66152 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 

[EERE–2017–BT–TP–0008] 

RIN 1904–AD83 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedure for Commercial 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, 

and Freezers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’) amends the test 

procedures for commercial refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers 

(‘‘CRE’’) to reference the latest versions 

of the applicable industry standards. 

DOE also establishes definitions and test 

procedures for new equipment 

categories, adopts test procedures 

consistent with recently published 

waivers and interim waivers, establishes 

product-specific enforcement 

provisions, allows for volume 

determinations based on computeraided designs, specifies a sampling plan 

for volume and total display area, and 

adopts additional clarifying 

amendments. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

October 26, 2023. The amendments will 

be mandatory for equipment testing 

starting September 20, 2024. 

The incorporation by reference of 

certain material listed in the rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register on October 26, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

However, not all documents listed in 

the index may be publicly available, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure. 

A link to the docket web page can be 

found at www.regulations.gov/docket/ 

EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008. The docket 

web page contains instructions on how 

to access all documents, including 

public comments, in the docket. For 

further information on how to review 

the docket, contact the Appliance and 

Equipment Standards Program staff at 

(202) 287–1445 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC, 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586– 

9870. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC, 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9496. Email: 

Peter.Cochran@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE 

incorporates by reference the following 

industry standards into 10 CFR part 431: 

AHRI Standard 1200–2023 (I–P), 2023 

Standard for Performance Rating of 

Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets, 

copyright 2023 (‘‘AHRI 1200–2023’’). 

ANSI/AHRI Standard 1320–2011 (I– 

P), 2011 Standard for Performance 

Rating of Commercial Refrigerated 

Display Merchandisers and Storage 

Cabinets for Use With Secondary 

Refrigerants, copyright 2011 (‘‘ANSI/ 

AHRI 1320–2011’’). 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72–2022: 

• Method of Testing Open and Closed 

Commercial Refrigerators and 

Freezers, approved June 30, 2022; and 

• Errata Sheet, November 11, 2022 

(‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 72–2022’’). 

ASTM F2143–16, Standard Test 

Method for Performance of Refrigerated 

Buffet and Preparation Tables, 

approved May 1, 2016 (‘‘ASTM F2143– 

16’’). 

Copies of AHRI 1200–2023 and AHRI 

1320–2011 can be obtained by going to 

www.ahrinet.org/standards/searchstandards. 

Copies of ASHRAE 72–2022 can be 

obtained by going to 

www.techstreet.com/standards/ashrae72-2022?product_id=1710927 and the 

November 11, 2022 Errata can be 

obtained by going to www.ashrae.org/ 

technical-resources/standards-andguidelines/standards-errata. 

Copies of ASTM F2143–16 can be 

purchased at www.astm.org/f2143- 

16.html. 

For a further discussion of these 

standards, see section IV.N of this 

document. 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

II. Synopsis of the Final Rule 

III. Discussion 

A. Scope and Definitions 

1. Ice-Cream Freezers 

2. High-Temperature CRE 

3. Convertible Equipment 

B. Updates to Industry Standards 

1. AHRI 1200 

2. ASHRAE 72 

3. Secondary Coolants 

C. Test Conditions for Specific CRE 

Categories 

1. Salad Bars, Buffet Tables, and 

Refrigerated Preparation Tables 

2. Pull-Down Temperature Applications 

3. Blast Chillers and Blast Freezers 

4. Chef Bases and Griddle Stands 

5. Mobile Refrigerated Cabinets 

6. Additional Covered Equipment 

D. Harmonization of Efficiency Standards 

and Testing With NSF 7–2019 Food 

Safety 

E. Dedicated Remote Condensing Units 

F. Test Procedure Clarifications and 

Modifications 

1. Defrost Cycles 

2. Total Display Area 

G. Alternative Refrigerants 

H. Certification of Compartment Volume 

I. Test Procedure Waivers 

J. Enforcement Provisions 

K. Lowest Application Product 

Temperature 

L. Removal of Obsolete Provisions 

M. Sampling Plan 

N. Test Procedure Costs and 

Harmonization 

1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact 

2. Harmonization With Industry Standards 

O. Effective and Compliance Dates 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 

13563 and 14094 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

M. Congressional Notification 

N. Description of Materials Incorporated by 

Reference 

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

Commercial refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers (collectively, 

commercial refrigeration equipment, or 

‘‘CRE’’) are included in the list of 

‘‘covered equipment’’ for which the U.S. 

Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is 

authorized to establish and amend 

energy conservation standards and test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311)(1)(E)) 

DOE’s energy conservation standards 

and test procedures for CRE are 

currently prescribed at subpart C of part 

431 of title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (‘‘CFR’’). The following 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66153 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 

of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which 

reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 

Parts A and A–1 of EPCA. 

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1. 

3 In 2005, ASHRAE combined Standard 72–1998, 

‘‘Method of Testing Open Refrigerators,’’ and 

Standard 117–2002 and published the test method 

as ASHRAE Standard 72–2005, ‘‘Method of Testing 

Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers,’’ which was 

approved by ANSI on July 29, 2005. 

sections discuss DOE’s authority to 

establish test procedures for CRE and 

relevant background information 

regarding DOE’s consideration of test 

procedures for this equipment. 

A. Authority 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, Public Law 94–163, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes DOE to regulate 

the energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6317) Title III, Part C2 of EPCA, added 

by Public Law 95–619, Title IV, section 

441(a), established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Certain 

Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. This 

equipment includes CRE, the subject of 

this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311 (1)(E)) 

The energy conservation program 

under EPCA consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal 

energy conservation standards, and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. Relevant provisions of 

EPCA specifically include definitions 

(42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 

U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 

U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation 

standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the 

authority to require information and 

reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 

6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296). 

The Federal testing requirements 

consist of test procedures that 

manufacturers of covered equipment 

must use as the basis for: (1) certifying 

to DOE that their equipment complies 

with the applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and 

(2) making other representations about 

the efficiency of that equipment (42 

U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must 

use these test procedures to determine 

whether the equipment complies with 

relevant standards promulgated under 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(s)) 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered equipment 

established under EPCA generally 

supersede State laws and regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 

labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 

6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers 

of Federal preemption for particular 

State laws or regulations, in accordance 

with the procedures and other 

provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(b)(2)(D)) 

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

the criteria and procedures DOE must 

follow when prescribing or amending 

test procedures for covered equipment. 

EPCA requires that any test procedures 

prescribed or amended under this 

section must be reasonably designed to 

produce test results which reflect energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of a given type of 

covered equipment during a 

representative average use cycle, and 

requires that test procedures not be 

unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 

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

With respect to CRE, EPCA requires 

DOE to use the test procedures 

determined by the Secretary to be 

generally accepted industry standards, 

or industry standards developed or 

recognized by the American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning Engineers (‘‘ASHRAE’’) or 

American National Standards Institute 

(‘‘ANSI’’). (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(A)(i)) 

With regard to self-contained CRE to 

which statutory standards are 

applicable, the required initial test 

procedure is the ASHRAE 117 test 

procedure in effect on January 1, 2005. 

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

Additionally, EPCA requires that if 

ASHRAE 117 is amended, the Secretary 

shall, by rule, amend the test procedure 

for the product as necessary to ensure 

that the test procedure is consistent 

with the amended ASHRAE 117 test 

procedure, unless the Secretary makes a 

determination, by rule, and supported 

by clear and convincing evidence, that 

to do so would not meet the statutory 

requirements regarding 

representativeness and burden. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(E)) Finally, EPCA 

states that if a test procedure other than 

the ASHRAE 117 test procedure is 

approved by ANSI, DOE must review 

the relative strengths and weaknesses of 

the new test procedure relative to the 

ASHRAE 117 test procedure and adopt 

one new test procedure for use in the 

standards program. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(6)(F)(i)) 3

EPCA also requires that, at least once 

every 7 years, DOE evaluate test 

procedures for each type of covered 

equipment, including CRE, to determine 

whether amended test procedures 

would more accurately or fully comply 

with the requirements for the test 

procedures to not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct and be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results that reflect energy efficiency, 

energy use, and estimated operating 

costs during a representative average 

use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)) 

In addition, if the Secretary 

determines that a test procedure 

amendment is warranted, the Secretary 

must publish proposed test procedures 

in the Federal Register and afford 

interested persons an opportunity (of 

not less than 45 days’ duration) to 

present oral and written data, views, 

and arguments on the proposed test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)) If DOE 

determines that test procedure revisions 

are not appropriate, DOE must publish 

in the Federal Register its 

determination not to amend the test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii)) 

DOE is publishing this final rule in 

satisfaction of the 7-year review 

requirement specified in EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)) 

B. Background 

DOE’s current test procedure for CRE 

appears at 10 CFR part 431, subpart C, 

appendix B (‘‘Amended Uniform Test 

Method for the Measurement of Energy 

Consumption of Commercial 

Refrigerators, Freezers, and RefrigeratorFreezers’’ or ‘‘appendix B’’). 

DOE last amended the test procedure 

for CRE in a final rule published on 

April 24, 2014 (‘‘April 2014 Final 

Rule’’). 79 FR 22277. Specifically, DOE 

clarified certain terms, procedures, and 

compliance dates to improve 

repeatability and provide additional 

detail compared to the prior version of 

the test procedure. DOE noted that the 

amendments in the April 2014 Final 

Rule would not affect the energy use of 

CRE as measured under the prior 

version of the test procedure. 79 FR 

22277, 22280–22281. 

The test procedure incorporates by 

reference the following industry 

standards: (1) AHRI Standard 1200 (I– 

P)-2010, ‘‘Performance Rating of 

Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets’’ 

(‘‘AHRI 1200–2010’’); (2) ASHRAE 

Standard 72–2005, ‘‘Method of Testing 

Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers,’’ 

which was approved by ANSI on July 

29, 2005 (‘‘ASHRAE 72–2005’’); and (3) 

ANSI/Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (‘‘AHAM’’) Standard 

HRF–1–2008, ‘‘Energy and Internal 

Volume of Refrigerating Appliances’’ 

(‘‘AHAM HRF–1–2008’’) for 

determining refrigerated volumes for 

CRE. 

On June 11, 2021, DOE published in 

the Federal Register an early assessment 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66154 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

4The parenthetical reference provides a reference 

for information located in the docket of DOE’s 

rulemaking to develop test procedures for CRE. 

(Docket No. EERE–2017–BT–TP–0008, which is 

maintained at www.regulations.gov). The references 

are arranged as follows: (commenter name, 

comment docket ID number, page of that 

document). 

request for information (‘‘June 2021 

RFI’’) seeking comments on the existing 

DOE test procedure for CRE. 86 FR 

31182. In the June 2021 RFI, DOE 

requested comments, information, and 

data regarding a number of issues, 

including (1) scope and definitions, (2) 

updates to industry standards, (3) test 

conditions for specific CRE categories, 

(4) harmonization with food safety 

standards, (5) remote condensing units, 

(6) test procedure clarifications, (7) 

alternative refrigerants, (8) compartment 

volume certification, and (9) test 

procedure waivers. 

On June 30, 2022, DOE published in 

the Federal Register a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) that 

proposed to update and establish test 

procedures for CRE (‘‘June 2022 

NOPR’’). 87 FR 39164. In the June 2022 

NOPR, DOE proposed to and requested 

feedback on the following: 

(1) Establish new definitions for hightemperature refrigerator, mediumtemperature refrigerator, lowtemperature freezer, and mobile 

refrigerated cabinet, and amend the 

definition for ice-cream freezer; 

(2) Incorporate by reference the most 

current versions of industry standards 

AHRI 1200, ASHRAE 72, and AHRI 

1320; 

(3) Establish definitions and a new 

appendix C including test procedures 

for buffet tables and preparation tables; 

(4) Establish definitions and a new 

appendix D including test procedures 

for blast chillers and blast freezers; 

(5) Amend the definition for chef base 

or griddle stand; 

(6) Specify refrigerant conditions for 

CRE that use R–744; 

(7) Allow for certification of 

compartment volumes based on 

computer-aided design (‘‘CAD’’) models; 

(8) Incorporate provisions for defrosts 

and customer order storage cabinets 

currently specified in waivers and 

interim waivers; 

(9) Adopt product-specific 

enforcement provisions; 

(10) Clarify use of the lowest 

application product temperature 

(‘‘LAPT’’) provisions; 

(11) Remove the obsolete test 

procedure in appendix A; and 

(12) Specify a sampling plan for 

volume and total display area (‘‘TDA’’). 

87 FR 39164. 

DOE received comments in response 

to the June 2022 NOPR from the 

interested parties listed in Table I.1. 

TABLE I.1—LIST OF COMMENTERS WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE JUNE 2022 NOPR 

Commenter(s) Reference in this final rule Comment No. 

in the docket Commenter type 

AHT Cooling Systems GmbH ................................................... AHT ......................................... 40 Manufacturer. 

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute .............. AHRI ....................................... 38 Trade Association. 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American ................

Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, and Natural Resources Defense Council.

Joint Commenters ................... 31 Efficiency Organizations. 

Continental Refrigerator ............................................................ Continental .............................. 29 Manufacturer. 

Hillphoenix, Inc ......................................................................... Hillphoenix .............................. 35 Manufacturer. 

Hoshizaki America, Inc ............................................................. Hoshizaki ................................ 30 Manufacturer. 

Hussmann Corporation ............................................................. Hussmann ............................... 32 Manufacturer. 

National Automatic Merchandising Association ........................ NAMA ...................................... 33 Trade Association. 

North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers.NAFEM ................................... 34 Trade Association. 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ....................................... NEEA ...................................... 39 Efficiency Organization. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric, 

and Southern California Edison; collectively, the California 

Investor-Owned Utilities.

CA IOUs .................................. 36 Energy Utilities. 

True Manufacturing Company, Inc ........................................... True ......................................... 28 Manufacturer. 

Zero Zone, Inc .......................................................................... Zero Zone ............................... 37 Manufacturer. 

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.4 To the extent that 

interested parties have provided written 

comments that are substantively 

consistent with any oral comments 

provided during the August 1, 2022, 

public meeting, DOE cites the written 

comments throughout this final rule. 

Any oral comments provided during the 

public meeting that are not 

substantively addressed by written 

comments are summarized and cited 

separately throughout this final rule. 

II. Synopsis of the Final Rule 

In this final rule, DOE amends and 

establishes test procedures for CRE as 

follows: 

(1) Establish new definitions for hightemperature refrigerator, mediumtemperature refrigerator, lowtemperature freezer, and mobile 

refrigerated cabinet, and amend the 

definition for ice-cream freezer; 

(2) Incorporate by reference the most 

current versions of industry standards 

AHRI 1200, ASHRAE 72, and AHRI 

1320; 

(3) Establish definitions and a new 

appendix C including test procedures 

for buffet tables and preparation tables; 

(4) Establish definitions and a new 

appendix D including test procedures 

for blast chillers and blast freezers; 

(5) Amend the definition and certain 

test conditions for chef bases or griddle 

stands; 

(6) Specify refrigerant conditions for 

CRE that use R–744; 

(7) Allow for certification of 

compartment volumes based on 

computer-aided design (‘‘CAD’’) models; 

(8) Incorporate provisions for defrosts 

and customer order storage cabinets 

currently specified in waivers and 

interim waivers; 

(9) Adopt product-specific 

enforcement provisions; 

(10) Clarify use of the lowest 

application product temperature 

(‘‘LAPT’’) provisions; 

(11) Remove the obsolete test 

procedure in appendix A; and 

(12) Specify a sampling plan for 

volume and total display area (‘‘TDA’’). 

The adopted amendments are 

summarized and compared to the test 

procedure provision prior to the 

amendment in Table II.1, along with the 

reason for the adopted change. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66155 

TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN THE AMENDED TEST PROCEDURE

DOE Test Procedure Prior to 

Amendment Amended Test Procedure 

Changes from the June 2022 

NOPR proposed test procedure 

summary of changes 

Attribution 

Defines commercial refrigerator 

without delineating between 

units that operate at medium 

and high temperatures.

Defines high-temperature refrigerator and medium-temperature 

refrigerator to account for new 

high-temperature rating point.

None ............................................. Improves representativeness. 

Defines ice-cream freezer as a 

type of commercial freezer.

Defines low-temperature freezer 

to delineate between ice-cream 

freezers and other commercial 

freezers.

None ............................................. Improves representativeness. 

Ice-cream freezer definition refers 

only to ‘‘ice cream’’.

Ice-cream definition refers more 

broadly to ‘‘ice cream and other 

frozen desserts’’.

Expanded to ‘‘ice cream and 

other frozen desserts’’.

Improves representativeness. 

References AHRI 1200–2010 for 

rating requirements.

References AHRI 1200–2023 for 

rating requirements.

Updated to harmonize with most 

recent version of AHRI 1200.

Harmonizes with most recent industry standard. 

References ASHRAE 72–2005 for 

test requirements.

References ASHRAE 72–2022 

with Errata for test requirements.

Updated to harmonize with most 

recent version of ASHRAE 72.

Harmonizes with most recent industry standard. 

References AHAM HRF–1–2008 

for volume measurement.

References AHRI 1200–2023 for 

volume requirements.

Updated to harmonize with most 

recent version of AHRI 1200.

Harmonizes with most recent industry standard. 

Includes a single 38 °F rating point 

for commercial refrigerators.

Specifies 38 °F rating point for 

medium-temperature refrigerators and 55 °F rating point 

for high-temperature refrigerators.

None ............................................. Improves representativeness; harmonizes with industry standard. 

Does not specify a method for 

testing CRE with secondary 

coolants.

References AHRI 1320–2011 for 

CRE used with secondary coolants.

None ............................................. Improves representativeness; harmonizes with industry standard. 

Does not specify definitions or test 

procedures for buffet tables and 

preparation tables.

Defines buffet table and preparation table and establishes test 

procedures based on ASTM 

F2143–16.

None ............................................. Improves representativeness; harmonizes with industry standard. 

Does not specify definitions or test 

procedures for blast chillers and 

blast freezers.

Defines blast chiller and blast 

freezer and establishes test 

procedures based on expected 

industry test method.

None ............................................. Improves representativeness; harmonizes with industry standard. 

Chef base or griddle stand definition does not refer to a maximum height.Clarifies chef base or griddle 

stand definition by specifying a 

maximum height of 32 in. for 

this equipment.

None ............................................. Improves representativeness. 

Chef bases or griddle stands have 

a dry-bulb temperature of 

75.2 °F; wet-bulb temperature of 

64.4 °F; and radiant heat temperature of greater than or equal 

to 70.0 °F.

Chef bases or griddle stands 

have a dry-bulb temperature of 

86.0 °F; wet-bulb temperature of 

73.7 °F; and radiant heat temperature of greater than or 

equal to 81.0 °F.

Updated test conditions ................ Improves representativeness. 

Does not provide procedures for 

CRE with no automatic defrost 

or with long duration defrost cycles.

