be an average of the 

measured temperatures taken in a 

compartment during one or more 

complete compressor cycles. One 

compressor cycle is one complete motor 

‘‘on’’ and one complete motor ‘‘off’’ 

period. For long-time automatic defrost 

models, compartment temperatures 

shall be those measured in the first part 

of the test period specified in section 

4.2.1. For models with variable defrost 

controls, compartment temperatures 

shall be those measured in the first part 

of the test period specified in section 

4.2.2. 

5.1.2.1 The number of complete 

compressor cycles over which the 

measured temperatures in a 

compartment are to be averaged to 

determine compartment temperature 

shall be equal to the number of minutes 

between measured temperature 

readings, rounded up to the next whole 

minute or a number of complete 

compressor cycles over a time period 

exceeding 1 hour, whichever is greater. 

One of the compressor cycles shall be 

the last complete compressor cycle 

during the test period. 

5.1.2.2 If no compressor cycling 

occurs, the compartment temperature 

shall be the average of the measured 

temperatures taken during the last 32 

minutes of the test period. 

5.1.2.3 If incomplete compressor 

cycling occurs, the compartment 

temperatures shall be the average of the 

measured temperatures taken during the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2ER16DE10.011</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78865 

last three hours of the last complete 

compressor ‘‘on’’ period. 

5.1.3 Fresh Food Compartment 

Temperature. The fresh food 

compartment temperature shall be 

calculated as: 

Where: 

R is the total number of applicable fresh 

food compartments, which include 

the first fresh food compartment 

and any number of separate 

auxiliary fresh food compartments 

(including separate auxiliary 

convertible compartments tested as 

fresh food compartments in 

accordance with section 2.7); 

TRi is the compartment temperature of 

fresh food compartment ‘‘i’’ 

determined in accordance with 

section 5.1.2; and 

VRi is the volume of fresh food 

compartment ‘‘i’’. 

5.1.4 Freezer Compartment 

Temperature. The freezer compartment 

temperature shall be calculated as: 

Where: 

F is the total number of applicable freezer 

compartments, which include the first 

freezer compartment and any number of 

separate auxiliary freezer compartments 

(including separate auxiliary convertible 

compartments tested as freezer 

compartments in accordance with 

section 2.7); 

TFi is the compartment temperature of 

freezer compartment ‘‘i’’ determined in 

accordance with section 5.1.2; and 

VFi is the volume of freezer compartment ‘‘i’’. 

* * * * * 

5.2.1 Per-day Energy Consumption. 

The energy consumption in kilowatthours per day for each test period shall 

be the energy expended during the test 

period as specified in section 4 adjusted 

to a 24-hour period. The adjustment 

shall be determined as follows: 

5.2.1.1 Nonautomatic and Automatic 

Defrost Models. The energy 

consumption in kilowatt-hours per day 

shall be calculated equivalent to: 

ET = EP × 1440/T 

Where: 

ET = test cycle energy expended in kilowatthours per day; 

EP = energy expended in kilowatt-hours 

during the test period; 

T = length of time of the test period in 

minutes; and 

1440 = conversion factor to adjust to a 24- 

hour period in minutes per day. 

5.2.1.2 Long-time Automatic Defrost. 

If the two-part test method is used, the 

energy consumption in kilowatt-hours 

per day shall be calculated equivalent 

to: 

ET = (1440 × EP1/T1) + (EP2 ¥ (EP1 × 

T2/T1)) × (12/CT) 

Where: 

ET and 1440 are defined in 5.2.1.1; 

EP1 = energy expended in kilowatt-hours 

during the first part of the test; 

EP2 = energy expended in kilowatt-hours 

during the second part of the test; 

T1 and T2 = length of time in minutes of the 

first and second test parts respectively; 

CT = defrost timer run time or compressor 

run time between defrosts in hours 

required to cause it to go through a 

complete cycle, rounded to the nearest 

tenth of an hour; and 

12 = factor to adjust for a 50-percent run time 

of the compressor in hours per day. 

5.2.1.3 Variable Defrost Control. The 

energy consumption in kilowatt-hours per 

day shall be calculated equivalent to: 

ET = (1440 × EP1/T1) + (EP2 ¥ (EP1 × 

T2/T1)) × (12/CT), 

Where: 

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

T2, and 12 are defined in 5.2.1.2; 

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

CTL = least or shortest compressor run time 

between defrosts in hours rounded to the 

nearest tenth of an hour (greater than or 

equal to 6 but less than or equal to 12 

hours); 

CTM = maximum compressor run time 

between defrosts in hours rounded to the 

nearest tenth of an hour (greater than 

CTL but not more than 96 hours); 

F = ratio of per day energy consumption in 

excess of the least energy and the 

maximum difference in per-day energy 

consumption and is equal to 0.20; 

For variable defrost models with no values 

for CTL and CTM in the algorithm, the 

default values of 12 and 84 shall be used, 

respectively. 

5.2.1.4 Dual Compressor Systems 

with Dual Automatic Defrost. The twopart test method in section 4.1.2.4 must 

be used, and the energy consumption in 

kilowatt-hours per day shall be 

calculated equivalent to: 

ET = (1440 × EP1/T1) + (EP2F ¥ (EPF

× T2/T1)) × (12/CTF) + (EP2R ¥ 

(EPR × T3/T1)) × (12/CTR) 

Where: 

1440, EP1, T1, EP2, 12, and CT are defined 

in 5.2.1.2; 

EPF = freezer system energy in kilowatt-hours 

expended during the first part of the test; 

EP2F = freezer system energy in kilowatthours expended during the second part 

of the test for the freezer system; 

EPR= refrigerator system energy in kilowatthours expended during the first part of 

the test; 

EP2R = refrigerator system energy in kilowatthours expended during the second part 

of the test for the refrigerator system; 

T2 and T3 = length of time in minutes of the 

second test part for the freezer and 

refrigerator systems respectively; 

CTF = compressor run time between freezer 

defrosts (in hours rounded to the nearest 

tenth of an hour); and 

CTR = compressor run time between 

refrigerator defrosts (in hours rounded to 

the nearest tenth of an hour). 

* * * * * 

6. Calculation of Derived Results From 

Test Measurements 

* * * * * 

6.2.1.2 If one of the fresh food 

compartment temperatures measured for 

a test period is greater than 38.0 °F (3.3 

°C), the average per-cycle energy 

consumption shall be equivalent to: 

E = ET1 + ((ET2¥ET1) × (38.0 ¥ TR1)/ 

(TR2 ¥ TR1)) 

Where: 

E is defined in 6.2.1.1; 

ET is defined in 5.2.1; 

TR = Fresh food compartment temperature 

determined according to 5.1.3 in degrees 

F; 

The numbers 1 and 2 indicate measurements 

taken during the first and second test 

period as appropriate; and 

38.0 = Standardized fresh food compartment 

temperature in degrees F. 