References ASHRAE 72–2022 

with Errata for test instructions 

for units with no automatic defrost and adopts optional twopart test for CRE with defrost 

cycles longer than 24 hours.

Updated to harmonize with most 

recent version of ASHRAE 72.

Addresses existing waiver; harmonizes with industry standard. 

Includes conflicting instructions regarding TDA calculation.Corrects errors in current test procedure by reference to AHRI 

1200–2023.

Updated to harmonize with most 

recent version of AHRI 1200.

Improves representativeness, repeatability, and reproducibility; 

harmonizes with industry standard. 

Provides refrigerant conditions that 

are applicable only to common 

refrigerants.

Specifies refrigerant conditions to 

allow for testing with carbon dioxide refrigerant.

Includes tolerances and updates 

conditions to ensure appropriate operation within tolerances.

Improves representativeness; harmonizes with existing waiver. 

Requires determining volume 

based on testing.

Allows the use of CAD models to 

certify volume.

None ............................................. Reduces test burden. 

Specifies a single door opening 

sequence.

Defines customer order storage 

cabinet equipment category and 

specifies an alternate door 

opening sequence for this 

equipment.

None ............................................. Improves representativeness; harmonizes with existing waiver. 

Does not specify product-enforcement provisions.Includes product-enforcement provisions for determining volume 

and TDA.

None ............................................. Improves clarity. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66156 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN THE AMENDED TEST PROCEDURE—Continued 

DOE Test Procedure Prior to 

Amendment Amended Test Procedure 

Changes from the June 2022 

NOPR proposed test procedure 

summary of changes 

Attribution 

Specifies LAPT instructions for 

temperatures above target test 

temperature.

Clarifies use of LAPT provisions 

for operating temperatures 

below the target test temperature.

None ............................................. Improves clarity. 

Includes obsolete appendix A and 

current appendix B test procedures.

Removes obsolete appendix A; 

adds new appendix C for testing buffet tables and preparation tables, and adds new appendix D for testing blast 

chillers and blast freezers.

None ............................................. Improves readability. 

Does not specify a sampling plan 

for volume and TDA.

Specifies that volume and TDA be 

determined based on the mean 

of the test sample.

None ............................................. Improves representativeness, repeatability, and reproducibility. 

DOE has determined that the 

amendments described in section III of 

this document and adopted in this 

document will not alter the measured 

efficiency of CRE currently subject to 

energy conservation standards, or 

require retesting or recertification solely 

as a result of DOE’s adoption of the 

amendments to the test procedures. 

Additionally, DOE has determined that 

the amendments will not increase the 

cost of testing for CRE currently tested 

to the existing test procedure. For chef 

bases or griddle stands, buffet tables and 

preparation tables, and blast chillers 

and blast freezers, testing according to 

the amended or established test 

procedure will not be required until the 

compliance date of any energy 

conservation standards for that 

equipment. However, any 

representations of energy use for chef 

bases or griddle stands, buffet tables and 

preparation tables and blast chillers and 

blast freezers must be made in 

accordance with the amended test 

procedure starting 360 days after this 

final rule publishes in the Federal 

Register. While DOE does not expect 

that manufacturers will incur additional 

cost as a result of the established test 

procedure, DOE provides a discussion 

of testing costs in section III.O.1 of this 

document. Discussion of DOE’s actions 

are addressed in detail in section III of 

this document. 

The effective date for the amended 

test procedures adopted in this final 

rule is 30 days after publication of this 

document in the Federal Register. 

Representations of energy use or energy 

efficiency must be based on testing in 

accordance with the amended test 

procedures beginning 360 days after the 

publication of this final rule. 

III. Discussion 

A. Scope and Definitions 

‘‘Commercial refrigerator, freezer, and 

refrigerator-freezer’’ means refrigeration 

equipment that is not a consumer 

product (as defined in 10 CFR 430.2); is 

not designed and marketed exclusively 

for medical, scientific, or research 

purposes; operates at a chilled, frozen, 

combination chilled and frozen, or 

variable temperature; displays or stores 

merchandise and other perishable 

materials horizontally, semi-vertically, 

or vertically; has transparent or solid 

doors, sliding or hinged doors, a 

combination of hinged, sliding, 

transparent, or solid doors, or no doors; 

is designed for pull-down temperature 

applications or holding temperature 

applications; and is connected to a selfcontained condensing unit or to a 

remote condensing unit. 10 CFR 431.62. 

For the purpose of determining 

applicability of certain test procedure 

provisions, DOE proposed in the June 

2022 NOPR to amend certain existing 

definitions and to establish certain new 

definitions, as discussed in the 

following paragraphs. 87 FR 39164, 

39168–39171. DOE discusses additional 

equipment definitions and test 

procedures for specific equipment 

categories in section III.C of this 

document. 

1. Ice-Cream Freezers 

DOE defines certain categories of CRE, 

including ‘‘ice-cream freezer.’’ DOE 

defines an ‘‘ice-cream freezer’’ as a 

commercial freezer that is designed to 

operate at or below ¥5 °F ±2 °F (¥21 °C 

±1.1 °C) and that the manufacturer 

designs, markets, or intends for the 

storing, displaying, or dispensing of ice 

cream. 10 CFR 431.62. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE did not 

identify any technical features that 

would allow for distinguishing icecream freezers from other commercial 

freezers capable of operating at low 

temperatures and therefore did not 

propose in the June 2022 NOPR to 

include any additional equipment 

characteristics in the ice-cream freezer 

definition. 87 FR 39164, 39168. 

a. Frozen Desserts 

DOE noted in the June 2022 NOPR 

that the equipment term and definition 

reference ‘‘ice cream,’’ but ‘‘ice cream’’ 

is not defined. 87 FR 39164, 39168. DOE 

acknowledged that other frozen 

products may be similarly stored and 

displayed. Id. For example, food 

products such as gelato, frozen yogurt, 

and sorbet are typically displayed, 

stored, and dispensed in the same 

manner as ice cream. Id. The CRE used 

for these products is likely similar, if 

not identical, to equipment used to 

store, display, or dispense ice cream. Id. 

To clarify the equipment 

classification and to avoid potential 

misunderstanding that the term ‘‘icecream freezer’’ is limited to equipment 

associated with ice cream and not other 

similar products, DOE proposed in the 

June 2022 NOPR to amend this term’s 

definition to refer to equipment 

designed, marketed, or intended for the 

storing, displaying, or dispensing of 

‘‘frozen desserts,’’ rather than ice cream 

specifically. 87 FR 39164, 39169. DOE 

stated in the NOPR that it does not 

expect this proposal to affect testing or 

certifications for existing CRE, because 

equipment designed for frozen desserts 

other than ice cream that otherwise 

meets the ice-cream freezer definition 

are likely already tested and certified as 

ice-cream freezers. Id. 

As proposed in the June 2022 NOPR, 

ice-cream freezer means: 

(1) Prior to the compliance date(s) of 

any amended energy conservation 

standard(s) for ice-cream freezers, a 

commercial freezer that is designed to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66157 

operate at or below ¥5.0 °F (±2.0 °F) and 

that the manufacturer designs, markets, 

or intends for the storing, displaying, or 

dispensing of frozen desserts; or 

(2) Upon the compliance date(s) of 

any amended energy conservation 

standard(s) for ice-cream freezers, a 

commercial freezer that is designed for 

an operating temperature at or below 

¥15.0 °F (±2.0 °F) and that the 

manufacturer designs, markets, or 

intends for the storing, displaying, or 

dispensing of frozen desserts. Id. 

In response to the June 2022 NOPR, 

Hussmann stated its support of the 

amended definition for ‘‘frozen 

desserts’’ rather than ice cream 

specifically. (Hussmann, No. 32, p. 2) 

Hussmann also asked DOE to include in 

this definition the temperature range 

needed to operate ice-cream freezers, 

stating it does not oppose the definition 

change, but cautioning that some 

models intended for ‘‘frozen desserts’’ 

may not be able to achieve the DOE icecream ratings. Id. 

The CA IOUs stated their support to 

amend the definition for ‘‘ice-cream 

freezer’’ to include all ‘‘frozen desserts’’ 

and to test frozen dessert freezers at 

either 0 °F or ¥15 °F. (CA IOUs, No. 36, 

p. 10) 

AHRI disagreed with DOE’s proposal 

to amend the ice-cream freezer 

definition to refer to equipment 

intended for ‘‘frozen desserts,’’ because 

while some commercial refrigeration 

equipment models are sold and 

marketed as ‘‘ice-cream freezers,’’ AHRI 

was not aware of any product 

specifically marketed for ‘‘frozen 

desserts.’’ (AHRI, No. 38, p. 2). AHRI 

noted that the term ‘‘frozen desserts’’ 

was not defined, and that DOE indicated 

its intention to clarify ‘‘ice cream’’ could 

include gelato, frozen yogurt, sorbet, 

and other ice-cream-like products. Id. 

AHRI commented that they disagree 

with DOE’s statement that these 

products are typically displayed, stored, 

and dispensed in the same manner as 

ice cream; in fact, these additional 

products have an array of temperature 

requirements depending on their 

characteristics (fat content, etc.) and the 

application holding, dispensing, etc.). 

Id. AHRI also noted that the term 

‘‘frozen desserts’’ is problematic because 

it might encompass products with 

requirements different than ice-creamlike, such as frozen pastries, cakes, 

fruits, chocolates, and other 

confectionary items served frozen at the 

end of a meal, while excluding ‘‘frozen 

treats’’ or ‘‘frozen snacks.’’ Id. 

Continental commented that it 

disagreed with DOE’s proposal to 

amend the ice-cream freezer definition 

to refer to equipment intended for 

‘‘frozen desserts;’’ while some 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

models are sold and marketed as ‘‘icecream freezers,’’ Continental knew of 

none marketed for ‘‘frozen desserts,’’ a 

term DOE has not defined. (Continental, 

No. 29, p. 1–2) Continental disagreed 

with DOE’s statement that gelato, frozen 

yogurt, sorbet, and other ice-cream-like 

products were typically displayed, 

stored, and dispensed in the same 

manner as ice cream, as described in the 

NOPR, since these products have an 

array of temperature requirements 

depending on their characteristics (fat 

content, etc.) and the application 

(holding, dispensing, etc.). Id. 

Continental also found the term ‘‘frozen 

desserts’’ problematic because it might 

include frozen pastries, cakes, fruits, 

chocolates, and other confectionary 

items served frozen at the end of a meal, 

but with temperature requirements 

different than ice-cream-like products. 

Id. Continental commented that icecream freezers have features, such as 

manual defrost systems and cold-wall 

evaporators, that differentiate them from 

standard freezers to minimize 

temperature excursions during normal 

defrost periods. Id. 

Hillphoenix disagreed with the 

proposal to amend the ice-cream freezer 

definition to refer to frozen desserts, as 

this change will not clarify the intended 

equipment to which this category is 

applied and will continue to drive 

uncertainty in the industry. 

(Hillphoenix, No. 35, p. 1) Hillphoenix 

recommended removing the product 

type reference from the category name 

and referencing a general name based on 

manufacturers’ intent and internal air 

temperature (‘‘IAT’’). Id. Hillphoenix 

commented that the operating 

temperature combined with 

manufacture intent would be the main 

characteristic that distinguishes 

different types of freezers, and noted 

that the proposed high-temperature, the 

existing medium-temperature, and lowtemperature categories do not reference 

a specific product type. Id. Hillphoenix 

stated the term ‘‘ice-cream freezer’’ 

could be named ‘‘sub-zero freezer.’’ Id. 

In response to Hussmann’s comment, 

DOE states that the definition of ‘‘icecream freezer,’’ as proposed in the June 

2022 NOPR, includes the operating 

temperature range required to meet the 

definition of an ice-cream freezer. 87 FR 

39164, 39168. Any model that is unable 

to operate at the required integrated 

average temperature shall use the lowest 

application product temperature to 

certify. 

In response to AHRI’s, Continental’s, 

and Hillphoenix’s comments, DOE 

provided examples in the June 2022 

NOPR of ice-cream-like products that 

are typically displayed, stored, and 

dispensed in the same manner as ice 

cream (gelato, frozen yogurt, and 

sorbet). 87 FR 39164, 39168–39169. As 

stated in the June 2022 NOPR, the CRE 

used for these food products is likely 

similar, if not identical, to equipment 

used to store, display, or dispense ice 

cream. Id. In addition, DOE has 

determined that ‘‘frozen treats’’ or 

‘‘frozen snacks’’ are understood to be 

synonymous with ‘‘frozen desserts.’’ To 

provide greater clarity, DOE is 

amending the definition to specify ‘‘of 

ice cream or other frozen desserts’’. DOE 

also notes that the definition of ‘‘icecream freezer,’’ as proposed in the June 

2022 NOPR, includes the operating 

temperature range required to meet the 

definition, and that the manufacturer 

designs, markets, or intends for the 

storing, displaying, or dispensing of 

frozen desserts. 87 FR 39164, 39168– 

39170. If a commercial freezer does not 

meet the requirements of an ice-cream 

freezer, then it would be a lowtemperature freezer, according to the 

definition as proposed in the June 2022 

NOPR. Id. 

In response to Continental’s comment 

regarding certain features of ice-cream 

freezers, DOE stated in the June 2022 

NOPR that, while ice-cream freezers 

may implement manual defrosts or cold 

wall evaporators, DOE is aware of these 

equipment designs in other commercial 

freezers, such that they do not uniquely 

distinguish ice-cream freezers. 87 FR 

39164, 39169. 

b. Operating Temperature Range 

Appendix B requires testing all icecream freezers to an IAT of ¥15 °F. 

However, the term ‘‘ice-cream freezer’’ 

includes a variety of equipment with a 

range of typical operating temperatures 

during normal use. For example, certain 

ice-cream freezers are designed to 

operate considerably below ¥5 °F 

(sometimes referred to as ‘‘hardening 

cabinets’’ and specifically designed for 

ice-cream storage), while other icecream freezers are designed to operate 

closer to 0 °F during typical use (e.g., 

‘‘dipping cabinets’’ and other equipment 

used to hold ice cream intended for 

immediate consumption). Ice-cream 

freezers intended for higher-temperature 

operation are often not capable of 

achieving an IAT of ¥15 °F. In such an 

instance, appendix B requires testing 

the units to the LAPT. 

AHRI 1200–2023 maintains the 

existing rating points for commercial 

freezers (i.e., ¥15.0 °F ±2.0 °F for icecream applications and 0.0 °F ±2.0 °F for 

low-temperature applications) in section 

4.1.1, ‘‘Integrated Average 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66158 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

5Based on review of DOE’s Compliance 

Certification Database, available at 

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data (last 

accessed February 23, 2023). 

6See www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2007-07- 

26/pdf/07-3640.pdf. 

Temperature.’’ Consistent with AHRI 

1200–2023, DOE is not amending the 

commercial freezer target IATs for 

testing. 

Of the 346 ice-cream freezer models 

certified to DOE,5 21 are rated based on 

LAPTs higher than ¥15 °F, including 12 

models with a rating temperature of 

¥5 °F. Many of these models have a 

horizontal or service over counter 

configuration and are intended to hold 

ice cream for immediate consumption. 

DOE recognizes that testing and rating 

certain commercial freezers to 0 °F may 

be more appropriate than testing and 

rating to ¥15 °F. DOE already requires 

a 0 °F rating temperature for commercial 

freezers. In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

tentatively determined that ice-cream 

freezers that meet the current ice-cream 

freezer definition but cannot operate as 

low as an IAT of ¥15 °F ±2 °F can be 

tested at an IAT of 0 °F ±2 °F. 87 FR 

39164, 39170. 

To better distinguish between icecream freezers and other commercial 

freezers (i.e., ice-cream freezers not 

capable of reaching an IAT of ¥15 °F 

±2.0 °F), DOE proposed in the June 2022 

NOPR to amend the ice-cream freezer 

definition to specify that the designed 

operating temperature is required to be 

at or below ¥15.0 °F (±2.0 °F), upon the 

compliance date(s) of any amended 

energy conservation standard(s) for icecream freezers. 87 FR 39164, 39170. 

DOE also proposed to clarify which 

commercial freezers are required to test 

at an IAT of 0 °F according to appendix 

B by defining the term ‘‘lowtemperature freezer’’ to mean a 

commercial freezer that is not an icecream freezer. Id. In the June 2022 

NOPR, DOE requested comment on the 

proposed amended definition for ‘‘icecream freezer’’ and the proposed 

definition for ‘‘low-temperature 

freezer.’’ Id. 

Zero Zone and AHRI commented that 

modifying the definition of ‘‘ice-cream 

freezer’’ through two separate requests 

is confusing and asked that in future 

correspondence, DOE provide the 

composite final draft of a definition. 

(Zero Zone, No. 37, p. 2; AHRI, No. 38, 

p. 2) Zero Zone and AHRI also 

commented that the rules for different 

product categories are based on 

temperature, but both groups could find 

no mention of temperature in this 

context and assumed it was the IAT. Id. 

Zero Zone and AHRI asked that DOE 

clarify and state that the temperatures 

listed are the integrated average product 

temperature. Id. In addition, Zero Zone 

and AHRI commented that mixing 

product types and product temperatures 

in a definition was challenging and 

confusing. Id. Zero Zone and AHRI 

stated that manufacturers make generic 

commercial freezers that customers 

employ in a variety of uses. Id. Finally, 

Zero Zone and AHRI stated that in the 

2007 proposed rule (RE: 10 CFR part 

431.62 and FR/Vol 72 No. 143/ 

Thursday, July 26, 2007 page 41173) 6

(‘‘July 2007 ANOPR’’), DOE clarified the 

application and definition of ‘‘generic 

commercial freezer’’ and requested that 

DOE codify its comments from 2007 

into the formal definition, because it 

currently exists only in a proposed rule 

and should be clarified in a final rule to 

ease manufacturer concerns. Id. 

In the August 2022 public meeting, 

ICF commented that rather than saying 

‘‘operate at or below ¥5 plus-or-minus 

2 Fahrenheit,’’ there should be a 

threshold and no tolerance because ‘‘at 

or below’’ contradicts ‘‘plus-or-minus 

2,’’ and the same is the case with the 

refrigerators. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 41, p. 21). 

AHRI, Continental, and Hussmann 

commented that they agree with DOE’s 

intention to amend the definition of 

‘‘ice-cream freezer’’ to products with 

operating temperatures at or below 

¥15 °F, but recommended refining the 

definition to specify ‘‘ice-cream 

hardening freezer’’ or ‘‘ice-cream 

holding freezer’’ to clarify the proper 

application and equipment marketing. 

(AHRI, No. 38, p. 3; Continental, No. 29, 

p. 2; Hussmann, No. 32, p. 2) AHRI, 

Continental, and Hussmann also 

commented they were unaware of any 

ice cream that was dispensed or served 

at or below ¥15 °F. Id. 

Continental agreed with DOE that a 

separate definition for ‘‘low-temperature 

freezer’’ as a commercial freezer that 

will maintain ¥15 °F but is not an icecream freezer was appropriate. 

(Continental, No. 29, p. 2) Continental 

further commented that equipment in 

this category should be tested and rated 

at ¥15 °F to reflect the intended 

application. Id. Continental stated 

commercial freezers that cannot operate 

as low as ¥15 °F, and are not marketed 

for ice-cream applications, can be tested 

and rated at 0 °F, and should be 

classified under the current definition of 

‘‘commercial freezer.’’ Id. In addition, 

Continental commented that although 

the test procedures for ‘‘ice-cream 

hardening/holding’’ and ‘‘non-icecream’’ freezers at ¥15 °F may be 

similar, DOE’s energy standards 

expressed in 10 CFR part 431 have 

significant differences in how allowable 

energy consumption levels are 

calculated for self-contained ice-cream 

freezers versus other self-contained 

commercial freezers, therefore changes 

in this test procedure rulemaking will 

have substantial impact. Id. 

Hillphoenix agreed with the proposal 

to amend the ice-cream freezer 

operating temperature to be ≤ ¥15 °F 

and to include this in the definition, but 

recommended that DOE specify if the 

rating temperature of ¥15 °F IAT will 

change, as currently the ice-cream 

freezer category has an operating 

temperature of ≤ ¥5 °F and a rating 

temperature of ¥15 °F ±2 °F IAT. 

(Hillphoenix, No. 35, p. 1) 

Hillphoenix disagreed with the 

proposal to modify the definition of 

‘‘low-temperature freezer’’ to refer to a 

non-ice-cream freezer, as this change 

will not clarify the intended equipment 

in this category since ice cream can be 

displayed in freezers not intended to 

operate at ≤ ¥15 °F, which will 

continue to drive uncertainty in the 

industry. (Hillphoenix, No. 35, p. 1) 

Hillphoenix recommended that DOE 

amend the operating temperature of the 

low-temperature category from > ¥5 °F 

and <32 °F to > ¥15 °F and <32 °F if 

such changes are applied to the icecream category. Id. Hillphoenix also 

proposed that each category of CRE 

reference the IAT only and not the 

operating temperature to drive 

consistency between categories. Id. 

NEEA supported DOE’s proposed 

modifications to the definition of ‘‘icecream freezers’’ to include operating 

characteristics instead of how the 

equipment was marketed for use 

because technical characteristics 

provide clearer differentiation of 

equipment than marketing materials. 

(NEEA, No. 39, p. 2). NEEA restated its 

previous concern that some ice-cream 

freezers that meet the existing 

marketing-based definition cannot 

operate at an IAT of ¥15 °F ±2 °F, which 

represents DOE’s proposed defining 

characteristic and DOE has proposed a 

new term, ‘‘low-temperature freezer’’ for 

those ice-cream freezers, with their 

testing point at 0 °F. Id. NEEA 

recommended that DOE review the 

products that meet this new definition 

of ‘‘low-temperature freezer’’ but not the 

new definition for ‘‘ice-cream freezer’’ 

to ensure that the equipment is similar 

enough to be grouped together and that 

the test conditions are representative for 

all products. Id. 

The Joint Commenters stated support 

for DOE’s proposed changes that remove 

ambiguity in the definition of ‘‘icecream freezers’’ and ensure all ice-cream 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66159 

and low-temperature freezers are tested 

at a uniform temperature, ¥15 °F and 

0 °F, respectively. (Joint Commenters, 

No. 31, p. 1) 

The CA IOUs commented that, in a 

survey of products available on the 

market, they determined ice-cream 

dipping cabinets listed in DOE’s 

Compliance Certification Management 

System (‘‘CCMS’’) that were tested at 

¥5 °F and ¥10 °F can achieve 0 °F. (CA 

IOUs, No. 36, p. 10) 

True commented that the equipment 

category of ‘‘low-temperature freezer’’ is 

not included in NSF/ANSI 7–2021. 

(True, No. 28, p. 4) True also 

commented that when a freezer is 

designed to hold ¥15.0 °F (±2.0 °F), the 

energy consumption will be much 

higher due to the use of larger 

displacement compressors, as well as 

the use of more anti-condensation and 

defrost heaters, such as heated glass. Id. 

In response to Zero Zone’s and 

AHRI’s comments, DOE notes that the 

definition of ‘‘ice-cream freezer,’’ as 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR, refers 

to ‘‘operating temperature,’’ defined in 

10 CFR 431.62 as follows: 

Operating temperature means the 

range of integrated average temperatures 

at which a self-contained commercial 

refrigeration unit or remote-condensing 

commercial refrigeration unit with a 

thermostat is capable of operating or, in 

the case of a remote-condensing 

commercial refrigeration unit without a 

thermostat, the range of integrated 

average temperatures at which the unit 

is marketed, designed, or intended to 

operate. 

However, DOE understands the 

definition of ‘‘ice-cream freezer,’’ as 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR, states 

‘‘operating temperature’’ in the second 

part of the definition and ‘‘to operate’’ 

in the first part of the definition. 87 FR 

39164, 39168–39170. Therefore, DOE is 

amending the definition of ‘‘ice-cream 

freezer’’ to include ‘‘operating 

temperature’’ in both parts of the 

definition. 

Zero Zone and AHRI also referenced 

the July 2007 ANOPR discussion of the 

‘‘ice-cream freezer’’ definition. DOE 

expects that Zero Zone and AHRI are 

referring to the discussion which states 

that unless equipment is designed, 

marketed, or intended specifically for 

the storage, display or dispensing of ice 

cream, it would not be considered an 

‘‘ice-cream freezer.’’ 72 FR 41161, 

41173. Multi-purpose commercial 

freezers, manufactured for storage and 

display, for example, of frozen foods as 

well as ice cream would not meet this 

definition. Id. DOE also expects that the 

update to ‘‘ice-cream applications’’ in 

section 4.1.1.2 of AHRI 1200–2023 is 

consistent with Zero Zone’s and AHRI’s 

comments. Consistent with the 

discussion of the July 2007 ANOPR, 

DOE is amending the definition of ‘‘icecream freezer’’ to include the term 

‘‘specifically’’. 

In response to ICF’s comment, DOE is 

amending the definition of ‘‘ice-cream 

freezer’’ to remove the temperature 

tolerances and adjusting the 

temperature in the second part of the 

definition to specify the upper bound of 

the ice-cream freezer IAT test condition 

tolerance, consistent with DOE’s 

intention of the definition proposed in 

the June 2022 NOPR. 

In response to AHRI’s, Continental’s, 

and Hussmann’s comments, the 

definition of ‘‘ice-cream freezer,’’ as 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR, states 

that the manufacturer designs, markets, 

or intends for the storing, displaying, or 

dispensing of frozen desserts which 

encompasses terms or equipment such 

as ‘‘ice-cream hardening’’ or ‘‘ice-cream 

holding.’’ 87 FR 39164, 39168–39169. 

DOE notes that if a commercial freezer 

does not meet the requirements of an 

ice-cream freezer, then the commercial 

freezer would be a low-temperature 

freezer, according to the definition as 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR. 87 FR 

39164, 39170. Commercial freezers that 

are not ice-cream freezers (i.e., lowtemperature freezers) are currently 

tested at 0 °F (±2 °F). As discussed in the 

June 2022 NOPR, the definition of ‘‘icecream freezer’’ will not require a more 

restrictive operating temperature range 

until the compliance date(s) of any 

amended energy conservation 

standard(s) for ice-cream freezers. 87 FR 

39164, 39170. 

In response to Hillphoenix’s 

comment, as stated in the June 2022 

NOPR, DOE is not amending the 

commercial freezer target IATs for 

testing, which is consistent with AHRI 

1200–2023. 87 FR 39164, 39170. As 

stated in the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

recognizes that the reference to ‘‘icecream’’ in the definition of ‘‘ice-cream 

freezer’’ does not itself distinguish this 

equipment from other commercial 

freezers, and that the additional 

descriptors specified in the definition 

(i.e., designed to operate at or below 

¥5 °F) together classify a unit as an icecream freezer. 87 FR 39164, 39169. 

Therefore, a commercial freezer that is 

not designed for an operating 

temperature at or below ¥5.0 °F, or 

¥13.0 °F upon the compliance date(s) of 

any amended energy conservation 

standard(s) for ice-cream freezers, and 

that the manufacturer designs, markets, 

or intends specifically for the storing, 

displaying, or dispensing of ice cream or 

other frozen desserts would meet the 

definition of a low-temperature freezer. 

In response to NEEA’s comment, DOE 

states the CRE that currently meet the 

definition of ‘‘ice-cream freezer’’ but 

that would only meet the definition of 

‘‘low-temperature freezer’’ upon the 

compliance date(s) of any amended 

energy conservation standard(s) for icecream freezers, are likely similar, if not 

identical, to certain equipment that 

currently meet the definition of ‘‘lowtemperature freezer.’’ 

In response to True’s comment, DOE 

recognizes that the definitions and 

categories do not necessarily match 

those included in the NSF 7 standard, 

but DOE is establishing definitions for 

the purposes of the DOE test procedure. 

To the extent that different equipment 

categories require different components 

due to different operating temperatures, 

DOE would consider the corresponding 

energy use impacts as part of the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking. 

Therefore, as described, DOE is 

amending the definition of ‘‘ice-cream 

freezer’’ as follows: 

Ice-cream freezer means: 

(1) Prior to the compliance date(s) of 

any amended energy conservation 

standard(s) for ice-cream freezers, a 

commercial freezer that is capable of an 

operating temperature at or below 

¥5.0 °F and that the manufacturer 

designs, markets, or intends specifically 

for the storing, displaying, or dispensing 

of ice cream or other frozen desserts; or 

(2) Upon the compliance date(s) of 

any amended energy conservation 

standard(s) for ice-cream freezers, a 

commercial freezer that is capable of an 

operating temperature at or below 

¥13.0 °F and that the manufacturer 

designs, markets, or intends specifically 

for the storing, displaying, or dispensing 

of ice cream or other frozen desserts. 

DOE is establishing the definition of 

‘‘low-temperature freezer’’ as proposed 

in the June 2022 NOPR in this final rule: 

Low-temperature freezer means a 

commercial freezer that is not an icecream freezer. 

2. High-Temperature CRE 

DOE defines ‘‘commercial 

refrigerator’’ as a unit of commercial 

refrigeration equipment in which all 

refrigerated compartments in the unit 

are capable of operating at or above 

32 °F (±2 °F). 10 CFR 431.62. 

Section 2.1 of appendix B requires 

testing commercial refrigerators to an 

IAT of 38 °F ±2 °F. DOE is aware of 

equipment that meets the definition of 

a commercial refrigerator but is capable 

of operating only at temperatures above 

the 38 °F ±2 °F IAT required for testing. 

Examples of these types of equipment 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66160 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

7Based on review of DOE’s Compliance 

Certification Database, available at 

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data (last 

accessed February 23, 2023). 

include CRE designed for storing or 

displaying chocolate and/or wine, with 

typical recommended storage 

temperatures around 55 °F. Consistent 

with the current test procedure, 

manufacturers certify such equipment 

using the LAPT setting. LAPT can vary 

by model, so this approach, which does 

not rely on a uniform operating 

temperature, can result in measured 

energy consumptions that are not 

necessarily comparable between 

models. Currently, 145 models of singlecompartment commercial refrigerators 

are certified to DOE with an LAPT 

above 40.0 °F.7 Categorizing these 

commercial refrigerators in a separate 

high-temperature refrigerator category 

would allow DOE to consider test 

procedures for this equipment that may 

better represent actual use. 

To allow for differentiating typical 

commercial refrigerators from 

commercial refrigerators that operate 

only at higher temperatures, DOE 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR to 

define ‘‘high-temperature refrigerator’’ 

as a commercial refrigerator that is not 

capable of operating with an integrated 

average temperature as low as 38.0 °F 

(±2.0 °F). 87 FR 39164, 39171. 

DOE stated in the June 2022 NOPR 

that it recognized certain commercial 

refrigerators may be capable of operating 

with an IAT of 38.0 °F (±2.0 °F) but are 

intended for use at higher storage 

temperatures. Id. However, DOE 

proposed to define ‘‘high-temperature 

refrigerator’’ based on operating 

capability rather than intended use to 

ensure consistent application of DOE’s 

definitions and to ensure that CRE 

currently tested and rated with an IAT 

of 38.0 °F (±2.0 °F) would continue to be 

categorized, tested, and rated at that 

operating condition. Id. 

To clarify the classification of 

commercial refrigerators overall, DOE 

also proposed in the June 2022 NOPR to 

define the term ‘‘medium-temperature 

refrigerator’’ to refer to commercial 

refrigerators capable of operating with 

an IAT of 38.0 °F (±2.0 °F) or lower. Id. 

DOE also proposed to require testing 

high-temperature refrigerators according 

to AHRI 1200–2023, which requires an 

IAT of 55 °F ±2.0 °F. Id. Under the June 

2022 NOPR approach, a commercial 

refrigerator would be tested and rated as 

either a medium-temperature 

refrigerator (if capable of operating with 

an IAT of 38.0 °F (±2.0 °F)) or as a hightemperature refrigerator (if not capable 

of operating with an IAT as low as 

38.0 °F (±2.0 °F)). Id. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

recognized that certain commercial 

refrigerators may be capable of operating 

at IATs of both 38 °F (±2.0 °F) and 55 °F 

(±2.0 °F). Id. In the April 2014 Final 

Rule, DOE stated that CRE capable of 

operating at IATs that span multiple 

equipment categories must be certified 

and comply with DOE’s regulations for 

each applicable equipment category. 79 

FR 22277, 22291. The definition of 

‘‘high-temperature refrigerator,’’ as 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR, would 

exclude CRE capable of operating at 

medium temperatures (i.e., an IAT of 

38 °F), and therefore would exclude 

models capable of operating at both 

IATs. 87 FR 39164, 39171. Thus, as 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR, a unit 

of CRE capable of operating at both IATs 

of 38 °F and 55 °F would only meet the 

definition of a medium-temperature 

refrigerator. Id. 

As an alternative to the definition 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

stated that it could instead define ‘‘hightemperature refrigerator’’ based only on 

the capability of a commercial 

refrigerator to operate at an IAT of 55 °F 

(±2.0 °F). 87 FR 39164, 39171. Under 

this alternate approach, a unit of CRE 

capable of operating at IATs of both 

38 °F and 55 °F would meet the 

definitions of both a mediumtemperature refrigerator and a hightemperature refrigerator. Id. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on the proposed 

definitions for ‘‘high-temperature 

refrigerator’’ and ‘‘medium-temperature 

refrigerator,’’ including whether the 

terms should be mutually exclusive or 

constructed such that equipment could 

be considered to meet both definitions. 

87 FR 39164, 39171. 

The Joint Commenters supported 

DOE’s proposed changes regarding the 

establishment of a definition and 

uniform test procedure for hightemperature refrigerators. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 31, p. 1) The Joint 

Commenters expressed support for 

DOE’s proposed definition and test 

procedure for high-temperature CRE, 

particularly basing the distinction 

between medium and high temperature 

on operating ability rather than 

intended use, as this will ensure 

consistent application of DOE’s 

definitions and test procedures. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 31, p. 2) 

NEEA commented that it supports the 

new definitions DOE proposed for hightemperature CRE, stating that these 

equipment types have unique 

applications compared to other CRE, 

and these definitions allowed 

consideration (potential standards), 

categorization (equipment classes), and 

testing of this equipment separate from 

other CRE. (NEEA, No. 39, p. 2). NEEA 

also stated its support for DOE’s 

proposal to establish test procedures for 

new and/or newly defined categories of 

CRE, and restated its recommendation 

from the 2021 CRE Test Procedure RFI 

that DOE establish test methods for new 

CRE product types, including hightemperature CRE. (NEEA, No. 39, p. 2) 

Hussmann commented that it favors 

the proposed mutually exclusive 

definitions of ‘‘high-temperature 

refrigerator’’ and ‘‘medium-temperature 

refrigerator.’’ (Hussmann, No. 32, p. 2). 

Hussmann commented in favor of rating 

only at medium temperature if the CRE 

are capable of operating at both high 

and medium temperatures. (Hussmann, 

No. 32, p. 3) In the August 2022 public 

meeting, Hussmann commented that 

there are specialty applications that run 

in between the low-temperature and 

medium-temperature rating points. 

(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 41, p. 

18) Hussmann added that a unit may 

run between 8 °F and 10 °F as the 

current LAPT for that product. Id. 

Hussmann noted that these products 

won’t run at 0 °F, and they don’t run at 

32 °F, and that is something for DOE to 

consider. Id. 

Hillphoenix agreed with the proposed 

definitions of ‘‘high-temperature 

refrigerator’’ including the IAT of 55 °F 

±2 °F, and ‘‘medium-temperature 

refrigerator’’ including the IAT of 38 °F 

±2 °F. (Hillphoenix, No. 35, p. 1). 

Hillphoenix commented that the 

proposed separate designation for 

‘‘medium-temperature refrigerator’’ is 

not needed and could introduce 

confusion, and it recommended DOE 

amend the definitions of ‘‘commercial 

freezer’’ and ‘‘commercial refrigerator’’ 

in which high- and mediumtemperature refrigerators are already 

addressed. Id. Hillphoenix suggested, as 

an alternative, that ‘‘commercial 

freezer’’ and ‘‘commercial refrigerator’’ 

could be replaced by the terms 

‘‘medium-temperature refrigerator’’ and 

‘‘low-temperature freezer.’’ Id. 

Hillphoenix also agreed with DOE that 

a single CRE unit capable of operating 

in both high- and medium-temperature 

categories should only be required to 

meet the 38 °F ±2 °F IAT. Id. 

AHRI commented that DOE should 

consider using existing product 

designations and existing labelling as 

found in ANSI/NSF 7–2019 for ‘‘hightemperature refrigerators.’’ (AHRI, No. 

38, p. 3). AHRI stated that to meet 

applicable sanitation requirements, selfcontained storage refrigerators must be 

capable of maintaining an air 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66161 

temperature of 40 °F in 100 °F ambient 

temperature (AHRI stated a presumption 

that such products should be able to 

maintain IAT of 38 °F for the DOE 

energy test). Id. AHRI commented that 

two equipment types represent 

refrigerators that meet applicable 

sanitation requirements for hightemperature applications: (1) beverage 

coolers are exempt from temperature 

test requirements if they bear a 

permanently attached label reading, 

‘‘This equipment is intended for the 

storage and display of non-potentially 

hazardous bottled or canned products 

only’’; and (2) self-contained display 

refrigerators are exempt from 

temperature performance testing if they 

bear a label reading, ‘‘This display 

refrigerator is not for the display of 

potentially hazardous foods.’’ Id. AHRI 

commented that there is no need for the 

proposed separate designation for 

‘‘medium-temperature refrigerator’’ 

since such products would already be 

covered under the current definition of 

‘‘refrigerator’’ if they do not fall under 

the proposed sub-classification of ‘‘hightemperature refrigerator.’’ Id. AHRI 

stated that this approach would be 

consistent with the proposed new 

definition of ‘‘low-temperature freezer’’ 

because a category for ‘‘mediumtemperature freezer’’ has not been 

suggested. Id. 