* * * * * 

6.2.2.2 If the conditions of 6.2.2.1 do 

not exist, the per-cycle energy 

consumption shall be defined by the 

higher of the two values calculated by 

the following two formulas: 

E = ET1 + ((ET2¥ET1) × (45.0 ¥ TR1)/ 

(TR2 ¥ TR1)) 

and 

E = ET1 + ((ET2 ¥ ET1) × (k ¥ TF1)/ 

(TF2 ¥ TF1)) 

Where: 

E is defined in 6.2.1.1; 

ET is defined in 5.2.1; 

TR and numbers 1 and 2 are defined in 

6.2.1.2; 

TF = Freezer compartment temperature 

determined according to 5.1.4 in degrees 

F; 

45.0 is a specified fresh food compartment 

temperature in degrees F; and 

k is a constant 15.0 for refrigerators or 5.0 for 

refrigerator-freezers each being 

standardized freezer compartment 

temperature in degrees F. 

* * * * * 

6.2.3 Variable Anti-Sweat Heater 

Models. The standard cycle energy 

consumption of an electric refrigeratorfreezer with a variable anti-sweat heater 

control (Estd), expressed in kilowatthours per day, shall be calculated 

equivalent to: 

Estd = E + (Correction Factor) where E is 

determined by 6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.2, 

6.2.2.1, or 6.2.2.2, whichever is 

appropriate, with the anti-sweat 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2ER16DE10.012</GPH> ER16DE10.013</GPH>
78866 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

heater switch in the ‘‘off’’ position 

or, for products without anti-sweat 

heater switches, the anti-sweat 

heater in its lowest energy use state. 

Correction Factor = (Anti-sweat Heater 

Power × System-loss Factor) × (24 

hrs/1 day) × (1 kW/1000 W) 

Where: 

Anti-sweat Heater Power = 0.034 * (Heater 

Watts at 5%RH) 

+ 0.211 * (Heater Watts at 15%RH) 

+ 0.204 * (Heater Watts at 25%RH) 

+ 0.166 * (Heater Watts at 35%RH) 

+ 0.126 * (Heater Watts at 45%RH) 

+ 0.119 * (Heater Watts at 55%RH) 

+ 0.069 * (Heater Watts at 65%RH) 

+ 0.047 * (Heater Watts at 75%RH) 

+ 0.008 * (Heater Watts at 85%RH) 

+ 0.015 * (Heater Watts at 95%RH) 

Heater Watts at a specific relative humidity 

= the nominal watts used by all heaters 

at that specific relative humidity, 72 °F 

(22.2 °C) ambient, and DOE reference 

temperatures of fresh food (FF) average 

temperature of 45 °F (7.2 °C) and freezer 

(FZ) average temperature of 5 °F (¥15 

°C). 

System-loss Factor = 1.3 

* * * * * 

7. Test Procedure Waivers 

To the extent that the procedures 

contained in this appendix do not 

provide a means for determining the 

energy consumption of a refrigerator or 

refrigerator-freezer, a manufacturer must 

obtain a waiver under 10 CFR 430.27 to 

establish an acceptable test procedure 

for each such product. Such instances 

could, for example, include situations 

where the test set-up for a particular 

refrigerator or refrigerator-freezer basic 

model is not clearly defined by the 

provisions of section 2. For details 

regarding the criteria and procedures for 

obtaining a waiver, please refer to 10 

CFR 430.27. 

■ 7. Add a new Appendix B to subpart 

B of part 430 to read as follows: 

Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Freezers 

The provisions of Appendix B shall apply 

to all products manufactured on or after the 

effective date of any amended standards 

promulgated by DOE pursuant to Section 

325(b)(4) of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975, as amended by the 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 

2007 (to be codified at 42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(4)). 

1. Definitions 

Section 3, Definitions, of HRF–1–2008 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) 

applies to this test procedure. 

1.1 ‘‘Adjusted total volume’’ means the 

product of the freezer volume as defined in 

HRF–1–2008 (incorporated by reference; see 

§ 430.3) in cubic feet multiplied by an 

adjustment factor. 

1.2 ‘‘Anti-sweat heater’’ means a device 

incorporated into the design of a freezer to 

prevent the accumulation of moisture on 

exterior or interior surfaces of the cabinet. 

1.3 ‘‘Anti-sweat heater switch’’ means a 

user-controllable switch or user interface 

which modifies the activation or control of 

anti-sweat heaters. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2ER16DE10.014</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78867 

1.4 ‘‘Automatic defrost’’ means a system 

in which the defrost cycle is automatically 

initiated and terminated, with resumption of 

normal refrigeration at the conclusion of 

defrost operation. The system automatically 

prevents the permanent formation of frost on 

all refrigerated surfaces. Nominal refrigerated 

food temperatures are maintained during the 

operation of the automatic defrost system. 

1.5 ‘‘Automatic icemaker’’ means a device 

that can be supplied with water without user 

intervention, either from a pressurized water 

supply system or by transfer from a water 

reservoir, that automatically produces, 

harvests, and stores ice in a storage bin, with 

means to automatically interrupt the 

harvesting operation when the ice storage bin 

is filled to a pre-determined level. 

1.6 ‘‘Cycle’’ means the period of 24 hours 

for which the energy use of a freezer is 

calculated as though the consumer-activated 

compartment temperature controls were set 

to maintain the standardized temperature 

(see section 3.2). 

1.7 ‘‘Cycle type’’ means the set of test 

conditions having the calculated effect of 

operating a freezer for a period of 24 hours 

with the consumer-activated controls other 

than the compartment temperature control 

set to establish various operating 

characteristics. 

1.8 ‘‘HRF–1–2008’’ means AHAM 

Standard HRF–1–2008, Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers, Energy and 

Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances 

(2008), including Errata to Energy and 

Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances, 

Correction Sheet issued November 17, 2009. 

Only sections of HRF–1–2008 (incorporated 

by reference; see § 430.3) specifically 

referenced in this test procedure are part of 

this test procedure. In cases where there is 

a conflict, the language of the test procedure 

in this appendix takes precedence over HRF– 

1–2008. 

1.9 ‘‘Long-time automatic defrost’’ means 

an automatic defrost system where 

successive defrost cycles are separated by 14 

hours or more of compressor operating time. 

1.10 ‘‘Quick freeze’’ means an optional 

feature on freezers that is initiated manually. 

It bypasses the thermostat control and 

operates continually until the feature is 

terminated either manually or automatically. 