Continental commented that the term 

‘‘commercial refrigerator’’ should be 

retained to encompass all CRE capable 

of operating at or above 32 °F and that 

the proposed additional definition of 

‘‘medium-temperature refrigerator’’ for 

CRE at or below 38 °F down to 32 °F is 

unnecessary and may introduce 

confusion. (Continental, No. 29, p. 2) 

Continental also commented that the 

ANSI/NSF 7–2019 sanitation standard 

for commercial refrigerators and freezers 

requires that self-contained storage 

refrigerators must be tested and proven 

to maintain an air temperature of 40 °F 

in 100 °F ambient, and capable of 

maintaining product simulator IAT of 

38 °F in 75 °F ambient, as prescribed by 

ASHRAE 72–2022. Id. Continental 

stated no objection to DOE’s proposed 

definition of the term ‘‘high-temperature 

refrigerator’’ as a commercial 

refrigerator that is not capable of 

operating with an IAT as low as 38 °F 

in 75 °F ambient, but it added that DOE 

should reference existing labelling 

prescribed in ANSI/NSF 7–2019 to 

identify ‘‘high-temperature 

refrigerators’’ that meet required 

sanitation requirements but are not 

required to meet temperature testing 

requirements. Id. Continental stated its 

awareness that equipment identified 

with the current NSF labels of beverage 

cooler and self-contained display 

refrigerator would be the only 

commercial refrigerators meeting 

applicable sanitation standards without 

being required to maintain specified 

temperatures that align with product 

simulator IAT of 38 °F. Id. 

True commented that any unit unable 

to store food products at a temperature 

of 38.0 °F (±2.0 °F) is not a commercial 

refrigerator and as a result, the term 

‘‘high-temperature refrigerator’’ could be 

construed as misleading. (True, No. 28, 

p. 4) True noted that the proposed terms 

‘‘high-temperature refrigerator’’ and 

‘‘medium-temperature refrigerator’’ are 

seen in the new AHRI–1200 standard, 

which is not yet public. Id. True 

commented that commercial 

refrigerators must comply with NSF–7, 

and for a storage refrigerator, test per 

NSF–7 such that they cannot exceed 

40 °F at any point. (True, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 41, p. 15). True 

commented that the NSF–7 temperature 

ranges should be considered for the 

applicable equipment, noting that hightemperature refrigerators are not 

covered under any health and safety 

standards. Id. True further commented 

that for chocolate, wine, and flower 

storage applications, refrigerated units 

unable to meet the 38.0 °F (±2.0 °F) 

requirement should be labeled as 

‘‘commercial display refrigerators for 

non-hazardous (food) applications,’’ and 

added that True units are all capable of 

operating from 32.0 °F to 55 °F, with 

control settings changed for highertemperature applications. (True, No. 28, 

p. 4). 

In response to Hussmann’s comment, 

AHRI 1200–2023 maintains the existing 

rating points for Medium Temperature 

Applications and Low Temperature 

Applications (i.e., 38 °F ±2.0 °F for 

medium-temperature applications and 

0.0 °F ±2.0 °F for low-temperature 

applications) in section 4.1.1, 

‘‘Integrated Average Temperature.’’ 

Consistent with AHRI 1200–2023, DOE 

is not amending the mediumtemperature refrigerator or lowtemperature freezer target IATs for 

testing. To the extent that a model may 

not be able to maintain the target IATs 

for testing, the LAPT provisions would 

continue to apply, as discussed in 

section III.K of this document. 

In response to Hillphoenix’s, AHRI’s, 

Continental’s, and True’s comments, the 

definitions for ‘‘medium-temperature 

refrigerator’’ and ‘‘low-temperature 

freezer,’’ as proposed in the June 2022 

NOPR, indicate they are subsets of the 

definitions for ‘‘commercial 

refrigerator’’ and ‘‘commercial freezer,’’ 

respectively. DOE is establishing the 

separate definitions to ensure clarity of 

when certain provisions apply 

specifically to either mediumtemperature refrigerators or lowtemperature freezers rather than the 

broader categories of commercial 

refrigerators or commercial freezers. 

Consistent with the comments 

discussed in section III.A.1.b regarding 

‘‘operating temperature’’ and 

temperature tolerances, DOE is 

amending the definitions of ‘‘hightemperature refrigerator’’ and ‘‘mediumtemperature refrigerator’’ to specifically 

include the definition for ‘‘operating 

temperature’’ and to replace the 

temperature tolerances with the upper 

bound of the medium-temperature 

refrigerator IAT test condition tolerance 

which is consistent with DOE’s 

intentions of these definitions in the 

June 2022 NOPR. 

Therefore, as described, DOE is 

amending the definitions of ‘‘hightemperature refrigerator’’ and ‘‘mediumtemperature refrigerator’’ as follows: 

High-temperature refrigerator means a 

commercial refrigerator that is not 

capable of an operating temperature at 

or below 40.0 °F. 

Medium-temperature refrigerator 

means a commercial refrigerator that is 

capable of an operating temperature at 

or below 40.0 °F. 

DOE discusses test requirements for 

this equipment in section III.B.1.b of 

this document. 

3. Convertible Equipment 

In the April 2014 Final Rule, DOE 

noted that some basic models of CRE 

may have operating characteristics that 

include an operating temperature range 

that spans multiple equipment classes, 

and subsequently required that selfcontained equipment or remote 

condensing equipment with thermostats 

capable of operating at IATs that span 

multiple equipment categories be 

certified and comply with DOE’s 

regulations for each applicable 

equipment category. 79 FR 22277, 

22291. Similarly, DOE adopted 

requirements for remote condensing 

equipment without thermostats that 

specify that if a given basic model of 

CRE is marketed, designed, or intended 

to operate at IATs spanning multiple 

equipment categories, the CRE basic 

model must be certified and comply 

with the relevant energy conservation 

standards for all applicable equipment 

categories. Id. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to specify in 10 CFR 429.42 

the requirements from the April 2014 

Final Rule that require basic models of 

CRE that operate in multiple equipment 

classes to certify and comply with the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66162 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

8 79 FR 22277, 22291. 

energy conservation standards for each 

applicable equipment class. 87 FR 

39164, 39171. This proposal is 

consistent with the notice of petition for 

a test procedure waiver that DOE 

published on May 26, 2017, for AHT 

Cooling Systems GmbH and AHT 

Cooling Systems USA Inc. (‘‘AHT’’) in 

which DOE declined to grant AHT an 

interim waiver that would allow for 

testing only in the ice-cream freezer 

equipment class for AHT’s specified 

multi-mode CRE basic models. 82 FR 

24330. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on the proposal to 

specify the requirements from the April 

2014 Final Rule regarding basic models 

of CRE that operate in multiple 

equipment classes. 87 FR 39164, 39171. 

AHRI recommended that because the 

phrase ‘‘capable of operating at’’ was 

included for marketing purposes and 

not technical capability, DOE should 

consider removing that phrase as 

unnecessary in the following 2014 Final 

Rule language: ‘‘CRE with thermostats 

capable of operating at integrated 

average temperatures (‘‘IATs’’) that span 

multiple equipment categories must be 

certified and comply with DOE’s 

regulations for each applicable 

equipment category.’’ (AHRI, No. 38, p. 

4) AHRI used the same reasoning to 

further recommend that DOE remove 

the word ‘‘or’’ from the following 

language: ‘‘. . . remote condensing 

equipment without a thermostat that is 

marketed, designed, or intended to 

operate at IATs spanning multiple 

equipment categories must be certified 

and comply with the relevant energy 

conservation standards for all applicable 

equipment categories.’’ 8 Id. 

Hussmann recommended removing 

the phrase ‘‘capable of operating at’’ 

from the following 2014 Final Rule 

sentence: ‘‘CRE with thermostats 

capable of operating at integrated 

average temperatures (‘‘IATs’’) that span 

multiple equipment categories must be 

certified and comply with DOE’s 

regulations for each applicable 

equipment category.’’ (Hussmann, No. 

32, p. 2). 

AHT commented that it is overly 

burdensome to test and certify very 

efficient closed equipment in all three 

temperature classes when it is capable 

of operating in all three classes, and that 

only the most energy-consuming 

temperature class should be used for 

testing and certifying, as in Europe. 

(AHT, No. 40, p. 1) 

True commented that when designing 

a unit for multiple temperature ratings, 

the systems will not be as energy 

efficient at the higher operating 

temperature rating, compared to a 

system designed specifically for the 

higher temperature rating. (True, No. 28, 

p. 2) True stated that, in one example, 

a unit passes ENERGY STAR® 5.0 

requirements as a storage freezer (0 °F 

±2 °F) but, when tested as a storage 

refrigerator (38 °F ±2 °F), will consume 

about twice the energy of a unit 

specifically designed to operate only as 

a storage refrigerator, due mostly to the 

excess capacity of the compressor and 

refrigeration system required to operate 

the unit at the lower temperature 

application. Id. 

Hillphoenix disagreed with the 

proposal to specify the requirements 

stated in the 2014 Final Rule and 

recommended that basic models of CRE 

that operate in multiple equipment 

classes should only be required to meet 

the coldest application for a CRE 

product, which would be less 

burdensome on manufacturers. 

(Hillphoenix, No. 35, p. 2) 

In response to AHRI’s and 

Hussmann’s comments, DOE notes the 

phrase ‘‘capable of operating at’’ does 

refer to technical capability and is 

consistent with phrasing in current DOE 

definitions (e.g., commercial refrigerator 

and commercial freezer). Therefore, 

DOE is maintaining this phrase in this 

document. 

In response to AHRI’s comment, DOE 

notes that the word ‘‘or’’ is necessary for 

the construction of the sentence that 

contains the requirements for remote 

condensing equipment without a 

thermostat and is therefore maintaining 

the word ‘‘or’’ in this document. 

In response to AHT’s, True’s, and 

Hillphoenix’s comments, DOE notes 

that the definitions discussed in 

sections III.A.1 and III.A.2 would only 

require CRE including an operating 

temperature range that spans multiple 

equipment classes to certify in a 

maximum of two equipment classes 

(i.e., ice-cream freezer and mediumtemperature refrigerator, ice-cream 

freezer and high-temperature 

refrigerator, low-temperature freezer and 

medium-temperature refrigerator, or 

low-temperature freezer and hightemperature refrigerator). Testing to the 

coldest applicable temperature would 

be expected to result in the highest 

energy consumption, but does not 

necessarily ensure that a model would 

meet the energy conservation standards 

for multiple applicable equipment 

classes at different operating 

temperatures. 

As proposed in the June 2022 NOPR, 

DOE is specifying in 10 CFR 429.42 the 

requirements from the April 2014 Final 

Rule that basic models of CRE that 

operate in multiple equipment classes 

must be certified and comply with the 

energy conservation standards for each 

applicable equipment class. 

B. Updates to Industry Standards 

DOE’s test procedure for CRE 

currently adopts through reference 

certain provisions of AHRI 1200–2010, 

ASHRAE 72–2005, and AHAM HRF–1– 

2008. 10 CFR 431.63. With regard to the 

provisions relevant to the DOE test 

procedure, AHRI 1200–2010 references 

certain provisions of ASHRAE 72–2005 

and AHAM HRF–1–2008. 

Since establishing the DOE test 

procedure in appendix B, AHRI, 

ASHRAE, and AHAM have published 

updated versions of the referenced test 

standards. On October 1, 2013, ANSI 

approved an updated version of AHRI 

1200, ANSI/AHRI Standard 1200 (I–P), 

‘‘2013 Standard for Performance Rating 

of Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets’’ 

(‘‘AHRI 1200–2013’’). On April 12, 

2023, AHRI issued an updated version 

of AHRI 1200 (‘‘AHRI 1200–2023’’). On 

August 1, 2018, ANSI approved an 

updated version of ASHRAE 72, ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 72–2018, ‘‘Method of 

Testing Open and Closed Commercial 

Refrigerators and Freezers’’ (‘‘ASHRAE 

72–2018’’). On June 30, 2022, ANSI 

approved an updated version of 

ASHRAE 72, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

72–2022, ‘‘Method of Testing Open and 

Closed Commercial Refrigerators and 

Freezers’’ (‘‘ASHRAE 72–2022’’). On 

November 11, 2022, Errata Sheet for 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72–2022, 

‘‘Method of Testing Open and Closed 

Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers’’ 

was published (‘‘ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Errata’’). AHAM more recently approved 

and published an updated version of its 

industry test standard, AHAM HRF–1– 

2019, ‘‘Energy and Internal Volume of 

Refrigerating Appliances’’ (‘‘AHAM 

HRF–1–2019’’). DOE initially 

determined in the June 2022 NOPR that 

the changes within AHRI 1200–2013, 

ASHRAE 72–2018, and AHAM HRF–1– 

2019 are editorial, improve clarity, 

better harmonize with the DOE test 

procedure, or not relevant to CRE (e.g., 

relevant to products such as consumer 

refrigerators). 87 FR 39164, 39171. 

Based on DOE’s assessment, the changes 

in the latest versions of the industry test 

standards, AHRI 1200–2023 and 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata, will not 

impact the measured energy 

consumption, volume, or TDA of CRE, 

as applicable. 

DOE discusses AHRI 1200–2023 and 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata in 

sections III.B.1 and III.B.2 of this 

document. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66163 

In response to the June 2022 NOPR, 

AHRI, Zero Zone, and NAFEM 

recommended that DOE use the 

referenced standards as intended. 

(AHRI, No. 38, p. 1; Zero Zone, No. 37, 

p. 1; NAFEM, No. 34, p. 1) AHRI 

cautioned DOE that combining test 

standards was unnecessary and 

inadvisable, and recommended that 

DOE regulate the issues in the test 

procedure under a singular standard. Id. 

AHRI stated concern that the data set 

used here did not provide clarity as to 

whether the testing is indicative of 

energy efficiency. Id. AHRI 

recommended that DOE wait to update 

certain regulations until clearer test 

standards had been determined through 

consensus by manufacturers and third 

parties. Id. AHRI also noted that 

ENERGY STAR was not ready to employ 

certain referenced standards, raising 

concerns that DOE was prematurely 

adopting these requirements. Id. 

Zero Zone recommended that DOE 

wait for the updated standard whenever 

possible and that under current rules, 

DOE has been able to call out a standard 

that was nearly revised (ASHRAE 72 

and AHRI 1200). (Zero Zone, No. 37, p. 

1). Zero Zone commented that possibly 

DOE could follow this process for other 

standards as well, and that when this 

was not possible, Zero Zone asked DOE 

to request that standards development 

groups immediately focus on areas of 

DOE concern to allow for industry input 

and consensus building and allow DOE 

to have improve information in the 

standard. Id. 

NAMA recommended that DOE use 

the referenced standards as intended 

and cautioned DOE that combining test 

standards was unnecessary and 

inadvisable and recommended that DOE 

regulate the issues in the test procedure 

under a singular standard. (NAFEM, No. 

34, p. 2) NAMA stated concern that the 

test procedures mentioned in many of 

these items did not clarify which 

standard was to be used for which 

measurement. Id. NAMA commented 

that referencing multiple standards 

could be a problem when one standard 

was updated before the other, and, in 

general, NAMA recommended that 

referencing one standard would be 

preferred unless DOE specified which 

sections in the standards were being 

required. Id. NAMA commented that 

many sections in the ASTM, ASHRAE, 

and AHRI standards were written to 

measure the performance of the product, 

not just the energy measurement and 

DOE therefore needed to identify the 

standards sections carefully so as to not 

move DOE into writing performance test 

methods. Id. NAMA commented it 

would be willing to support such 

activities in joint discussions on the 

sections to ensure that the measurement 

of energy for NAMA-covered products 

was accurate. Id. 

Hussmann commented that 

combining test standards was not a 

typical practice and recommended that 

DOE regulate the issues in the CRE TP 

NOPR under a single, universally 

accepted established standard. 

(Hussmann, No. 32, p. 1). Hussmann 

expressed concern that the data 

acquired during a hybrid standard 

approach would not yield representative 

results of intended product use by 

already established means throughout 

the industry. Id. Hussmann 

recommended that DOE work with the 

appropriate standards committees to 

update regulations until the standards 

have been established, determined to 

yield consistent results, and are 

representative of typical manufactured 

products. Id. 

True commented that it uses NSF/ 

ANSI 7–2021 as the performance 

standard for commercial food service 

equipment, in addition to UL 471 

(‘‘Standard for Commercial Refrigerators 

and Freezers,’’ soon to be replaced by 

UL CSA 60335–2–89, by October 2024), 

and ASHRAE 72–2005 for energy 

consumption reporting to DOE, Natural 

Resources Canada (‘‘NRCAN’’), CEC, 

and ENERGY STAR. (True, No. 28, p. 1) 

True listed four current NSF 7 

performance tests that must be complied 

with to certify that its equipment meets 

the NSF 7 food safety requirements for 

temperature testing (performance), 

construction, and materials used. Id. 

True commented that AHRI–1200 is not 

considered to be the standard used for 

all commercial refrigeration, and that 

AHRI standards and guidelines do not 

address food safety temperatures or food 

sanitation concerns and requirements, 

making AHRI standards and guidelines 

inappropriate for commercial food 

service refrigeration equipment. Id. 

DOE has evaluated existing industry 

standards, and where applicable, is 

incorporating by reference the industry 

standard into the relevant appendix. 

DOE considers incorporating by 

reference an industry standard as a 

standalone reference whenever possible. 

DOE has identified certain areas in 

which provisions of industry standards 

require additional specifications or are 

inconsistent with the existing regulatory 

test method. To clarify the applicability 

of provisions from standards that are 

incorporated by reference, DOE 

occasionally may need to supplement 

an industry standard with additional 

clarifications. For CRE, instead of 

duplicating requirements necessary to 

improve clarify of the test procedure 

into the regulatory text, DOE is referring 

to provisions in other industry 

standards that provide the necessary 

clarifications. This leads to DOE 

referencing specific provisions from 

multiple different industry standards. 

DOE specifically refers to individual 

sections of industry standards as 

appropriate to ensure only relevant 

provisions are incorporated in the 

regulatory test method such that the test 

method is not unduly burdensome to 

conduct and is reasonably designed to 

produce test results that reflect energy 

use during a representative average use 

cycle. 

DOE recognizes the value of industry 

standards setting processes and 

regularly participates in committees that 

develop and review industry standards. 

DOE has statutory timelines for test 

procedure rulemakings that require DOE 

to determine whether amendments to 

test procedures are necessary to carry 

out the requirements of EPCA at least 

once every 7 years. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(1)) DOE has evaluated industry 

standards applicable to CRE that are 

both available now and under 

development as it conducts the 

rulemaking activity to consider whether 

the CRE test method requires 

amendment. DOE will continue to 

participate in industry committees and 

will consider future industry standards 

in future test procedure rulemakings. 

DOE and EPA coordinate their 

product and equipment efficiency 

programs to harmonize test 

requirements when possible and 

appropriate. While EPA did not adopt 

test methods for additional categories of 

CRE during its last revision of the 

ENERGY STAR specification, DOE has 

evaluated test procedures for these 

categories and determined that the 

procedures adopted in this rule produce 

test results which reflect energy use 

during a representative average use 

cycle, and are not unduly burdensome 

to conduct. To the extent that EPA 

revises its specification to include these 

new categories of CRE into the ENERGY 

STAR program, DOE will coordinate 

with EPA to harmonize requirements 

when appropriate. 

In response to True’s comment, DOE 

has evaluated existing industry test 

procedures for the use as the basis of the 

DOE test procedure for energy 

consumption. DOE recognizes that the 

industry test procedures serve different 

purposes, including for food safety. DOE 

discusses the individual industry test 

procedures considered and incorporated 

by reference in the following subsections, section III.C, and section III.D 

of this document. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66164 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

9Section 3.1 of Appendix B to Subpart C of 10 

CFR part 431. 

10Section 2.3 of Appendix B to Subpart C of 10 

CFR part 431. 

11Section 2.3 of Appendix B to Subpart C of 10 

CFR part 431. 

1. AHRI 1200 

The revisions included in AHRI 

1200–2023 are largely to provide 

editorial, clarifying, or harmonizing 

updates that will not impact the 

measured energy consumption, volume, 

or TDA of CRE as compared to the 

current test procedure. Specifically, 

AHRI 1200–2023 includes the following 

updates: definitions intended to 

harmonize with ASHRAE 72–2022 and 

DOE’s existing regulations; updated 

definitions for consistency with the use 

of the rating standard; removal of test 

requirements that were duplicative with 

ASHRAE 72–2022; clarified 

measurement requirements and the use 

of calculations; inclusion of direct 

refrigerated volume measurement 

instructions (rather than referencing the 

AHAM test standard); and detailed total 

display area requirements and 

examples. 

DOE proposed in the June 2022 NOPR 

to incorporate by reference AHRI 1200– 

202X for use in the DOE test procedure 

because DOE tentatively determined 

that the updates compared to AHRI 

1200–2013 would improve the clarity of 

the test standard, ensure consistent 

testing, and as a result would improve 

reproducibility of the test procedure. 87 

FR 39164, 39172. AHRI 1200–202X 

includes procedures for measuring 

refrigerated volume rather than referring 

to the AHAM standard (although the 

procedures are consistent between these 

standards). Id. Therefore, DOE proposed 

in the NOPR to remove the 

incorporation by reference of AHAM 

HRF–1–2008 and instead refer to AHRI 

1200–202X directly for refrigerated 

volume measurement. Id. Based on 

DOE’s review of AHRI 1200–2023, the 

updates included in the standard are 

primarily editorial and are not expected 

to change test results as compared to the 

existing test procedure, except for the 

specific updates as discussed in the 

following paragraphs. Therefore, DOE 

has determined in this document that 

any existing test data for CRE currently 

available on the market is expected to be 

consistent with the amended test 

procedure. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on the proposal to 

incorporate by reference AHRI 1200– 

202X and whether the use of the 

updated test method would impact CRE 

ratings based on the current DOE test 

procedure. 87 FR 39164, 39173. 

AHRI commented that it supports 

DOE’s proposal to incorporate by 

reference AHRI 1200–202X, noting that 

select AHRI members consistently test 

and rate remote condensing CRE using 

high-glide refrigerants. (AHRI, No. 38, p. 

4) AHRI commented that refrigerants 

407, 448A, and 449A are considered 

‘‘high glide’’ under the new definition 

in AHRI 1200–202X and that the 

updated test method is the most 

accurate way to determine the rated 

energy consumption, resulting in 

similar rated numbers to previous nonhigh-glide refrigerants like R–404A. Id. 

AHRI further noted that the current 

AHRI 1200–202X standard does not 

include testing requirements for CO2

(i.e., R–744), so this refrigerant would 

require DOE waivers for future use. Id. 

Continental supported DOE’s 

proposal to incorporate by reference the 

most recent versions of applicable 

industry standards, including AHRI 

1200–202X. (Continental, No. 29, p. 3) 

Continental added that use of the latest 

standards should not be required until 

the compliance date of any new energy 

conservation standards established, 

based on the proposed rating standards, 

to allow time for stakeholders to 

thoroughly evaluate any impact on 

energy consumption. Id. 

Hillphoenix commented that it agreed 

with the proposal to incorporate AHRI 

1200–202X by reference, as no 

significant impacts to CRE ratings could 

be foreseen. (Hillphoenix, No. 35, p. 2) 

Hussmann commented that it favors 

the proposal to incorporate by reference 

AHRI 1200–202X. (Hussmann, No. 32, 

p. 2) 

True commented that it opposes 

removing the AHAM HRF–1–2008 

standard and referencing AHRI 1200– 

202X in future DOE test procedures, as 

revisions to AHRI 1200 are in draft form 

and have not been publicly reviewed. 

(True, No. 28, p. 5). True recommended 

that the NSF/ANSI–2021 standard be 

added to this list because AHRI 1200 

only references self-contained 

commercial refrigeration sporadically 

and does not specifically address the 

issues of self-contained refrigeration. Id. 

In the August 2022 public meeting, True 

commented that AHRI–1200 does not 

apply to all commercial refrigeration but 

does apply to display refrigeration. 

(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 41, p. 

16) True added that it believes DOE is 

bringing in two different standards used 

in two different applications, 

additionally stating that AHRI–1200 

does not address any food health/safety 

issues. Id. Hussmann agreed with True’s 

comment, and added that it thinks DOE 

needs to make a distinction and 

understand that AHRI–1200 is typically 

a rating point and does not necessarily 

align with NSF 7. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 41, p. 17) 

AHRI 1200–2023 had two public 

review periods prior to publication. 

DOE has reviewed the updates to AHRI 

1200–2023 and determined that the 

updates will not impact the measured 

volume of CRE as compared to the 

existing DOE test procedure (which 

currently references HRF–1–2008 9). 

DOE acknowledges that NSF 7 is a 

performance standard applicable to 

multiple CRE categories; however this 

standard addresses food safety and 

sanitation performance. DOE test 

procedures must produce test results 

which reflect energy use during a 

representative average use cycle, and 

not be unduly burdensome to conduct 

as required by EPCA. DOE has evaluated 

NSF 7, other available industry test 

standards, and industry standards under 

development when considering test 

procedures for these equipment 

categories as discussed in this 

document. DOE also notes that the 

current 10 and amended 11 test 

procedures allow for optional testing at 

NSF test conditions for commercial 

refrigeration equipment that are also 

tested in accordance with NSF test 

procedures (Type I and Type II) (i.e., 

integrated average temperatures and 

ambient conditions used for NSF testing 

may be used in place of the DOEprescribed integrated average 

temperatures and ambient conditions 

provided they result in a more stringent 

test). 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

proposed alternate refrigerant 

conditions to be used for testing remote 

CRE with CO2 refrigerant. 87 FR 39164, 

39210. See section III.G of this 

document for a discussion of remote 

CRE with CO2 refrigerant (i.e., R–744). 

Based on the June 2022 NOPR and 

comments received in response, DOE is 

finalizing its proposal to incorporate by 

reference AHRI 1200–2023. 

In addition to the clarifying revisions 

that would not substantively change 

testing as compared to the current 

approach using the DOE test procedure 

and AHRI 1200–2010, AHRI 1200–2023 

also includes two substantive additions: 

addressing the use of high glide 

refrigerants and providing an additional 

temperature rating point for ‘‘hightemperature’’ applications. DOE 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR to 

adopt these provisions in its test 

procedure, as discussed in the following 

sections. 87 FR 39164, 39172. 

Additionally, DOE identified updates in 

AHRI 1200–2023 as compared to AHRI 

1200–202X discussed in the following 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66165 

12See ASHRAE’s glossary of defined terms at 

xp20.ashrae.org/terminology/. 

sections regarding chef bases, certain 

definitions, and night curtains. 

a. High Glide Refrigerants 

For remote condensing CRE, AHRI 

1200 provides calculations to estimate 

the compressor energy consumption 

necessary to provide the cooling to the 

refrigerator or freezer. These 

calculations are based on the dew point 

of the refrigerant during testing, which 

is intended to be representative of the 

evaporator temperature. See Table 1 and 

section 5.2.1 of AHRI 1200–2013 and 

Table 1 and section 5.1.2 of AHRI 1200– 

2023. 

For certain refrigerants, the saturated 

vapor temperature (i.e., the dew point) 

can be different from the saturated 

liquid temperature at a given pressure, 

in which case the refrigerant is 

considered to have ‘‘glide.’’ AHRI 1200– 

2023 includes a definition for ‘‘high 

glide refrigerant’’ as a zeotropic 

refrigerant blend whose temperature 

glide is greater than 2 °F. ASHRAE 

defines ‘‘glide’’ as the absolute value of 

the difference between the starting and 

ending temperatures of a phase-change 

process by a refrigerant within a 

component of a refrigerating system, 

exclusive of any subcooling or 

superheating. This term usually 

describes condensation or evaporation 

of a zeotrope.12

For high glide refrigerants, the 

refrigerant dew point is not necessarily 

representative of the overall evaporator 

temperature. AHRI 1200–2023 specifies 

that for high glide refrigerants, the 

temperature used to calculate 

compressor energy consumption is 

based on an adjusted mid-point 

evaporator temperature rather than an 

adjusted dew point temperature. 

Because the evaporator provides 

cooling to the CRE over the entire heat 

exchanger surface, using the evaporator 

mid-point temperature would ensure 

that the temperature used to calculate 

compressor energy consumption is more 

representative of the overall evaporator 

temperature. DOE determined in the 

June 2022 NOPR that the AHRI 1200– 

202X approach of using the evaporator 

mid-point temperature rather than 

refrigerant dew point is more 

representative of actual remote 

condensing CRE use for which the 

equipment uses high glide refrigerants 

and would improve consistency of 

remote testing using different 

refrigerants. 87 FR 39164, 29172. 

Additionally, this approach would 

improve consistency when testing a 

given remote condensing CRE model 

with either high glide or low glide 

refrigerants by ensuring that the 

evaporator mid-point temperature for a 

high glide refrigerant is similar to the 

refrigerant dew point for a low glide 

refrigerant. 

DOE proposed in the June 2022 NOPR 

to adopt through reference the high 

glide refrigerant provisions of AHRI 

1200–202X. 87 FR 39164, 29173. 

Because the existing DOE test 

procedure, by reference to AHRI 1200– 

2013, only references adjusted dew 

point for calculating compressor energy 

consumption, this proposed amendment 

would yield different results for remote 

condensing CRE models tested with a 

high glide refrigerant. However, DOE 

expects that current remote condensing 

CRE models are typically tested and 

rated using low glide refrigerants (most 

commonly R–404A); therefore, DOE 

tentatively determined in the NOPR that 

this proposed test procedure 

amendment is not expected to result in 

changes to rated energy consumption for 

any currently available remote CRE 

models. 87 FR 39164, 29173. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on the proposal to 

incorporate by reference AHRI 1200– 

202X, including the new provisions 

regarding high glide refrigerants. Id. 

DOE also requests information on 

whether any remote condensing CRE are 

currently tested and rated using high 

glide refrigerants and whether the 

proposed test procedure would impact 

the rated energy consumption for such 

models. Id. 

Hussmann commented that it favors 

the proposal to incorporate by reference 

AHRI 1200–202X, including the new 

provisions regarding high glide 

refrigerants. (Hussmann, No. 32, p. 3) 

Hillphoenix stated its agreement with 

the proposal to incorporate AHRI 1200– 

202X by reference, including the 

provisions for high glide refrigerants 

such as 407, 448A, and 449A, as no 

significant impacts to CRE ratings could 

be foreseen if incorporated. 

(Hillphoenix, No. 35, p. 2) 

True commented that the proposed 

use of AHRI 1200–202X referencing 

high-glide refrigerants indicated a bias 

toward remote refrigeration 

manufacturers. (True, No. 28, p. 5) True 

commented that there are small 

numbers of self-contained refrigerators 

using high-glide (synthetic) refrigerants, 

and that in fact the self-contained 

industry is a high adopter of 

hydrocarbon refrigerants. Id. 

In this rule, DOE is incorporating by 

reference AHRI 1200–2023. AHRI 1200 

includes a definition for ‘‘high glide 

refrigerants’’ and specifies that for high 

glide refrigerants, the temperature used 

to calculate compressor energy 

consumption is based on an adjusted 

mid-point evaporator temperature rather 

than an adjusted dew point temperature. 

DOE notes that this provision addresses 

the fact that AHRI 1200–2013 results in 

high-glide refrigerants having an energy 

penalty relative to no-glide refrigerants. 

The update to AHRI 1200–2023 

provides a more representative test 

method of remote condensing CRE and 

improves consistency when testing a 

given remote condensing CRE model. 

AHRI 1200–2023 includes parallel 

provisions for remote and self-contained 

refrigerators to ensure there is no bias 

towards remote-condensing units. Selfcontained CRE are tested based on the 

refrigerant and refrigeration system 

contained within the unit and no 

refrigerant measurements are necessary. 

Therefore, the test procedure directly 

accounts for the energy impacts of 

refrigerants used in self-contained CRE. 

b. High-Temperature Applications 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

proposed a definition for ‘‘hightemperature refrigerators’’. 87 FR 39164, 

39173. As discussed in section III.A.2 of 

this final rule, DOE is establishing an 

amended definition of ‘‘hightemperature refrigerator’’ from the June 

2022 NOPR. 

Section 4.1.1.1 of AHRI 1200–2023 

specifies that CRE intended for hightemperature applications shall have an 

integrated average temperature of 55 °F 

±2.0 °F. DOE requires testing hightemperature consumer refrigeration 

products (i.e., ‘‘coolers’’) at a 

standardized cabinet temperature of 

55 °F. 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendix A. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to require testing hightemperature refrigerators according to 

AHRI 1200–202X, which requires an 

integrated average temperature of 55 °F 

±2.0 °F. 87 FR 39164, 39173–39174. 

High-temperature refrigerators are 

used in many distinct applications, each 

with specific intended storage 

conditions. However, DOE determined 

in the June 2022 NOPR that the IAT 

specified in AHRI 1200–202X is the 

most representative of high-temperature 

refrigerator operating conditions, 

because the high-temperature 

refrigerators that DOE identified have 

operating temperature ranges which 

include 55 °F, and allows for consistent 

measurements of energy use for 

equipment in this category. 87 FR 

39164, 39174. 

In referencing AHRI 1200–2023, the 

DOE test procedure would also require 

that high-temperature refrigerators be 

tested according to the same procedure 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66166 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

13For display cases sold with Night Curtains 

installed, the Night Curtain shall be employed for 

as other CRE, except for the IAT. DOE 

tentatively determined in the June 2022 

NOPR that the door opening and 

loading procedures in ASHRAE 72– 

2018R are appropriate for hightemperature refrigerators. Following the 

proposed test approach would also 

ensure consistent test methods across 

CRE categories, albeit at different IATs. 

87 FR 39164, 39174. 

Because the proposed test procedure 

for high-temperature refrigerators would 

amend the current test approach for 

certain commercial refrigerators (i.e., 

those currently rated using the LAPT), 

DOE proposed in the June 2022 NOPR 

that the high-temperature refrigerator 

provisions in AHRI 1200–202X would 

not be required for use until the 

compliance date of any energy 

conservation standards established for 

high-temperature refrigerators based on 

the proposed test procedure. Id. Under 

this approach, CRE that would be 

defined as high-temperature 

refrigerators would continue to be tested 

and rated at the LAPT and subject to the 

current DOE energy conservation 

standards for CRE. Id. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on the proposal to 

adopt a rating point of 55 °F ±2.0 °F for 

high-temperature refrigerators by 

adopting through reference certain 

provisions of AHRI 1200–202X. 87 FR 

39164, 39172. 

AHRI commented that the 55 °F 

(±2 °F) rating point aligns with AHRI 

standard 1200–202X and supported 

adopting the proposed rating point for 

high-temperature refrigerators. (AHRI, 

No. 38, p. 4) 

Hussmann commented in favor of the 

proposal to adopt a rating point of 55 °F 

±2.0 °F for high-temperature 

refrigerators. (Hussmann, No. 32, p. 3) 

Hillphoenix commented that it agreed 

with the proposal to adopt the rating 

point temperature of 55 °F ±2 °F for the 

proposed new category of hightemperature refrigerators through 

reference of AHRI 1200–202X. 

(Hillphoenix, No. 35, p. 2) Hillphoenix 

requested confirmation that the LAPT 

provisions will remain to cover rare 

occurrences driven by customer 

expectations, which could suggest a 

design that is outside the requirements 

of each category. Id. 

Continental commented it had no 

objection to DOE’s proposed 55 °F ±2 °F 

rating temperature for ‘‘hightemperature’’ refrigerators that cannot 

maintain 38 °F. (Continental, No. 29, p. 

3) Continental added that DOE should 

consider referencing existing NSF 

labeling requirements for equipment 

that is intended for ‘‘non-potentially 

hazardous bottled or canned products 

only’’ and ‘‘not for the display of 

potentially hazardous foods,’’ as this 

would identify equipment that meets 

required sanitation requirements in the 

proposed ‘‘high-temperature’’ range. Id. 

In addition, Continental agreed with 

DOE that the high-temperature 

refrigerator provisions in AHRI 1200– 

202X should not be required until the 

compliance date of any energy 

conservation standards established for 

these product types, based on the 

proposed test procedure. Id. 

For the reasons discussed in the June 

2022 NOPR, DOE is adopting the hightemperature refrigerator test provisions 

in AHRI 1200–2023. Because these 

provisions would impact the measured 

energy use for certain CRE currently 

subject to the test procedure and energy 

conservation standard, DOE is 

specifying that the high-temperature 

refrigerator testing would not be 

required for use until the compliance 

date of any energy conservation 

standards established for hightemperature refrigerators based on the 

amended test procedure. 

As discussed in section III.K of this 

document, DOE is retaining the LAPT 

definition with modifications. 

As discussed in section III.A.2 of this 

document, DOE is establishing a 

definition for high-temperature 

refrigerator that is based on the 

operating temperature of the equipment. 