1.11 ‘‘Separate auxiliary compartment’’ 

means a freezer compartment other than the 

first freezer compartment of a freezer having 

more than one compartment. Access to a 

separate auxiliary compartment is through a 

separate exterior door or doors rather than 

through the door or doors of another 

compartment. Separate auxiliary freezer 

compartments may not be larger than the first 

freezer compartment. 

1.12 ‘‘Special compartment’’ means any 

compartment without doors directly 

accessible from the exterior, and with 

separate temperature control that is not 

convertible from fresh food temperature 

range to freezer temperature range. 

1.13 ‘‘Stabilization period’’ means the 

total period of time during which steady-state 

conditions are being attained or evaluated. 

1.14 ‘‘Standard cycle’’ means the cycle 

type in which the anti-sweat heater switch, 

when provided, is set in the highest energyconsuming position. 

1.15 ‘‘Variable defrost control’’ means an 

automatic defrost system in which successive 

defrost cycles are determined by an operating 

condition variable or variables other than 

solely compressor operating time. This 

includes any electrical or mechanical device 

performing this function. A control scheme 

that changes the defrost interval from a fixed 

length to an extended length (without any 

intermediate steps) is not considered a 

variable defrost control. A variable defrost 

control feature should predict the 

accumulation of frost on the evaporator and 

react accordingly. Therefore, the times 

between defrost should vary with different 

usage patterns and include a continuum of 

lengths of time between defrosts as inputs 

vary. 

2. Test Conditions 

2.1 Ambient Temperature. The ambient 

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

°C) during the stabilization period and the 

test period. 

2.2 Operational Conditions. The freezer 

shall be installed and its operating conditions 

maintained in accordance with HRF–1–2008, 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), 

sections 5.3 through section 5.5.5.5 (but 

excluding sections 5.5.5.2 and 5.5.5.4). The 

quick freeze option shall be switched off 

except as specified in section 3.1. Additional 

clarifications are noted in sections 2.3 

through 2.6. 

2.3 Anti-Sweat Heaters. The anti-sweat 

heater switch is to be on during one test and 

off during a second test. In the case of an 

electric freezer with variable anti-sweat 

heater control, the standard cycle energy use 

shall be the result of the calculation 

described in 6.2.2. 

2.4 The cabinet and its refrigerating 

mechanism shall be assembled and set up in 

accordance with the printed consumer 

instructions supplied with the cabinet. Setup of the freezer shall not deviate from these 

instructions, unless explicitly required or 

allowed by this test procedure. Specific 

required or allowed deviations from such setup include the following: 

(a) Connection of water lines and 

installation of water filters are not required; 

(b) Clearance requirements from surfaces of 

the product shall be as described in section 

2.6 below; 

(c) The electric power supply shall be as 

described in HRF–1–2008 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3) section 5.5.1; 

(d) Temperature control settings for testing 

shall be as described in section 3 of this 

appendix. Settings for special compartments 

shall be as described in section 2.5 of this 

appendix; 

(e) The product does not need to be 

anchored or otherwise secured to prevent 

tipping during energy testing; 

(f) All the product’s chutes and throats 

required for the delivery of ice shall be free 

of packing, covers, or other blockages that 

may be fitted for shipping or when the 

icemaker is not in use; and 

(g) Ice storage bins shall be emptied of ice. 

For cases in which set-up is not clearly 

defined by this test procedure, manufacturers 

must submit a petition for a waiver (see 

section 7). 

2.5 Special compartments shall be tested 

with controls set to provide the coldest 

temperature. However, for special 

compartments in which temperature control 

is achieved using the addition of heat 

(including resistive electric heating, 

refrigeration system waste heat, or heat from 

any other source, but excluding the transfer 

of air from another part of the interior of the 

product) for any part of the controllable 

temperature range of that compartment, the 

product energy use shall be determined by 

averaging two sets of tests. The first set of 

tests shall be conducted with such special 

compartments at their coldest settings, and 

the second set of tests shall be conducted 

with such special compartments at their 

warmest settings. The requirements for the 

warmest or coldest temperature settings of 

this section do not apply to features or 

functions associated with temperature 

control (such as quick freeze) that are 

initiated manually and terminated 

automatically within 168 hours. 

2.6 The space between the back of the 

cabinet and a vertical surface (the test room 

wall or simulated wall) shall be the 

minimum distance in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s instructions. However, the 

clearance shall not be greater than 2 inches 

(51 mm) from the plane of the cabinet’s back 

panel to the vertical surface. If permanent 

rear spacers extend further than this distance, 

the appliance shall be located with the 

spacers in contact with the vertical surface. 

2.7 Steady State Condition. Steady-state 

conditions exist if the temperature 

measurements taken at 4-minute intervals or 

less during a stabilization period are not 

changing at a rate greater than 0.042 °F (0.023 

°C) per hour as determined by the applicable 

condition of A or B described below. 

A—The average of the measurements 

during a 2-hour period if no cycling occurs 

or during a number of complete repetitive 

compressor cycles occurring through a period 

of no less than 2 hours is compared to the 

average over an equivalent time period with 

3 hours elapsing between the two 

measurement periods. 

B—If A above cannot be used, the average 

of the measurements during a number of 

complete repetitive compressor cycles 

occurring through a period of no less than 2 

hours and including the last complete cycle 

before a defrost period (or if no cycling 

occurs, the average of the measurements 

during the last 2 hours before a defrost 

period) are compared to the same averaging 

period before the following defrost period. 

3. Test Control Settings 

3.1 Model with No User Operable 

Temperature Control. A test shall be 

performed during which the compartment 

temperature and energy use shall be 

measured. A second test shall be performed 

with the temperature control electrically 

short circuited to cause the compressor to 

run continuously. If the model has the quick 

freeze option, this option must be used to 

bypass the temperature control. 

3.2 Model with User Operable 

Temperature Control. Testing shall be 

performed in accordance with one of the 

following sections using the standardized 

temperature of 0.0 °F (¥17.8 °C). 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
78868 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

For the purposes of comparing compartment 

temperatures with standardized 

temperatures, as described in sections 3.2.1 

and 3.2.2, the freezer compartment 

temperature shall be as specified in section 

5.1.3. 