Identifying equipment that meets NSF 7 

sanitation requirements is not within 

the scope of the DOE CRE test 

procedure. Therefore, DOE has not 

included reference to equipment 

labeling in the definition or test 

requirements for high-temperature 

refrigerators. 

c. Chef Bases 

Section 2 of AHRI 1200–202X and 

AHRI 1200–2023 covers the scope of the 

standard. AHRI 1200–202X listed 

certain exclusions from scope (i.e., 

refrigerated vending machines, ice 

makers, soft serve extruders, and 

secondary coolant applications). AHRI 

1200–2023 added certain additional 

exclusions that were not excluded in 

previous versions of the standard, 

including AHRI 1200–202X (i.e., chef 

bases, buffet tables, preparation tables, 

walk-in coolers, and blast chillers and 

freezers). DOE notes that none of these 

excluded categories are defined in AHRI 

1200–2023. 

DOE has not observed any changes 

from AHRI 1200–202X to AHRI 1200– 

2023 that would affect the ability to test 

chef bases and griddle stands in 

accordance with the standard. Current 

representations of chef bases and 

griddle stands are required to be based 

on the current DOE test procedure at 

Appendix B, which references AHRI 

Standard 1200–2010 and ASHRAE 72– 

2005, neither of which excludes chef 

bases or griddle stands. ASHRAE 72– 

2022 with Errata similarly does not 

exclude chef bases or griddle stands 

(section 2 ‘‘Scope’’ states that this 

standard does not apply to walk-in 

coolers, or refrigerators and freezers 

where the refrigerated air is in 

communication with walk-in coolers). 

In the April 2014 Final Rule, DOE 

determined that, for chef bases and 

griddle stands, the refrigeration system 

and design of this equipment is not 

significantly different from other types 

of commercial refrigeration equipment, 

and DOE believes that the existing DOE 

test procedure is sufficiently 

representative of field use, and 

application of the existing energy 

conservation standard appropriate for 

this equipment. 79 FR 22277, 22282. 

Therefore, DOE is maintaining the 

reference to AHRI 1200 for chef bases 

and griddle stands and updating the 

reference to AHRI 1200–2023 consistent 

with other CRE that are in scope of 

appendix B. See section III.C.4 for 

further discussion of chef bases and 

griddle stands. 

d. Definitions 

AHRI 1200–2023 updated several of 

its definitions as compared to AHRI 

1200–202X (e.g., High Temperature 

Applications was updated from 

‘‘Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets 

intended for High Temperature 

Applications, shall have an Integrated 

Average Temperature of 55 °F ±2.0 °F’’ 

to ‘‘An application where the Integrated 

Average Temperature is at, or above, 

45 °F’’). As proposed in the June 2022 

NOPR, 10 CFR 431.62 would include 

some similar terms as the definitions in 

AHRI 1200–202X. Based on the updated 

definitions in AHRI 1200–2023 as 

compared to AHRI 1200–202X and to 

avoid potential confusion regarding 

multiple definitions of similar terms, 

DOE is clarifying in 10 CFR 431.62 that 

where definitions in AHRI 1200–2023 

conflict with those in DOE’s regulations, 

the DOE definitions take precedence. 

e. Night Curtains 

AHRI 1200–202X contained a 

definition of ‘‘night curtain’’ (a device 

which is temporarily deployed to 

decrease air exchange and heat transfer 

between the refrigerated case and the 

surrounding environment) and certain 

test requirements for ‘‘night curtains’’.13


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66167 

6 hours; beginning 3 hours after the start of the test 

period. Upon the completion of the 6-hour period, 

the Night Curtain shall be raised until the 

completion of the 24-hour test period. 

14For display cases sold with night curtains 

installed, the night curtain shall be employed for 6 

hours; beginning 3 hours after the start of the first 

defrost period. Upon the completion of the 6-hour 

period, the night curtain shall be raised until the 

completion of the 24-hour test period. 

Night curtains are currently required 

in section 1.3.10 of appendix B of the 

DOE test procedure.14 Therefore, DOE is 

maintaining the requirements for night 

curtains that were contained in AHRI 

1200–202X as proposed in the June 

2022 NOPR. 

2. ASHRAE 72 

As stated in the June 2022 NOPR, the 

2014 and 2018 revisions to ASHRAE 72 

provide editorial, clarifying, or 

harmonizing revisions that would not 

impact the measured energy 

consumption, volume, or TDA of CRE as 

compared to the existing DOE test 

procedure. 86 FR 31182, 31184. 

The revisions in ASHRAE 72–2022 

with Errata, as compared to the most 

recent 2018 version, include substantial 

reorganization largely to improve clarity 

of the test standard. Specifically, the 

foreword to ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Errata states that the revision 

reorganizes the standard to make it 

easier to read and use; includes updates 

in the loading of test simulators and 

filler material; revises the sequence of 

operations during the test; provides 

instructions for certain measurements; 

and adds provisions for roll-in racks. 

The following paragraphs describe these 

revisions in more detail. 

The reorganization of the test 

standard in ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Errata is not expected to substantively 

change any test requirements as 

compared to the current test procedure. 

DOE acknowledges that the intent of the 

reorganization is to more closely align 

the test standard with the order of 

operations a test facility would follow 

when conducting testing. 

The updates to the loading of test 

simulators (small packages with 

temperature-measuring devices) and 

filler material (material loaded between 

test simulators for additional product 

mass, intended to approximate food 

product loading) in ASHRAE 72–2022 

with Errata revise certain requirements 

included in ASHRAE 72–2005. These 

updates change certain instructions 

regarding loading, but DOE tentatively 

determined in the June 2022 NOPR that 

these updates are either clarifying in 

nature or more closely align ASHRAE 

72 with the capability of test facilities to 

conduct testing. 87 FR 39164, 39174. 

Specifically, ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Errata would improve the clarity of the 

simulator loading location instructions, 

more clearly define net usable volume 

(i.e., interior volume intended for 

refrigerated storage or display within 

the outermost manufacturer-specified 

load limit boundaries) to determine the 

loaded volume, and adjust the fill 

volume from 70 to 90 percent of the net 

usable volume to 60 to 80 percent. See 

section 5.4.8 of ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Errata. 

DOE tentatively acknowledged in the 

NOPR that, in principle, the update to 

the fill volume requirement would be a 

substantive change to the current DOE 

test procedure. 87 FR 39164, 39174. 

However, DOE has determined that 

ASHRAE implemented this revision 

because test facilities currently may 

have difficulty loading to more than 80 

percent of the net usable volume. Based 

on this difficulty, DOE expects that most 

tests are currently conducted with loads 

between 70 to 80 percent of the net 

usable volume. Additionally, the 

revision to allow loading as low as 60 

percent of net usable volume would 

allow additional flexibility for test 

facilities when loading equipment for 

testing, and any impact on measured 

energy use is expected to be minimal. 

DOE also expects that if testing with a 

lower load percentage has any impact 

on measured energy use, it is likely to 

increase measured energy use, as CRE 

with doors would have more internal 

compartment volume occupied by air 

rather than the test load, allowing for 

more internal air to exchange with 

warm ambient air during the test 

procedure’s door opening period. 

Therefore, DOE tentatively determined 

in the NOPR that this proposed 

amendment to the test procedure would 

not allow any CRE that does not 

currently comply with DOE’s energy 

conservation standards to become 

compliant. 87 FR 39164, 39174. 

Section 7.1 of ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Errata specifies the sequence of 

operations for conducting a test. The 

overall sequence requires conducting 

two tests, Test A and Test B, to verify 

stability of the unit under test. Both Test 

A and Test B would be conducted in the 

same way—starting with a defrost and 

with door or drawer openings, night 

curtains, and lighting occupancy 

sensors and controls, as applicable—as 

specified in section 7.3 of ASHRAE 72– 

2022 with Errata. The test is determined 

to be stable if the average temperature 

of simulators during Test B is within 

0.4 °F of the average measured 

temperature during Test A. See section 

7.5 of ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata. As 

compared to the current DOE test 

procedure and ASHRAE 72–2005, 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata specifies 

how to determine that a test is stable. 

ASHRAE 72–2005 currently requires 

steady-state conditions for the test 

(section 7.1.1) and a stabilization period 

during which the CRE operates with no 

adjustment to controls for at least 12 

hours (section 7.4). Section 3 of 

ASHRAE 72–2005 defines ‘‘steadystate’’ as the condition in which the 

average temperature of all test 

simulators changes less than 0.4 °F from 

one 24-hour period or refrigeration cycle 

to the next. ASHRAE 72–2005 does not 

specify whether the 24-hour periods 

used to determine steady-state 

conditions include door openings, 

which are required to be performed 

during the 24-hour performance test. 

Additionally, the temperatures 

maintained over a 24-hour period with 

door openings may differ from a 24-hour 

period with no door openings. If steadystate is determined without door 

openings, then door openings during a 

test may increase simulator 

temperatures outside of the desired 

range, requiring a change to the 

temperature setting and restarting the 

steady-state determination prior to 

another test period. 

The testing approach in ASHRAE 72– 

2022 with Errata specifies that Test A 

and Test B are conducted in the same 

way, and therefore the temperatures 

used to determine stability would also 

be at the target temperatures for the test. 

DOE determined in the June 2022 NOPR 

that this approach provides clarity to 

the existing test procedure while 

limiting burden by reducing the need 

for retests (i.e., by maintaining target 

temperatures during the stability 

determination). 87 FR 39164, 39175. 

Because the sequence of operations in 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata is 

generally consistent with ASHRAE 72– 

2005 but with added specificity, DOE 

does not expect that the updated 

sequence of operations would impact 

current CRE ratings based on the current 

DOE test procedure. 

Moreover, ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Errata explicitly specifies test 

conditions and data collection 

requirements in a new appendix A: 

‘‘Measurement Locations, Tolerances, 

Accuracies, and Other Characteristics.’’ 

This appendix includes a table that 

presents the measurements required 

during testing, the measurement 

location (if applicable), the period of 

time the measurement is taken (e.g., 

once per minute throughout Test A and 

Test B, once before Test B, and once 

after Test B), the required measurement 

accuracy, and the required value (i.e., 

the test condition, if applicable). The 

measurement instructions and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66168 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements in appendix A to ASHRAE 

72–2022 with Errata are generally 

consistent with those required by the 

current DOE test procedure, by 

reference to ASHRAE 72–2005, but with 

added specificity to clarify the 

applicable requirements. Because the 

measurement instructions in ASHRAE 

72–2022 with Errata are generally 

consistent with ASHRAE 72–2005 but 

with added specificity, DOE does not 

expect that the updated requirements in 

appendix A would impact current CRE 

ratings based on the current DOE test 

procedure. 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata also 

adds provisions for testing CRE used 

with roll-in racks. Sections 5.4.1 and 

5.4.5 of ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata 

provide loading instructions for CRE 

used with roll-in racks. These sections 

are generally consistent with the 

existing test requirements for CRE, but 

provide additional clarification specific 

to roll-in racks to describe the 

determination of net usable volume and 

loading of test simulators. ASHRAE 72– 

2005 includes roll-in racks within the 

scope of the test standard (section 9.1) 

but does not provide additional test 

instructions for these models. Because 

the instructions for testing CRE used 

with roll-in racks in ASHRAE 72–2022 

with Errata are generally consistent with 

ASHRAE 72–2005 but with added 

specificity, DOE does not expect that the 

updated requirements in appendix A 

would impact current CRE ratings based 

on the current DOE test procedure. 

As discussed, the test procedure in 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata is 

generally consistent with the existing 

DOE test procedure, which references 

ASHRAE 72–2005. The updates 

included in ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Errata are generally editorial, clarifying, 

or harmonizing revisions. Additionally, 

the substantive revisions in ASHRAE 

72–2022 with Errata provide further 

specificity to the existing test procedure 

requirements and would improve 

repeatability, reproducibility, and 

representativeness of the test procedure 

while limiting test burden. For these 

reasons, in the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to incorporate by reference 

ASHRAE 72–2018R into the DOE test 

procedure and tentatively determined 

that any test data for CRE currently 

available on the market are expected to 

be consistent with the proposed test 

procedure. 87 FR 39164, 39174. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on its proposal to 

incorporate by reference ASHRAE 72– 

2018R, including whether the updates 

included in the industry test standard 

would impact the measured energy 

consumption of any CRE currently 

available. Id. 

AHRI commented that it supports 

DOE’s proposal to incorporate by 

reference ASHRAE 72–2022 because the 

updates included in the industry test 

standard should not significantly impact 

the measured energy consumption of 

any CRE currently available. (AHRI, No. 

38, p. 4) 

AHT supported incorporating by 

reference ASHRAE 72–2018R. (AHT, 

No. 38, p. 1). 

Hillphoenix agreed with the proposal 

to incorporate by reference the newer 

version of ASHRAE 72, but 

recommended version 202X, which is 

currently in public review. 

(Hillphoenix, No. 35, p. 2) Hillphoenix 

commented that this approach would 

align with the incorporation of other 

standards referenced that are not yet 

released and would maintain 

consistency within the industry. Id. 

Continental supported DOE’s 

proposal to incorporate the most recent 

edition of the ASHRAE 72 test 

procedure, pointing out that ASHRAE 

72–2022, the most recent standard, 

prescribes separate 24-hour A and B test 

periods to provide more consistent 

verification of stability than the 

previous version of the procedure. 

(Continental, No. 29, p. 3) Continental 

commented that it is still evaluating 

impacts of this change on the energy 

consumption of equipment, particularly 

for freezers, and stated that provisions 

of ASHRAE 72–2022 should not be 

required until the compliance date of 

any new energy conservation standards 

are established, based on the proposed 

test procedure, to allow time for vetting 

any impact on energy consumption. Id. 

Continental also commented that the 

use of separate 24-hour test periods, 

including additional door opening 

requirements, is desirable for the 

reasons noted above, but the revised 

method will increase the test burden for 

some equipment types and substantially 

increase costs for laboratory and staff 

time, reducing the capacity to perform 

other testing to meet regulations. Id. 

Continental commented that these 

factors and their related costs will 

impact a small business like itself. Id. 

Hoshizaki commented that it would 

like to state for the record that there is 

an ASHRAE 72–2018 standard and an 

ASHRAE 72–2022 standard, and that it 

agrees to proposing the incorporation of 

ASHRAE 72–2018. (Hoshizaki, No. 30, 

p. 1) Hoshizaki noted that the ASHRAE 

72–2022 standard was just finalized in 

July of 2022 and, as of the filing date of 

this rulemaking, was not approved and 

published for all parties to see. Id. 

Hoshizaki noted that while most 

changes to the standard were editorial, 

the change from stabilization to new test 

cycle may leave many manufacturers 

without the opportunity to review and 

comment. Id. Hoshizaki commented that 

enough time would be needed for 

manufacturers to fully digest these new 

changes to determine for themselves 

whether these changes affect their 

designs. Id. 

Based on the June 2022 NOPR and 

comments received in response, DOE is 

incorporating by reference ASHRAE 72– 

2022 with Errata. Based on comments 

received in response to the June 2022 

NOPR and DOE’s review of ASHRAE 

72–2022 with Errata, DOE does not 

expect any impact on ratings as a result 

of the updates to the standard. DOE 

notes that ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata 

is available for purchase, as discussed in 

this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section. 

In response to Continental’s comment 

regarding test burden for some types of 

CRE, ASHRAE 72–2005, currently 

incorporated by reference, requires 

stabilization periods generally 

consistent with ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Errata. The updates clarify procedures 

in the stabilization period and limit the 

need for iterative testing. DOE expects 

no significant change in test burden 

associated with testing to ASHRAE 72– 

2022 with Errata as compared to 

ASHRAE 72–2005. 

a. Drawers 

Section 1.3.16 of appendix B of the 

DOE test procedure specifies that 

drawers are to be treated as identical to 

doors when conducting the DOE test 

procedure, and that drawers should be 

configured with the drawer pans that 

allow for the maximum packing of test 

simulators and filler packages without 

the filler packages and test simulators 

exceeding 90 percent of the refrigerated 

volume. Packing of test simulators and 

filler packages must be in accordance 

with the requirements for commercial 

refrigerators without shelves, as 

specified in section 6.2.3 of ASHRAE 

72–2005. 

CRE with drawers are typically 

configured to hold standardized food 

pans for food storage. Pans loaded into 

the drawers are not typically filled with 

food above their top edges to prevent 

spilling or interfering with other 

drawers. Additionally, these CRE may 

require the space above the pans to be 

unloaded to allow for air circulation 

within the cabinet. 

The current DOE test procedure 

instructions do not specify any test 

simulator or filler package load limits 

for pans, other than not exceeding 90 

percent of the refrigerated volume. For 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66169 

other CRE tests, ASHRAE 72–2005 and 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata specify 

test simulator and filler package loading 

based on net usable volume rather than 

refrigerated volume. See section 6.2.5 of 

ASHRAE 72–2005 and section 5.4.1 of 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata. Loading 

based on the net usable volume 

accounts for load limits within the CRE 

and would prevent overloading CRE to 

the extent of impacting airflow 

circulation within the cabinet. 

To ensure consistent testing for CRE 

with drawers, and to allow for testing 

that is most representative of typical 

use, DOE proposed in the June 2022 

NOPR to specify in appendix B that CRE 

with drawers be tested according to the 

existing requirements with the 

additional instruction that, for the 

purposes of loading pans in drawers, the 

net usable volume is the storage volume 

of the pans up to their top edge. 87 FR 

39164, 39175. 

The drawer loading instructions in 

appendix B reference section 6.2.3 of 

ASHRAE 72–2005, which specifies 

instructions for loading compartments 

without shelves. Specifically, section 

6.2.3 requires situating test simulators at 

the left and right ends (i.e., sides), the 

front and back, and the top and bottom 

locations of the compartment. To make 

explicit the application of this 

instruction to standardized food pans, 

DOE proposed in the June 2022 NOPR 

to require that test simulators be placed 

at the corner locations of each pan. 87 

FR 39164, 39175. For any pans not wide 

or deep enough to allow for test 

simulators at each corner (i.e., less than 

7.5 inches (‘‘in.’’) wide or deep, based 

on the 3.75-in. test simulator width), 

DOE proposed that test simulators be 

centered along the width or depth 

accordingly. 87 FR 39164, 39175–39176. 

Similarly, for any pans not tall enough 

to allow for test simulators at the 

specified top and bottom locations (i.e., 

pans less than 4 in. tall, based on the 2- 

in. test simulator height), DOE proposed 

that a test simulator only be loaded at 

the specified top location within the 

standardized food pan. 87 FR 39174, 

39176. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on the proposed 

additional instructions regarding 

loading drawers. Id. DOE additionally 

requested information on whether the 

proposed approach is consistent with 

any future industry standard revisions 

to address this issue. Id. DOE also 

requested comment on whether other 

instructions for CRE with drawers 

should be revised (e.g., fully open 

definition for drawers) or if additional 

instructions are needed. Id. 

AHRI commented that the additional 

loading drawer instructions proposed by 

DOE are incomplete and provide a 

suboptimal approach. (AHRI, No. 38, p. 