3.2.1 A first test shall be performed with 

all temperature controls set at their median 

position midway between their warmest and 

coldest settings. For mechanical control 

systems, knob detents shall be mechanically 

defeated if necessary to attain a median 

setting. For electronic control systems, the 

test shall be performed with all compartment 

temperature controls set at the average of the 

coldest and warmest settings—if there is no 

setting equal to this average, the setting 

closest to the average shall be used. If there 

are two such settings equally close to the 

average, the higher of these temperature 

control settings shall be used. A second test 

shall be performed with all controls set at 

either their warmest or their coldest setting 

(not electrically or mechanically bypassed), 

whichever is appropriate, to attempt to 

achieve compartment temperatures measured 

during the two tests which bound (i.e., one 

is above and one is below) the standardized 

temperature. If the compartment 

temperatures measured during these two 

tests bound the standardized temperature, 

then these test results shall be used to 

determine energy consumption. If the 

compartment temperature measured with all 

controls set at their coldest setting is above 

the standardized temperature, the tested unit 

fails the test and cannot be rated. If the 

compartment temperature measured with all 

controls set at their warmest setting is below 

the standardized temperature, then the result 

of this test alone will be used to determine 

energy consumption. Also see Table 1 below, 

which summarizes these requirements. 

TABLE 1—TEMPERATURE SETTINGS FOR FREEZERS

First test Second test 

Energy calculation based on: 

Settings Results Settings Results 

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

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

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

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

3.2.2 Alternatively, a first test may be 

performed with all temperature controls set 

at their warmest setting. If the compartment 

temperature is below the standardized 

temperature, then the result of this test alone 

will be used to determine energy 

consumption. If this condition is not met, 

then the unit shall be tested in accordance 

with section 3.2.1. 

4. Test Period 

Tests shall be performed by establishing 

the conditions set forth in section 2 and 

using the control settings as set forth in 

section 3 above. 

4.1 Nonautomatic Defrost. If the model 

being tested has no automatic defrost system, 

the test time period shall start after steadystate conditions have been achieved and be 

no less than 3 hours in duration. During the 

test period, the compressor motor shall 

complete two or more whole compressor 

cycles. (A compressor cycle is a complete 

‘‘on’’ and a complete ‘‘off’’ period of the 

motor.) If no ‘‘off’’ cycling will occur, as 

determined during the stabilization period, 

the test period shall be 3 hours. If incomplete 

cycling occurs (less than two compressor 

cycles during a 24-hour period), the results 

of the 24-hour period shall be used. 

4.2 Automatic Defrost. If the model being 

tested has an automatic defrost system, the 

test time period shall start after steady-state 

conditions have been achieved and be from 

one point during a defrost period to the same 

point during the next defrost period. If the 

model being tested has a long-time automatic 

defrost system, the alternate provisions of 

4.2.1 may be used. If the model being tested 

has a variable defrost control, the provisions 

of 4.2.2 shall apply. 

4.2.1 Long-time Automatic Defrost. If the 

model being tested has a long-time automatic 

defrost system, the two-part test described in 

this section may be used. The first part is a 

stable period of compressor operation that 

includes no portions of the defrost cycle, 

such as precooling or recovery, that is 

otherwise the same as the test for a unit 

having no defrost provisions (section 4.1). 

The second part is designed to capture the 

energy consumed during all of the events 

occurring with the defrost control sequence 

that are outside of stable operation. 

4.2.1.1 Cycling Compressor System. For a 

system with a cycling compressor, the second 

part starts at the termination of the last 

regular compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle. The average 

temperature of the compartment measured 

from the termination of the previous 

compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle to the termination of 

the last regular compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle must 

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

temperature of the compartment measured 

for the first part of the test. If any compressor 

cycles occur prior to the defrost heater being 

energized that cause the average temperature 

in the compartment to deviate from the first 

part temperature by more than 0.5 °F (0.3 °C), 

these compressor cycles are not considered 

regular compressor cycles and must be 

included in the second part of the test. As an 

example, a ‘‘precool’’ cycle, which is an 

extended compressor cycle that lowers the 

compartment temperature prior to energizing 

the defrost heater, must be included in the 

second part of the test. The test period for the 

second part of the test ends at the initiation 

of the first regular compressor cycle after the 

compartment temperatures have fully 

recovered to their stable conditions. The 

average temperature of the compartment 

measured from this initiation of the first 

regular compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle until the 

initiation of the next regular compressor ‘‘on’’ 

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

average temperature of the compartment 

measured for the first part of the test. The 

second part of the test may be terminated 

after 4 hours if the above conditions cannot 

be met. See Figure 1. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78869 

4.2.1.2 Non-cycling Compressor System. 

For a system with a non-cycling compressor, 

the second part starts at a time before defrost 

during stable operation when the 

compartment temperature is within 0.5 °F 

(0.3 °C) of the average temperature of the 

compartment measured for the first part of 

the test. The second part stops at a time after 

defrost during stable operation when the 

compartment temperature is within 0.5 °F 

(0.3 °C) of the average temperature of the 

compartment measured for the first part of 

the test. The second part of the test may be 

terminated after 4 hours if the above 

conditions cannot be met. See Figure 2. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2ER16DE10.015</GPH>
78870 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

4.2.2 Variable Defrost Control. If the 

model being tested has a variable defrost 

control system, the test shall consist of the 

same two parts as the test for long-time 

automatic defrost (section 4.2.1). 

5. Test Measurements 

5.1 Temperature Measurements. 

Temperature measurements shall be made at 

the locations prescribed in Figure 5–2 of 

HRF–1–2008 (incorporated by reference; see 

§ 430.3) and shall be accurate to within ± 0.5 

°F (0.3°C). 

If the interior arrangements of the cabinet 

do not conform with those shown in Figure 

5.2 of HRF–1–2008, the product may be 

tested by relocating the temperature sensors 

from the locations specified in the figures to 

avoid interference with hardware or 

components within the cabinet, in which 

case the specific locations used for the 

temperature sensors shall be noted in the test 

data records maintained by the manufacturer, 

and the certification report shall indicate that 

non-standard sensor locations were used. 

5.1.1 Measured Temperature. The 

measured temperature is to be the average of 

all sensor temperature readings taken at a 

particular point in time. Measurements shall 

be taken at regular intervals not to exceed 4 

minutes. 

5.1.2 Compartment Temperature. The 

compartment temperature for each test 

period shall be an average of the measured 

temperatures taken during the test period as 

defined in section 4. For long-time automatic 

defrost models, compartment temperature 

shall be that measured in the first part of the 

test period specified in section 4.2.1. For 

models with variable defrost controls, 

compartment temperatures shall be those 

measured in the first part of the test period 

specified in section 4.2.2. 

5.1.3 Freezer Compartment Temperature. 

The freezer compartment temperature shall 

be calculated as: 

Where: 

F is the total number of applicable freezer 

compartments, which include the first 

freezer compartment and any number of 

separate auxiliary freezer compartments; 

TFi is the compartment temperature of 

freezer compartment ‘‘i’’ determined in 

accordance with section 5.1.2; and 

VFi is the volume of freezer compartment ‘‘i’’. 

5.2 Energy Measurements: 

5.2.1 Per-Day Energy Consumption. The 

energy consumption in kilowatt-hours per 

day for each test period shall be the energy 

expended during the test period as specified 

in section 4 adjusted to a 24-hour period. The 

adjustment shall be determined as follows: 

5.2.1.1 Nonautomatic and Automatic 

Defrost Models. The energy consumption in 

kilowatt-hours per day shall be calculated 

equivalent to: 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2ER16DE10.016</GPH> ER16DE10.017</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78871 

ET = (EP × 1440 × K)/T 

Where: 

ET = test cycle energy expended in kilowatthours per day; 

EP = energy expended in kilowatt-hours 

during the test period; 

T = length of time of the test period in 

minutes; 

1440 = conversion factor to adjust to a 24- 

hour period in minutes per day; and 

K = dimensionless correction factor of 0.7 for 

chest freezers and 0.85 for upright 

freezers to adjust for average household 

usage. 

5.2.1.2 Long-time Automatic Defrost. If 

the two-part test method is used, the energy 

consumption in kilowatt-hours per day shall 

be calculated equivalent to: 

ET = (1440 × K × EP1/T1) + (EP2¥(EP1 

× T2/T1)) × K × (12/CT) 

Where: 

ET, 1440, and K are defined in section 

5.2.1.1; 

EP1 = energy expended in kilowatt-hours 

during the first part of the test; 

EP2 = energy expended in kilowatt-hours 

during the second part of the test; 

CT = defrost timer run time or compressor 

run time between defrosts in hours 

required to cause it to go through a 

complete cycle, rounded to the nearest 

tenth of an hour; 

12 = conversion factor to adjust for a 50 

percent run time of the compressor in 

hours per day; and 

T1 and T2 = length of time in minutes of the 

first and second test parts respectively. 

5.2.1.3 Variable Defrost Control. The 

energy consumption in kilowatt-hours per 

day shall be calculated equivalent to: 

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

× T2/T1)) × K × (12/CT), 

Where: 

ET, K, and 1440 are defined in section 

5.2.1.1; 

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

section 5.2.1.2; 

CT = (CTL × CTM)/(F × (CTM¥CTL) + 

CTL) 

Where: 

CTL = least or shortest compressor run time 

between defrosts in hours rounded to the 

nearest tenth of an hour (greater than or 

equal to 6 hours but less than or equal 

to 12 hours); 

CTM = maximum compressor run time 

between defrosts in hours rounded to the 

nearest tenth of an hour (greater than 

CTL but not more than 96 hours); 

F = ratio of per day energy consumption in 

excess of the least energy and the 

maximum difference in per-day energy 

consumption and is equal to 0.20. 

For variable defrost models with no values 

for CTL and CTM in the algorithm, the 

default values of 12 and 84 shall be used, 

respectively. 

5.3 Volume Measurements. The total 

refrigerated volume, VT, shall be measured in 

accordance with HRF–1–2008, (incorporated 

by reference; see § 430.3), section 3.30 and 

sections 4.2 through 4.3. 

In the case of freezers with automatic 

icemakers, the volume occupied by the 

automatic icemaker, including its ice storage 

bin, is to be included in the volume 

measurement. 

6. Calculation of Derived Results From Test 

Measurements 

6.1 Adjusted Total Volume. The adjusted 

total volume, VA, for freezers under test shall 

be defined as: 

VA = VT × CF 

Where: 

VA = adjusted total volume in cubic feet; 

VT = total refrigerated volume in cubic feet; 

and 

CF = dimensionless correction factor of 1.76. 

6.2 Average Per-Cycle Energy 

Consumption 

6.2.1 The average per-cycle energy 

consumption for a cycle type is expressed in 

kilowatt-hours per cycle to the nearest one 

hundredth (0.01) kilowatt-hour and shall 

depend on the compartment temperature 

attainable as shown below. 

6.2.1.1 If the compartment temperature is 

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

per-cycle energy consumption shall be 

equivalent to: 

E = ET1 + IET 

Where: 

E = total per-cycle energy consumption in 

kilowatt-hours per day; 

ET is defined in 5.2.1; 

The number 1 indicates the test period 

during which the highest compartment 

temperature is measured; and 

IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle, 

equals 0.23 for a product with an 

automatic icemaker and otherwise equals 

0 (zero). 

6.2.1.2 If one of the compartment 

temperatures measured for a test period is 

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

to: 

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

(TF2 ¥ TF1)) + IET 

Where: 

E and IET are defined in 6.2.1.1 and ET is 

defined in 5.2.1; 

TF = freezer compartment temperature 

determined according to 5.1.3 in degrees 

F; 

The numbers 1 and 2 indicate measurements 

taken during the first and second test 

period as appropriate; and 

0.0 = standardized compartment temperature 

in degrees F. 

6.2.2 Variable Anti-Sweat Heater Models. 

The standard cycle energy consumption of an 

electric freezer with a variable anti-sweat 

heater control (Estd), expressed in kilowatthours per day, shall be calculated equivalent 

to: 

Estd = E + (Correction Factor) where E is 

determined by 6.2.1.1, or 6.2.1.2, 

whichever is appropriate, with the antisweat heater switch in the ‘‘off’’ position 

or, for a product without an anti-sweat 

heater switch, the anti-sweat heater in its 

lowest energy use state. 

Correction Factor = (Anti-sweat Heater Power 

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

(1 kW/1000 W) 

Where: 

Anti-sweat Heater Power = 0.034 * (Heater 

Watts at 5%RH) 

+ 0.211 * (Heater Watts at 15%RH) 

+ 0.204 * (Heater Watts at 25%RH) 

+ 0.166 * (Heater Watts at 35%RH) 

+ 0.126 * (Heater Watts at 45%RH) 

+ 0.119 * (Heater Watts at 55%RH) 

+ 0.069 * (Heater Watts at 65%RH) 

+ 0.047 * (Heater Watts at 75%RH) 

+ 0.008 * (Heater Watts at 85%RH) 

+ 0.015 * (Heater Watts at 95%RH) 

Heater Watts at a specific relative humidity 

= the nominal watts used by all heaters 

at that specific relative humidity, 72 °F 

ambient (22.2 °C), and DOE reference 

freezer (FZ) average temperature of 0 °F 

(¥17.8 °C). 