4) AHRI pointed out that ASHRAE 

Standard 72–2022 may be available as 

early as May 2024 as an update to 

ASHRAE Standard 72–2018, with 

revisions including the addition of a 

specific test procedure for drawers as 

well as more complete instructions. Id. 

AHRI recommended that DOE pause the 

process of providing additional 

instructions regarding loading drawers 

and await ASHRAE 72–2022. Id. 

Continental commented that DOE 

should delay adoption of additional 

instructions for testing drawers since 

the ASHRAE 72 standards committee is 

in the process of updating the current 

Standard 72–2022, and is working to 

resolve a number of significant 

challenges with loading and testing 

drawers to ensure a reliable and 

repeatable process that is not overly 

burdensome. (Continental, No. 29, p. 4) 

Continental stated that DOE should 

continue to work with ASHRAE to 

complete incorporation of an industryaccepted standard procedure. Id. 

Hoshizaki commented that, currently, 

the ASHRAE 72 Standards Committee is 

working on specifying test setup and 

procedure for drawer units and that any 

changes should be made in this 

committee. (Hoshizaki, No. 30, p. 2) 

Hoshizaki noted that making 

suggestions in the DOE NOPR phase is 

not the proper process by which to 

change standards, and that using a 

published standard for some parts and 

requesting revisions in CFR could only 

confuse both manufacturers and thirdparty testing agencies. Id. 

Hillphoenix stated its disagreement 

with the proposal to include additional 

instructions regarding drawers and 

recommended referencing the new 

version of ASHRAE 72–202X, which 

will maintain alignment in the industry 

without creating new or duplicate 

requirements that would otherwise be 

added to the final rule. (Hillphoenix, 

No. 35, p. 3) 

DOE recognizes that a future update 

to the ASHRAE 72 standard may 

include additional instructions for CRE 

with drawers, but a revision to ASHRAE 

72 including such instruction is not yet 

available. 

Consistent with AHRI’s comment that 

the additional loading drawer 

instructions proposed by DOE are 

incomplete and provide a suboptimal 

approach, DOE reviewed the approach 

specified in the June 2022 NOPR. As 

stated in the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

proposed additional instructions to 

ensure testing that is most 

representative of typical use. 87 FR 

39164, 39175. DOE re-ordered the 

instructions in this final rule to better 

clarify the proposed approach and better 

specify some requirements. Specifically, 

DOE has added a definition for fully 

open (for drawers) which means opened 

not less than 80 percent of their full 

travel which is consistent with the fully 

open (for sliding doors) definition in 

ASHRAE 72 with Errata which means 

opened at least 80 percent of its full 

normal travel. Currently, ASHRAE 72 

with Errata includes a definition for 

fully open (for drawers) that requires 

drawers to be opened not less than 66 

percent of their full travel. This 

definition allows a wider range of 

openings than for sliding doors despite 

the fact that, similar to sliding doors, 

drawers require users to almost fully 

open the drawer to expose the full 

contents to the user. DOE has 

determined that a definition of fully 

open (for drawers) that is consistent 

with the definition for fully open (for 

sliding doors) would result in more 

representative results by reducing the 

range of allowable percent open. 

Additionally, DOE has revised the food 

service pan requirement from 

Gastronorm to stainless steel to ensure 

a repeatable and reproducible test with 

the same pan material while allowing 

test flexibility for different pan sizes as 

specified in manufacturer instructions. 

DOE proposed in the June 2022 NOPR 

that the net usable volume of drawers is 

the storage volume of the pans up to the 

top edge of the pan. 87 FR 39164, 39175. 

DOE has determined that ‘‘up to the top 

edge of the pan’’ is better specified by 

providing a more detailed description of 

this instruction that is harmonized with 

the net usable volume determination for 

buffet tables or preparation tables 

established in this final rule. 

Specifically, DOE is specifying that the 

net usable volume of pans is determined 

by filling pans with water to within 0.5 

in. of the top edge of the pan. 

DOE proposed in the June 2022 NOPR 

additional test simulator loading 

instructions to clarify the application of 

ASHRAE 72 loading to pans. 87 FR 

39164, 39175. DOE has revised the test 

simulator locations proposed for 

drawers to be less burdensome and to 

align more closely with the simulator 

loading requirements in ASHRAE 72 

with Errata. Specifically, DOE has 

determined that loading test simulators 

into every individual pan (i.e., at each 

corner of every pan), as proposed, is not 

appropriate and would be overly 

burdensome as compared to the 

simulator loading requirements for 

shelves in ASHRAE 72 with Errata. For 

example, under the proposed approach, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66170 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

15See www.ashrae.org/File%20Library/ 

Technical%20Resources/ 

Standards%20and%20Guidelines/ 

Standards%20Actions/SAApr142023.pdf. 

a large drawer loaded with small pans 

would require many more simulators (in 

every pan) than a similarly-sized CRE 

with a shelf in place of a drawer (at the 

shelf corners and at specified intervals). 

To ensure consistent application of the 

ASHRAE 72 with Errata instructions, 

DOE is specifying that drawers be 

loaded with simulators in locations 

similar to those required for shelves 

(i.e., at the drawer ends and at specified 

length intervals, at the front and back of 

the drawers, and on the bottom of the 

pan(s)) which is representative of the 

integrated average temperature of the 

drawer(s) while reducing the test 

burden of requiring additional test 

simulators and to account for pans 

which may not accommodate two test 

simulators stacked in the vertical 

direction. Additionally, DOE is 

specifying that test simulators shall be 

secured during testing to ensure the 

specified locations are maintained 

throughout drawer openings. DOE has 

determined that this revised method is 

representative, repeatable, and 

reproducible for testing of CRE with 

drawers and maintains consistency with 

the loading instructions in ASHRAE 72 

with Errata. 

b. Liquid Refrigerant Pressure Accuracy 

On April 14, 2023, ASHRAE 

published the first public review draft of 

Addendum a to ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Errata.15 The purpose of Addendum a is 

to correct the required liquid refrigerant 

pressure measurement accuracy in 

Table A–1 in Normative Appendix A. 

The required accuracy for liquid 

refrigerant pressure in ASHRAE 72– 

2022 with Errata is ±7.0 kPa (±1.0 psi). 

However, this is an error because in 

previous versions of ASHRAE 72 (e.g., 

the version currently incorporated by 

reference at 10 CFR 431.63, ASHRAE 

72–2005), the required accuracy for 

liquid refrigerant pressure was ±35 kPa 

(±5.1 psi). Addendum a corrects the 

required accuracy for liquid refrigerant 

pressure to be ±35 kPa (±5.1 psi), 

consistent with previous versions of 

ASHRAE 72. Therefore, DOE is 

clarifying in this final rule that the 

required accuracy for liquid refrigerant 

pressure is ±35 kPa (±5.1 psi). 

3. Secondary Coolants 

Certain CRE are installed for use with 

a secondary coolant. In this 

configuration, a remotely cooled fluid 

(e.g., a propylene glycol solution) is 

supplied to the cabinet and absorbs heat 

from the cabinet without the secondary 

coolant undergoing a phase change. 

AHRI publishes a rating standard 

applicable to CRE that use a secondary 

coolant or refrigerant, AHRI Standard 

1320 (I–P), ‘‘2011 Standard for 

Performance Rating of Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 

Storage Cabinets for Use With 

Secondary Refrigerants’’ (‘‘AHRI 1320– 

2011’’), approved by ANSI on April 17, 

2012. AHRI 1320–2011 is applicable to 

CRE that are equipped and designed to 

work with electrically driven, mediumtemperature, single-phase secondary 

coolant systems, but excludes 

equipment used for low-temperature 

applications, secondary coolants 

involving a phase change (e.g., ice 

slurries or carbon dioxide), and selfcontained CRE. AHRI 1320–2011 

includes similar rating temperature 

conditions as those in AHRI 1200–2013 

and references ASHRAE 72–2005 and 

AHAM HRF–1–2008 for the 

measurement of energy consumption 

and calculation of refrigerated volume, 

respectively. The only substantive 

differences between AHRI 1200–2013 

and AHRI 1320–2011 are the inclusion 

of secondary refrigerant circulation 

pump energy consumption in the 

calculation of total daily energy 

consumption and revised coefficients of 

performance to determine compressor 

energy consumption. 

While CRE cooled by secondary 

coolants are less common than selfcontained or remote CRE, DOE proposed 

in the June 2022 NOPR to incorporate 

by reference AHRI 1320–2011 to 

reference only the specific sections 

within the standard that apply to CRE 

tested with secondary coolants (i.e., 

those referring to pump energy and 

coolant flow) and to otherwise reference 

the applicable requirements in AHRI 

1200–202X. 87 FR 39164, 39176. DOE 

acknowledges that AHRI 1320–2011 

may be updated consistent with the 

updates in AHRI 1200–2023. 

Because CRE cooled by secondary 

coolants are not currently subject to 

DOE’s test procedure, DOE proposed in 

the June 2022 NOPR that the test 

procedure referencing AHRI 1320–2011 

would not be required for use until the 

compliance date of any amended energy 

conservation standards for CRE that 

consider such testing. 87 FR 39164, 

39176. DOE is aware that directexpansion remote CRE may also be 

capable of being installed with a 

secondary coolant. Id. Under the June 

2022 NOPR proposal, such equipment 

would continue to be tested and rated 

using the approach currently required 

for remote condensing CRE. Id. The test 

procedure for secondary coolants 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR would 

be applicable to equipment only capable 

of being installed with secondary 

coolants, should any such models 

become available. Id. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on the proposal to 

incorporate by reference AHRI 1320– 

2011 for CRE used with secondary 

coolants, including the proposal to only 

reference the industry standard for 

provisions specific to secondary 

coolants and to otherwise reference 

AHRI 1200–202X, as proposed for other 

CRE. 87 FR 39164, 39176. 

The CA IOUs commented that they 

support the addition of a test procedure 

for secondary coolant systems in 

reference to ANSI/AHRI Standard 1320 

and recommended distinguishing 

between secondary coolant systems and 

cascade systems and including both 

system types in the scope of DOE’s test 

procedures. (CA IOUs, No. 36, p. 11) 

The CA IOUs also encouraged DOE to 

develop a test procedure to address CO2- 

based (i.e., R–744) secondary coolant 

systems and cascade systems. Id. 

AHRI recommended that DOE avoid 

incorporating by reference AHRI 1320– 

2011 for CRE used with secondary 

coolants because AHRI will likely 

update AHRI 1320–2011 during 2023, 

and an updated standard could create 

confusion for compliance purposes. 

(AHRI, No. 38, p. 5) AHRI noted that 

AHRI 1320–2011 is not a widely used or 

needed standard and that waiting for the 

update would benefit the test procedure. 

Id. 

Zero Zone stated agreement that AHRI 

1320 was the appropriate standard for 

secondary coolants, as stated in 

previous comments. (Zero Zone, No. 37, 

p. 3) Zero Zone stated it had not used 

the standard, expressed concern it 

would not produce reliable results, and 

agreed with AHRI’s position that the 

standard was out of date and not used 

by manufacturers. Id. Zero Zone 

commented that generally speaking, a 

commercial refrigerator has the same 

amount of heat infiltration regardless of 

the refrigerant used to cool the 

equipment, plus the number of cases 

sold that use a secondary coolant is 

extremely low, and adding a 

requirement to test and certify this 

equipment would create an enormous 

test burden. Id. 

Hussmann recommended against 

DOE’s proposal to incorporate by 

reference AHRI 1320–2011 for CRE used 

with secondary coolants, as AHRI is 

likely to update AHRI 1320–2011 during 

2023. (Hussmann, No. 32, p. 3) 

Hussmann commented that an updated 

standard could create confusion for 

compliance purposes, adding that AHRI 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66171 

16 Information and materials for ENERGY STAR’s 

Specification Version 5.0 process are available at 

www.energystar.gov/products/spec/commercial_

refrigerators_and_freezers_specification_version_5_

0_pd (last accessed March 11, 2023). 

17While the April 2014 Final Rule did not 

specifically refer to refrigerated preparation tables, 

DOE is including them in this category because they 

have similar features to salad bars and buffet tables. 

Each of these equipment categories includes an 

open-top area for holding refrigerated pans and is 

used during food preparation and service. 

18California’s regulations for buffet tables and 

preparation tables refer to the 2001 version of 

ASTM F2143. For this final rule, DOE has reviewed 

ASTM F2143–16, as it is the most current version 

of the standard. 

1320–2011 is not a widely used or 

needed standard, and that waiting for a 

more updated standard to incorporate in 

the test procedure would be beneficial. 

Id. 

Hillphoenix disagreed with the 

proposal to incorporate AHRI 1320– 

2011 and recommended that DOE allow 

the standard to be reviewed by the 

industry and aligned with current 

technology before being referenced. 

(Hillphoenix, No. 35, p. 3) 

DOE recognizes that AHRI 1320–2011 

is not a widely used standard and that 

AHRI may work on an update to the 

standard, but DOE also recognizes that 

AHRI 1320 parallels AHRI 1200. 

Therefore, DOE is adopting the 

provisions for CRE used with secondary 

coolants as proposed in the June 2022 

NOPR, which is consistent with the 

updates in AHRI 1200–2023, so that 

CRE using secondary coolants can be 

tested and rated. DOE will evaluate any 

future updates to AHRI 1320–2011 as 

they become public. Consistent with the 

June 2022 NOPR, the test procedure for 

CRE using secondary coolants would 

not be required for use until the 

compliance date of any amended energy 

conservation standards for CRE that 

consider such testing. 

As stated in the June 2022 NOPR, 

DOE is aware that direct-expansion 

remote CRE may also be capable of 

being installed with a secondary 

coolant. Such equipment will continue 

to be tested and rated using the 

approach currently required for remote 

condensing CRE. The test procedure for 

CRE with secondary coolants will be 

applicable to equipment only capable of 

being installed with secondary coolants, 

should any such models become 

available. 

C. Test Conditions for Specific CRE 

Categories 

DOE has identified specific categories 

of CRE that are not currently subject to 

the DOE test procedure or in which the 

current test procedure may not produce 

results that are representative of their 

use. Additionally, the EPA’s ENERGY 

STAR program considered three of these 

equipment categories for scope 

expansion and test method development 

during the Version 5.0 Specification 

development process: refrigerated 

preparation and buffet tables; chef bases 

or griddle stands; and blast chillers and 

freezers.16 DOE has considered 

information gathered through the 

ENERGY STAR process when 

developing the proposals included in 

this final rule. DOE discusses each of 

these categories in the following 

sections. 

In response to the June 2022 NOPR, 

NEEA encouraged DOE to align test 

methods for this equipment with EPA 

ENERGY STAR 5.0 where applicable to 

reduce manufacturer burden and 

establish consistently used ratings. 

(NEEA, No. 39, p. 2). NEEA commented 

that DOE had reviewed the test 

procedures it recommended for these 

four products and considered any 

anticipated updates to industry TP or 

active product committees, such as 

ASHRAE 220. Id. NEEA stated support 

for DOE’s proposed test procedures for 

this equipment, noting that establishing 

Federal test procedures was key to 

providing consistent ratings to 

consumers and enabling data collection 

that would inform establishing 

standards for this newly defined 

equipment. Id. NEEA recommended that 

DOE establish energy conservation 

standards for newly defined CRE 

equipment classes, including test 

procedures for refrigerated preparation 

and buffet tables; chef bases or griddle 

stands; blast chillers and blast freezers; 

and high-temperature CRE. Id. 

As discussed in the following 

sections, DOE is establishing test 

procedures for new equipment 

categories as proposed in the June 2022 

NOPR. DOE has considered the latest 

ENERGY STAR requirements in 

evaluating the requirements for these 

equipment categories. DOE may 

evaluate energy conservation standards 

for these new equipment categories as 

part of a separate energy conservation 

standards rulemaking. 

1. Salad Bars, Buffet Tables, and 

Refrigerated Preparation Tables 

Salad bars, buffet tables, and other 

refrigerated holding and serving 

equipment, including refrigerated 

preparation tables,17 are CRE that store 

and display perishable items 

temporarily during food preparation or 

service. These units typically have 

design attributes such as easily 

accessible or open bins that allow 

convenient and unimpeded access to 

the refrigerated products, which make 

them unique from CRE designed for 

storage or retailing. In the April 2014 

Final Rule, DOE did not establish test 

procedures for this equipment but 

maintained that it meets the definition 

of CRE and is covered equipment that 

could be subject to future test 

procedures and energy conservation 

standards. 79 FR 22277, 22281. In the 

June 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed 

definitions and test procedures 

applicable to salad bars, buffet tables, 

and refrigerated preparation tables. 

a. Definitions 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE noted 

that ASTM International F2143–16, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Performance 

of Refrigerated Buffet and Preparation 

Tables’’ (‘‘ASTM F2143–16’’) provides 

the following definitions for refrigerated 

buffet and preparation tables: 

• Refrigerated buffet and preparation 

table—equipment designed with a 

refrigerated open top or open condiment 

rail. 

• Refrigerated buffet table or unit— 

equipment designed with mechanical 

refrigeration that is intended to receive 

refrigerated food and maintain food 

product temperatures and is intended 

for customer service such as a salad bar. 

A unit may or may not be equipped 

with a lower refrigerated compartment. 

• Refrigerated food preparation 

unit—equipment designed with a 

refrigerated open top or open condiment 

rail such as refrigerated sandwich units, 

pizza preparation tables, and similar 

equipment. The unit may or may not be 

equipped with a lower refrigerated 

compartment. 

86 FR 31182, 31185–31186. 

DOE discussed in the June 2022 

NOPR that certain terms used within 

these definitions are undefined (e.g., 

condiment rails, food product 

temperatures) and that it was not aware 

of any other industry standard 

definitions for these equipment 

categories. Id. 

DOE also noted in the June 2022 

NOPR that the California Code of 

Regulations (‘‘CCR’’) 18 defines ‘‘buffet 

table’’ and ‘‘preparation table’’ as 

follows: 

• ‘‘Buffet table’’ means a commercial 

refrigerator, such as a salad bar, that is 

designed with mechanical refrigeration 

and that is intended to receive 

refrigerated food, to maintain food 

product temperatures, and for customer 

service; and 

• ‘‘Preparation table’’ means a 

commercial refrigerator with a 

countertop refrigerated compartment 

with or without cabinets below, and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66172 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

with self-contained refrigeration 

equipment. 20 CCR § 1602. 

87 FR 39164, 39177. 

Furthermore, the EPA’s ENERGY 

STAR program’s Final Draft Version 5.0 

Eligibility Criteria for commercial 

refrigerators and freezers includes a 

definition for ‘‘preparation or buffet 

table’’ as a commercial refrigerator, 

freezer, or refrigerator-freezer with a 

food condiment rail designed to hold 

open perishable food and may or may 

not be equipped with a lower 

compartment that may or may not be 

refrigerated. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE stated 

that the configuration of salad bars, 

buffet tables, and refrigerated 

preparation tables may raise questions 

as to whether a unit is commercial 

hybrid refrigeration equipment. 87 FR 

39164, 39177. DOE defines ‘‘commercial 

hybrid refrigeration equipment’’ as a 

unit of CRE (1) that consists of two or 

more thermally separated refrigerated 

compartments that are in two or more 

different equipment families, and (2) 

that is sold as a single unit. 10 CFR 

431.62. 