System-loss Factor = 1.3 

7. Test Procedure Waivers 

To the extent that the procedures 

contained in this appendix do not provide a 

means for determining the energy 

consumption of a freezer, a manufacturer 

must obtain a waiver under 10 CFR 430.27 

to establish an acceptable test procedure for 

each such product. Such instances could, for 

example, include situations where the test 

set-up for a particular freezer basic model is 

not clearly defined by the provisions of 

section 2. For details regarding the criteria 

and procedures for obtaining a waiver, please 

refer to 10 CFR 430.27. 

■ 8. Appendix B1 to subpart B of part 

430 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding an introductory paragraph 

after the appendix heading; 

■ b. Revising section 1. Definitions; 

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

■ 1. Revising sections 2.1 and 2.2; 

■ 2. Redesignating section 2.3 as 2.7; 

■ 3. Adding new sections 2.3 through 

2.6; 

■ d. In section 3. Test Control Settings, 

by: 

■ 1. Revising sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.2.1; 

■ 2. Removing section 3.3; 

■ e. Revising section 4, Test Period; 

■ f. In section 5, Test Measurements, by: 

■ 1. Revising sections 5.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.2.1, 

5.1.2.2, 5.1.2.3, 5.2.1.2, and 5.2.1.3; 

■ 2. Adding new section 5.1.3; 

■ 3. Removing section 5.2.1.4; 

■ g. In section 6. Calculation of Derived 

Results From Test Measurements, by: 

■ 1. Revising section 6.2.1.2; 

■ 2. Adding a new section 6.2.2 

■ h. Adding new section 7, Waivers. 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

Appendix B1 to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Freezers 

The provisions of Appendix B1 shall apply 

to all products manufactured prior to the 

effective date of any amended standards 

promulgated by DOE pursuant to Section 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
78872 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

325(b)(4) of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975, as amended by the 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 

2007 (to be codified at 42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(4)). 

1. Definitions 

Section 3, Definitions, of HRF–1–1979 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) 

applies to this test procedure. 

1.1 Adjusted total volume’’ means the 

product of, (1) the freezer volume as defined 

in HRF–1–1979 in cubic feet, times (2) an 

adjustment factor. 

1.2 ‘‘Anti-sweat heater’’ means a device 

incorporated into the design of a freezer to 

prevent the accumulation of moisture on 

exterior or interior surfaces of the cabinet. 

1.3 ‘‘Anti-sweat heater switch’’ means a 

user-controllable switch or user interface 

which modifies the activation or control of 

anti-sweat heaters. 

1.4 ‘‘Automatic Defrost’’ means a system 

in which the defrost cycle is automatically 

initiated and terminated, with resumption of 

normal refrigeration at the conclusion of 

defrost operation. The system automatically 

prevents the permanent formation of frost on 

all refrigerated surfaces. Nominal refrigerated 

food temperatures are maintained during the 

operation of the automatic defrost system. 

1.5 ‘‘Cycle’’ means the period of 24 hours 

for which the energy use of a freezer is 

calculated as though the consumer-activated 

compartment temperature controls were set 

to maintain the standardized temperature 

(see section 3.2). 

1.6 ‘‘Cycle type’’ means the set of test 

conditions having the calculated effect of 

operating a freezer for a period of 24 hours 

with the consumer-activated controls other 

than the compartment temperature control 

set to establish various operating 

characteristics. 

1.7 ‘‘HRF–1–1979’’ means the Association 

of Home Appliance Manufacturers standard 

for household refrigerators, combination 

refrigerator-freezers, and household freezers, 

also approved as an American National 

Standard as a revision of ANSI B 38.1–1970. 

Only sections of HRF–1–1979 (incorporated 

by reference; see § 430.3) specifically 

referenced in this test procedure are part of 

this test procedure. In cases where there is 

a conflict, the language of the test procedure 

in this appendix takes precedence over HRF– 

1–1979. 

1.8 ‘‘Long-time Automatic Defrost’’ means 

an automatic defrost system where 

successive defrost cycles are separated by 14 

hours or more of compressor-operating time. 

1.9 ‘‘Quick freeze’’ means an optional 

feature on freezers that is initiated manually. 

It bypasses the thermostat control and 

operates continually until the feature is 

terminated either manually or automatically. 

1.10 ‘‘Separate auxiliary compartment’’ 

means a freezer compartment other than the 

first freezer compartment of a freezer having 

more than one compartment. Access to a 

separate auxiliary compartment is through a 

separate exterior door or doors rather than 

through the door or doors of another 

compartment. Separate auxiliary freezer 

compartments may not be larger than the first 

freezer compartment. 

1.11 ‘‘Special compartment’’ means any 

compartment without doors directly 

accessible from the exterior, and with 

separate temperature control that is not 

convertible from fresh food temperature 

range to freezer temperature range. 

1.12 ‘‘Stabilization Period’’ means the 

total period of time during which steady-state 

conditions are being attained or evaluated. 

1.13 ‘‘Standard cycle’’ means the cycle 

type in which the anti-sweat heater switch, 

when provided, is set in the highest energy 

consuming position. 

1.14 ‘‘Variable defrost control’’ means an 

automatic defrost system in which successive 

defrost cycles are determined by an operating 

condition variable or variables other than 

solely compressor operating time. This 

includes any electrical or mechanical device 

performing this function. A control scheme 

that changes the defrost interval from a fixed 

length to an extended length (without any 

intermediate steps) is not considered a 

variable defrost control. A variable defrost 

control feature should predict the 

accumulation of frost on the evaporator and 

react accordingly. Therefore, the times 

between defrost should vary with different 

usage patterns and include a continuum of 

lengths of time between defrosts as inputs 

vary. 

* * * * * 

2. Test Conditions 

2.1 Ambient Temperature. The ambient 

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

°C) during the stabilization period and the 

test period. 

2.2 Operational Conditions. The freezer 

shall be installed and its operating conditions 

maintained in accordance with HRF–1–1979, 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), 

section 7.2 through section 7.4.3.3 (but 

excluding section 7.4.3.2), except that the 

vertical ambient gradient at locations 10 

inches (25.4 cm) out from the centers of the 

two sides of the unit being tested is to be 

maintained during the test. Unless the area 

is obstructed by shields or baffles, the 

gradient is to be maintained from 2 inches 

(5.1 cm) above the floor or supporting 

platform to a height 1 foot (30.5 cm) above 

the unit under test. Defrost controls are to be 

operative. The quick freeze option shall be 

switched off except as specified in section 

3.1. Additional clarifications are noted in 

sections 2.3 through 2.6. 

2.3 Anti-Sweat Heaters. The anti-sweat 

heater switch is to be on during one test and 

off during a second test. In the case of an 

electric freezer equipped with variable antisweat heater control, the standard cycle 

energy use shall be the result of the 

calculation described in 6.2.2. 

2.4 The cabinet and its refrigerating 

mechanism shall be assembled and set up in 

accordance with the printed consumer 

instructions supplied with the cabinet. Setup of the freezer shall not deviate from these 

instructions, unless explicitly required or 

allowed by this test procedure. Specific 

required or allowed deviations from such setup include the following: 

(a) Connection of water lines and 

installation of water filters are not required; 

(b) Clearance requirements from surfaces of 

the product shall be as specified in section 

2.6 below; 

(c) The electric power supply shall be as 

described in HRF–1–1979 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3) section 7.4.1; 

(d) Temperature control settings for testing 

shall be as described in section 3 of this 

appendix. Settings for special compartments 

shall be as described in section 2.5 of this 

appendix; 

(e) The product does not need to be 

anchored or otherwise secured to prevent 

tipping during energy testing; and 

(f) All the product’s chutes and throats 

required for the delivery of ice shall be free 

of packing, covers, or other blockages that 

may be fitted for shipping or when the 

icemaker is not in use. 

For cases in which set-up is not clearly 

defined by this test procedure, manufacturers 

must submit a petition for a waiver (see 

section 7). 

2.5 Special compartments shall be tested 

with controls set to provide the coldest 

temperature. This requirement for the coldest 

temperature does not apply to features or 

functions (such as quick freeze) that are 

initiated manually and terminated 

automatically within 168 hours. 

2.6 The space between the back of the 

cabinet and a vertical surface (the test room 

wall or simulated wall) shall be the 

minimum distance in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s instructions. 

* * * * * 

3. Test Control Settings 

3.1 Model with No User Operable 

Temperature Control. A test shall be 

performed during which the compartment 

temperature and energy use shall be 

measured. A second test shall be performed 

with the temperature control electrically 

short circuited to cause the compressor to 

run continuously. If the model has the quick 

freeze option, this option must be used to 

bypass the temperature control. 

3.2 Model with User Operable 

Temperature Control. Testing shall be 

performed in accordance with one of the 

following sections using the standardized 

temperature of 0.0 °F (¥17.8 °C). 

For the purposes of comparing compartment 

temperatures with standardized 

temperatures, as described in sections 3.2.1 

through 3.2.3, the freezer compartment 

temperature shall be as specified in section 

5.1.3. 

3.2.1 A first test shall be performed with 

all temperature controls set at their median 

position midway between their warmest and 

coldest settings. For mechanical control 

systems, knob detents shall be mechanically 

defeated if necessary to attain a median 

setting. For electronic control systems, the 

test shall be performed with all compartment 

temperature controls set at the average of the 

coldest and warmest settings—if there is no 

setting equal to this average, the setting 

closest to the average shall be used. If there 

are two such settings equally close to the 

average, the higher of these temperature 

control settings shall be used. If the 

compartment temperature measured during 

the first test is higher than the standardized 

temperature, the second test shall be 

conducted with the controls set at the coldest 

settings. If the compartment temperature 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 78873 

measured during the first test is lower than 

the standardized temperature, the second test 

shall be conducted with the controls set at 

the warmest settings. If the compartment 

temperatures measured during these two 

tests bound the standardized temperature, 

then these test results shall be used to 

determine energy consumption. If the 

compartment temperature measured with all 

controls set at their coldest settings is above 

the standardized temperature, a third test 

shall be performed with all controls set at 

their warmest settings and the result of this 

test shall be used with the result of the test 

performed with all controls set at their 

coldest settings to determine energy 

consumption. If the compartment 

temperature measured with all controls set at 

their warmest settings is below the 

standardized temperature, then the result of 

this test alone will be used to determine 

energy consumption. 

* * * * * 

4. Test Period 

Tests shall be performed by establishing 

the conditions set forth in section 2 and 

using the control settings as set forth in 

section 3 of this appendix. 

4.1 Nonautomatic Defrost. If the model 

being tested has no automatic defrost system, 

the test time period shall start after steadystate conditions have been achieved and be 

no less than 3 hours in duration. During the 

test period, the compressor motor shall 

complete two or more whole compressor 

cycles. A compressor cycle is a complete ‘‘on’’ 

and a complete ‘‘off’’ period of the motor. If 

no ‘‘off’’ cycling will occur, as determined 

during the stabilization period, the test 

period shall be 3 hours. If incomplete cycling 

occurs (less than two compressor cycles 

during a 24-hour period), the results of the 

24-hour period shall be used. 

4.2 Automatic Defrost. If the model being 

tested has an automatic defrost system, the 

test time period shall start after steady-state 

conditions have been achieved and be from 

one point during a defrost period to the same 

point during the next defrost period. If the 

model being tested has a long-time automatic 

defrost system, the alternate provisions of 

4.2.1 may be used. If the model being tested 

has a variable defrost control, the provisions 

of 4.2.2 shall apply. 

4.2.1 Long-time Automatic Defrost. If the 

model being tested has a long-time automatic 

defrost system, the two-part test described in 

this section may be used. The first part is the 

same as the test for a unit having no defrost 

provisions (section 4.1). The second part 

would start when a defrost is initiated when 

the compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle is terminated prior 

to start of the defrost heater and terminates 

at the second turn ‘‘on’’ of the compressor or 

4 hours from the initiation of the defrost 

heater, whichever comes first. 

4.2.2 Variable Defrost Control. If the 

model being tested has a variable defrost 

control system, the test shall consist of the 

same two parts as the test for long-time 

automatic defrost (section 4.2.1). 

5. Test Measurements 

5.1 Temperature Measurements. 

Temperature measurements shall be made at 

the locations prescribed in Figure 7.2 of 

HRF–1–1979 (incorporated by reference; see 

§ 430.3) and shall be accurate to within ± 0.5 

°F (0.3 °C). 

If the interior arrangements of the cabinet 

do not conform with those shown in Figure 

7.2 of HRF–1–1979, the product may be 

tested by relocating the temperature sensors 

from the locations specified in the figures to 

avoid interference with hardware or 

components within the cabinet, in which 

case the specific locations used for the 

temperature sensors shall be noted in the test 

data records maintained by the manufacturer, 

and the certification report shall indicate that 

non-standard sensor locations were used. 

* * * * * 

5.1.2 Compartment Temperature. The 

compartment temperature for each test 

period shall be an average of the measured 

temperatures taken during one or more 

complete compressor cycles. One compressor 

cycle is one complete motor ‘‘on’’ and one 

complete motor ‘‘off’’ period. For long-time 

automatic defrost models, compartment 

temperature shall be that measured in the 

first part of the test period specified in 

section 4.2.1. For models equipped with 

variable defrost controls, compartment 

temperatures shall be those measured in the 

first part of the test period specified in 

section 4.2.2. 

5.1.2.1 The number of complete 

compressor cycles over which the measured 

temperatures in a compartment are to be 

averaged to determine compartment 

temperature shall be equal to the number of 

minutes between measured temperature 

readings rounded up to the next whole 

minute or a number of complete compressor 

cycles over a time period exceeding 1 hour. 

One of the compressor cycles shall be the last 

complete compressor cycle during the test 

period before start of the defrost control 

sequence for products with automatic 

defrost. 

5.1.2.2 If no compressor cycling occurs, 

the compartment temperature shall be the 

average of the measured temperatures taken 

during the last 32 minutes of the test period. 

5.1.2.3 If incomplete compressor cycling 

occurs (less than one compressor cycle), the 

compartment temperature shall be the 

average of all readings taken during the last 

3 hours of the last complete compressor ‘‘on’’ 

period. 

5.1.3 Freezer Compartment Temperature. 

The freezer compartment temperature shall 

be calculated as: 

Where: 

F is the total number of applicable freezer 

compartments, which include the first 

freezer compartment and any number of 

separate auxiliary freezer compartments; 

TFi is the compartment temperature of 

freezer compartment ‘‘i’’ determined in 

accordance with section 5.1.2; and 

VFi is the volume of freezer compartment ‘‘i’’. 

* * * * * 

5.2.1.2 Long-time Automatic Defrost. If 

the two part test method is used, the energy 

consumption in kilowatt-hours per day shall 

be calculated equivalent to: 

ET = (1440 × K × EP1/T1) + (EP2¥EP1 

× T2/T1)) × K × (12/CT) 

Where: 

ET, 1440, and K are defined in section 

5.2.1.1; 

EP1 = energy expended in kilowatt-hours 

during the first part of the test; 

EP2 = energy expended in kilowatt-hours 

during the second part of the test; 

CT = defrost timer run time or compressor 

run time between defrosts in hours 

required to cause it to go through a 

complete cycle, rounded to the nearest 

tenth of an hour; 

12 = conversion factor to adjust for a 50 

percent run time of the compressor in 

hours per day; and 

T1 and T2 = length of time in minutes of the 

first and second test parts respectively. 

5.2.1.3 Variable Defrost Control. The 

energy consumption in kilowatt-hours per 

day shall be calculated equivalent to: 

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

T1)) × K × (12/CT), 

Where: 

ET, K, and 1440 are defined in section 5.2.1.1 

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

in section 5.2.1.2. 

CT = (CTL × CTM)/(F× (CTM¥CTL) + 

CTL) 

Where: 

CTL = least or shortest compressor run time 

between defrosts in hours rounded to the 

nearest tenth of an hour (greater than or 

equal to 6 hours but less than or equal 

to 12 hours); 

CTM = maximum compressor run time 

between defrosts in hours rounded to the 

nearest tenth of an hour (greater than 

CTL but not more than 96 hours); 

F = ratio of per day energy consumption in 

excess of the least energy and the 

maximum difference in per-day energy 

consumption and is equal to 0.20. 

For variable defrost models with no values 

for CTL and CTM in the algorithm, the 

default values of 12 and 84 shall be used, 

respectively. 

* * * * * 

6. Calculation of Derived Results From Test 

Measurements 

* * * * * 

6.2.1.2 If one of the compartment 

temperatures measured for a test period is 

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

to: 

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

(TF2 ¥ TF1)) 

Where: 

E is defined in 6.2.1.1; 

ET is defined in 5.2.1; 

TF = freezer compartment temperature 

determined according to 5.1.3 in degrees 

F; 

The numbers 1 and 2 indicate measurements 

taken during the first and second test 

period as appropriate; and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2ER16DE10.018</MATH>
78874 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 241 / Thursday, December 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

0.0 = Standardized compartment temperature 

in degrees F. 

* * * * * 

6.2.2 Variable Anti-Sweat Heater Models. 

The standard cycle energy consumption of an 

electric freezer with a variable anti-sweat 

heater control (Estd), expressed in kilowatthours per day, shall be calculated equivalent 

to: 

Estd = E + (Correction Factor) where E is 

determined by 6.2.1.1, or 6.2.1.2, 

whichever is appropriate, with the 

anti-sweat heater switch in the ‘‘off’’ 

position or, for a product without 

an anti-sweat heater switch, the 

anti-sweat heater in its lowest 

energy use state. 

Correction Factor = (Anti-sweat Heater 

Power × System-loss Factor) × (24 

hrs/1 day) × (1 kW/1000 W) 

Where: 

Anti-sweat Heater Power = 0.034 * (Heater 

Watts at 5%RH) 

+ 0.211 * (Heater Watts at 15%RH) 

+ 0.204 * (Heater Watts at 25%RH) 

+ 0.166 * (Heater Watts at 35%RH) 

+ 0.126 * (Heater Watts at 45%RH) 

+ 0.119 * (Heater Watts at 55%RH) 

+ 0.069 * (Heater Watts at 65%RH) 

+ 0.047 * (Heater Watts at 75%RH) 

+ 0.008 * (Heater Watts at 85%RH) 

+ 0.015 * (Heater Watts at 95%RH) 

Heater Watts at a specific relative humidity 

= the nominal watts used by all heaters 

at that specific relative humidity, 72 °F 

(22.2 °C) ambient, and DOE reference 

freezer (FZ) average temperature of 0 °F 

(¥17.8 °C). 

System-loss Factor = 1.3. 

* * * * * 

7. Test Procedure Waivers 

To the extent that the procedures 

contained in this appendix do not provide a 

means for determining the energy 

consumption of a freezer, a manufacturer 

must obtain a waiver under 10 CFR 430.27 

to establish an acceptable test procedure for 

each such product. Such instances could, for 

example, include situations where the test 

set-up for a particular freezer basic model is 

not clearly defined by the provisions of 

section 2. For details regarding the criteria 

and procedures for obtaining a waiver, please 

refer to 10 CFR 430.27. 

■ 9. In § 430.32, revise paragraph (a) 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation 

standards and their effective dates. 

* * * 

(a) Refrigerators/refrigerator-freezers/ 

freezers. These standards do not apply 

to refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers 

with total refrigerated volume exceeding 

39 cubic foot (1104 liters) or freezers 

with total refrigerated volume exceeding 

30 cubic foot (850 liters). The energy 

standards as determined by the 

equations of the following table shall be 

rounded off to the nearest kWh per year. 

If the equation calculation is halfway 

between the nearest two kWh per year 

values, the standard shall be rounded 

up to the higher of these values. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–30071 Filed 12–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2