DOE discussed in the June 2022 

NOPR that additional detail may be 

necessary to distinguish between a unit 

that is a salad bar, buffet table, or 

refrigerated preparation table and a unit 

that is commercial hybrid equipment 

that includes a salad bar, buffet table, or 

refrigerated preparation table. 87 FR 

39164, 39177. Refrigerated salad bars, 

buffet tables, and preparation tables 

typically have removable pans or bins 

that directly contact the chilled air in 

the refrigerated compartment of the 

unit. With that configuration, the 

entirety of the chilled compartment and 

surface pans would potentially be 

considered a refrigerated salad bar, 

buffet table, or preparation table. In 

contrast, if a unit includes solid 

partitions between the chilled 

compartment and the pans or bins on 

top of the unit, such a configuration 

would potentially be considered 

thermal separation and the unit would 

be considered a commercial hybrid 

consisting of a refrigerated salad bar, 

buffet table, or preparation table with a 

refrigerator and/or freezer. 

To delineate this equipment from 

other types of CRE, DOE proposed in the 

June 2022 NOPR to define the term 

‘‘buffet table or preparation table.’’ 87 

FR 39164, 39179. DOE proposed a 

definition for this term that combines 

elements of the existing industry and 

ENERGY STAR definitions, includes 

language for consistency with DOE’s 

existing CRE definitions, and includes 

further specificity regarding the 

characteristics of this equipment. Id. 

Specifically, DOE proposed to define 

this term as follows: 

‘‘Buffet table or preparation table’’ 

means a commercial refrigerator with an 

open-top refrigerated area, that may or 

may not include a lid, for displaying or 

storing merchandise and other 

perishable materials in pans or other 

removable containers for customer selfservice or food production and 

assembly. 87 FR 39164, 39179. The unit 

may or may not be equipped with a 

refrigerated storage compartment 

underneath the pans or other removable 

containers that is not thermally 

separated from the open-top refrigerated 

area. Id. 

DOE did not propose in the NOPR to 

define the term ‘‘salad bar,’’ as this 

equipment would be captured within 

the proposed definition of ‘‘buffet table 

or preparation table.’’ 87 FR 39164, 

39179. DOE tentatively determined that 

additional equipment definitions are not 

necessary for the purposes of testing 

buffet tables and preparation tables. Id. 

Additionally, DOE did not propose in 

the NOPR any reference to storage 

temperature or duration in the proposed 

definition for ‘‘buffet table or 

preparation table.’’ 87 FR 39164, 39179– 

39180. DOE recognized that these are 

important aspects of the equipment 

operation but has tentatively 

determined that they are not necessary 

for the purpose of defining the 

equipment to establish test procedures. 

Id. By specifying that such units are 

commercial refrigerators, buffet tables 

and preparation tables would be units 

capable of operating at or above 32 °F 

(±2 °F). 

As discussed, CRE may include single 

refrigeration systems to provide cooling 

to multiple compartments or areas 

within a unit. Additionally, CRE may 

include multiple distinct refrigeration 

systems or evaporator coils to 

individually cool separate 

compartments or refrigerated areas. 

DOE’s proposed definition in the June 

2022 NOPR would include units both 

with and without a refrigerated storage 

compartment underneath the pans or 

other removable containers. The 

proposed definition in the June 2022 

NOPR, however, specifies that units 

including a refrigerated storage 

compartment underneath the pans or 

other removable containers may not be 

thermally separated from the open-top 

refrigerated area. 

DOE noted in the June 2022 NOPR 

that while industry may use the term 

‘‘hybrid’’ to refer to different 

combinations of equipment capabilities 

and configurations, the term 

‘‘commercial hybrid’’ is specifically 

defined by DOE in 10 CFR 431.62. 87 FR 

39164, 39180. Currently, CRE with 

refrigerated storage compartments 

thermally separated from the open-top 

refrigerated area of the buffet table or 

preparation table are ‘‘commercial 

hybrid’’ CRE and must be tested in 

accordance with the applicable test 

procedures and comply with the 

applicable standards. Such equipment 

would continue to be tested as currently 

required to determine compliance with 

the existing energy conservation 

standards applicable to the non-buffet 

table or preparation table element. As 

noted, DOE has not established energy 

conservation standards for CRE covered 

under the proposed definition of ‘‘buffet 

table or preparation table.’’ DOE 

discussed in the April 2014 Final Rule 

that because only the refrigerated 

storage compartment is subject to 

current energy conservation standards, 

the unit would be tested with the buffet 

table or preparation table portion 

disabled and not included in the 

determination of energy consumption. 

79 FR 22277, 22289. If the same 

refrigeration system serves both the 

refrigerated compartment and the opentop refrigerated area and refrigeration of 

the open-top area cannot be disabled, 

manufacturers may apply for a test 

procedure waiver for such equipment if 

the measured energy use would not be 

representative of the portion of the unit 

that is not a buffet table or preparation 

table of the CRE basic model. Id. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on the proposed 

definition for ‘‘buffet table or 

preparation table.’’ 87 FR 39164, 39180. 

DOE also requested information on 

whether any additional definitions are 

necessary for the purposes of testing this 

equipment, or whether any additional 

equipment characteristics are necessary 

to differentiate this equipment from 

other categories of CRE. Id. 

Hoshizaki supported this proposed 

definition and stated that it is like the 

definition given in ASTM F2143–16. 

(Hoshizaki, No. 30, p. 2) 

Hillphoenix agreed with the proposed 

definitions for buffet table and 

preparation table as documented in the 

NOPR. (Hillphoenix, No. 35, p. 3) 

NEEA supported the new definitions 

DOE proposed for buffet tables and 

preparation tables, stating that these 

equipment types have unique 

applications compared to other CRE, 

and these definitions allow 

consideration (potential standards), 

categorization (equipment classes), and 

testing of this equipment separate from 

other CRE. (NEEA, No. 39, p. 2) 

Continental commented it continues 

to support the use of NSF 7–2019 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66173 

19See section 1.1 of appendix C of the June 2022 

NOPR. 

(defined within NSF/ANSI 170–2019, 

‘‘Glossary of Food Equipment 

Terminology’’) definitions for 

‘‘Refrigerated Buffet Units’’ and 

‘‘Refrigerated Food Preparation Units.’’ 

(Continental, No. 29, p. 4) 

True commented that the terms used 

to define the categories of ‘‘buffet table’’ 

and ‘‘preparation table’’ correspond to 

(match) those as defined by NSF/ANSI 

170 (referenced in NSF/ANSI 7–2021). 

(True, No. 28, p. 2) True commented 

that the definition for a buffet table can 

be found at NSF/ANSI 170 3.22, which 

defines a buffet unit as ‘‘Equipment that 

is designed to receive and maintain food 

product(s) at proper temperatures and is 

intended for customer service,’’ and that 

the definition for a preparation table can 

be found at NSF/ANSI 170 3.173, which 

defines a refrigerated food preparation 

unit as ‘‘Equipment designed with a 

refrigerated open top or open condiment 

rail such as refrigerated sandwich units, 

pizza preparation tables, and similar 

equipment. The unit may or may not be 

equipped with a lower refrigerated 

compartment.’’ Id. 

AHRI commented that it found the 

proposed definition for ‘‘buffet table or 

preparation table’’ to be broad enough 

for testing this equipment and defining 

necessary equipment characteristics; as 

a result, additional definitions may be 

unnecessary. (AHRI, No. 38, p. 5) AHRI 

recommended that DOE should specify 

that this definition applies to selfcontained units and add to the 

definition whether the equipment does 

or does not share a coil. Id. 

Hussmann commented that while it 

did not oppose the proposed 

definitions, it requested that DOE 

include that the definition pertained to 

self-contained units only, and that DOE 

include language about sharing the coil 

with other compartments. (Hussmann, 

No. 32, p. 4) Hussmann also commented 

that the definition included ‘‘may or 

may not be equipped with a refrigerated 

storage compartment underneath the 

pans’’ but did not mention any other 

equipment category, and that the buffet/ 

prep section may share a coil with a 

different equipment category other than 

storage and mention should be in the 

definition because it already considers 

the lower storage. Id. Hussmann 

requested clarification about, and a 

definition of, ‘‘non-thermally separated 

compartments,’’ as the proposal stated 

‘‘closed.’’ (Hussmann, No. 32, p. 5) 

Hussmann commented that currently, 

open display cases (‘‘SVO’’) share the 

same coil/discharge air with the buffet/ 

prep section. Id. Hussman questioned 

whether DOE considered this condition 

as not thermally separated. Id. 

Hussmann added that if so, a ‘‘no-load’’ 

in the SVO section of the case would 

result in higher infiltration of warm air. 

Id. Hussmann also commented by 

asking if night curtains would be 

allowed to be installed on the case or if 

the unloaded compartment could be 

protected or, alternatively, if the SVO 

section of the case could be loaded. Id. 

The CA IOUs commented that DOE’s 

proposed definition for ‘‘buffet table or 

preparation table’’ raises the issue that 

if an energy conservation standard is 

established in the future for this 

equipment, refrigerated rails will have 

to meet the same energy conservation 

standard as prep tables with a 

refrigerated bottom component if that 

bottom component is not ‘‘thermally 

separated’’ from the open-top 

refrigerated area. (CA IOUs, No. 36, p. 

1) The CA IOUs also commented that 

DOE should consider defining 

‘‘refrigerated rail’’ separately from 

‘‘buffet table or preparation table’’ and 

that the definition of ‘‘buffet table or 

preparation table’’ include both 

sandwich and pizza prep tables; and 

that ‘‘commercial hybrid’’ CRE consists 

of compartments refrigerated by 

separate evaporators with fully 

independent temperature control 

between the different compartments. 

(CA IOUs, No. 36, p. 3) 

The CA IOUs amended the proposed 

NOPR definitions with strikeout 

deletions and underline additions. Id. 

The CA IOUs agreed with the current 

definition of a ‘‘refrigerated rail.’’ Id. 

The CA IOUs amended the proposed 

NOPR definition of ‘‘buffet table or 

preparation table’’ to ‘‘a commercial 

refrigerator with an open-top 

refrigerated area, that may or may not 

include a lid, for displaying or storing 

merchandise and other perishable 

materials in pans or other removable 

containers for customer self-service or 

food production and assembly. The unit 

may or may not be equipped with a 

refrigerated storage compartment 

underneath the pans or other removable 

containers, that is not thermally 

separated from the open-top refrigerated 

area that is conditioned by the same 

refrigeration circuit as the open-top 

refrigerated area.’’ Id. The CA IOUs 

slightly altered the definition of 

‘‘commercial hybrid’’ refrigeration 

equipment to ‘‘a unit of CRE (1) that 

consists of two or more thermally 

separated refrigerated compartments 

with independent control of 

temperature amongst the refrigerated 

compartments and that are in two or 

more different equipment families, and 

(2) that is sold as a single unit.’’ Id. 

The CA IOUs commented that prep 

tables (either sandwich tables or pizza 

prep tables) are similar in having an 

open-top refrigerated area with a 

refrigerated storage compartment 

underneath. (CA IOUs, No. 36, p. 2) The 

CA IOUs stated that in the absence of a 

definition for ‘‘thermal separation,’’ 

pizza prep tables could be misclassified 

as ‘‘commercial hybrid’’ CRE with the 

open-top refrigerated area evaluated as a 

‘‘buffet table or preparation table’’ and 

the refrigerated compartment tested as 

Vertical Closed Solid (VCS.SC.M), while 

sandwich prep tables would be tested as 

‘‘buffet table or preparation table.’’ Id. 

The CA IOUs commented that rating 

sandwich prep tables differently from 

pizza prep tables would create market 

confusion. Id. 

Consistent with the June 2022 NOPR, 

DOE is not limiting the definition of 

buffet tables or preparation tables to 

self-contained configurations but is 

specifying that the test procedure is 

only applicable to self-contained 

configurations 19 because DOE has not 

evaluated test provisions for remote 

equipment. 

The existing hybrid definition is 

based on thermally separated 

compartments, not independent coils or 

separate temperature control. DOE is 

maintaining the existing approach for 

hybrids, which will avoid reclassifying 

all existing hybrid CRE. 

DOE acknowledges that energy 

consumption likely varies depending on 

equipment configuration. For the 

purposes of testing, DOE has 

determined there is not a need to 

separately define equipment categories 

within buffet tables or preparation 

tables and is not establishing separate 

definitions. DOE has determined that 

test instructions regarding refrigerated 

pan areas and compartments are 

sufficient for testing the referenced 

configurations. DOE would consider 

energy impacts of different 

configurations as part of energy 

conservation standards rule evaluating 

this equipment category, and would 

consider appropriate definitions for 

those configurations at that time. 

Therefore, DOE is maintaining 

definitions as proposed in the June 2022 

NOPR, which combine aspects of 

existing industry definitions, ENERGY 

STAR definitions, and other DOE 

definitions for CRE. 

b. Test Methods 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

considered potential test methods for 

buffet tables and preparation tables. 87 

FR 39164, 39180. DOE reviewed both 

ASTM F2143–16 and NSF 7–2019 in 

considering test methods for buffet 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66174 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

tables and preparation tables. As 

described in section 1 of ASTM F2143– 

16 (‘‘Scope’’), that test method covers 

evaluation of the energy consumption of 

refrigerated buffet and preparation 

tables and allows food service operators 

to use this evaluation to select a 

refrigerated buffet and preparation table 

and understand its energy performance. 

The foreword to NSF 7–2019 specifies 

that the purpose of the industry testing 

standard is to establish minimum food 

protection and sanitation requirements 

for the materials, design, construction, 

and performance of commercial 

refrigerators and freezers. 

The general test approach in ASTM 

F2143–16 is to load the unit with 

distilled water in pans and no load in 

any refrigerated compartment, operate 

the unit to confirm stability, then 

conduct testing for 24 hours, with an 8- 

hour ‘‘active period’’ with lid and door 

openings followed by a 16-hour 

‘‘standby period’’ with no door 

openings. DOE understands that this 

test is intended to represent unit 

operation and energy consumption over 

a 24-hour day. 

The NSF 7–2019 test approach 

requires loading the unit pans with 

refrigerated food-simulating test media 

(a specified mixture of water, salt, and 

hydroxypropyl methylcellulose) and no 

load in any refrigerated compartment 

and operating the unit for 4 hours to 

determine whether temperatures at all 

measured locations are within the 

acceptable range. DOE acknowledges 

that this test is intended to evaluate the 

ability of a unit to maintain the 

temperature of refrigerated pans (and 

any compartments) during a 4-hour 

period. 

While these two industry test 

methods contain certain similarities 

(e.g., loading pans but not 

compartments, ambient temperature 

conditions), DOE initially determined in 

the June 2022 NOPR that ASTM F2143– 

16 provides the more appropriate basis 

for an energy consumption test 

representative of typical use. 87 FR 

39164, 39181. As discussed in the 

following subsections, DOE initially 

determined in the June 2022 NOPR that 

24 hours of maintaining stable 

temperatures, as required in the ASTM 

F2143–16 method, is representative of 

average use for this equipment. Id. DOE 

also tentatively determined in the June 

2022 NOPR that the stabilization and 

operating periods specified in ASTM 

F2143–16 would ensure that units 

maintain temperatures on a consistent 

basis during testing and would allow for 

comparative energy use measurements 

across units. Id. NSF 7–2019 provides a 

basis for determining whether a unit is 

capable of maintaining certain 

temperatures over a shorter period, but 

without additional instructions to 

ensure energy consumption testing on a 

consistent basis (i.e., the temperatures 

maintained over the shorter test period 

may not necessarily be stable). 

For these reasons, DOE proposed in 

the June 2022 NOPR to reference ASTM 

F2134–16 as the basis for testing buffet 

tables and preparation tables. 87 FR 

39164, 39181. Consistent with the scope 

of ASTM F2134–16, DOE proposed test 

procedures only for self-contained 

buffet tables and preparation tables. Id. 

While DOE proposed to base the test 

procedure for buffet tables and 

preparation tables on ASTM F2134–16, 

DOE also proposed certain additional 

and different requirements for test 

conditions, setup, and conduct to 

ensure the representativeness of the test 

procedure, as discussed in the following 

sections. Id. 

To avoid confusion regarding testing 

of other CRE, DOE also proposed in the 

June 2022 NOPR to establish the test 

procedure for buffet tables and 

preparation tables as a new appendix C 

to subpart C of 10 CFR part 431. 87 FR 

39164, 39181. DOE also proposed to 

refer to the proposed appendix C as the 

test procedure for buffet tables and 

preparation tables in 10 CFR 431.64. Id. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on its proposal to 

adopt through reference certain 

provisions of ASTM F2143–16 as the 

basis for testing buffet tables and 

preparation tables. 87 FR 39164, 39181. 

DOE also sought comment on the 

proposal to specify test procedures only 

for self-contained buffet tables and 

preparation tables, consistent with 

ASTM F2143–16. Id. 

The Joint Commenters supported 

DOE’s proposed changes regarding the 

proposed test methods for additional 

equipment categories including buffet 

and preparation tables. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 31, p. 1) 

NEEA stated its support for DOE’s 

proposal to establish test procedures for 

new and/or newly defined categories of 

CRE, and restated its recommendation 

from the 2021 CRE TP RFI that DOE 

establish test methods for new CRE 

product types, including refrigerated 

preparation and buffet tables. (NEEA, 

No. 39, p. 2) 

The Joint Commenters expressed 

support for establishing test procedures 

for buffet and preparation tables, citing 

a statistic from the California Energy 

Commission (‘‘CEC’’) Modernized 

Appliance Efficiency Database System 

(‘‘MAEDbS’’) that listed over 100 buffet/ 

preparation tables with a broad range of 

energy usage, and a 2014 report that 

discussed testing on 11 preparation 

tables, revealing a wide range of 

measured energy consumption. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 31, p. 2) The Joint 

Commenters stated that findings in the 

2014 report suggested the potential for 

meaningful energy savings for these 

products and establishing test 

procedures for buffet and preparation 

tables would ensure that the energy 

consumption of this equipment would 

be measured in a consistent manner. Id. 

Continental commented that it 

supports the NOPR proposal to add new 

test procedures for product categories 

such as refrigerated buffet and 

preparation tables. (Continental, No. 29, 

p. 1) Continental noted, however, that 

attempting to develop test procedures 

that combine aspects of different 

existing industry standards and 

introducing significant modifications is 

not sufficient or appropriate for this 

type of rulemaking. Id. Continental 

recommended that DOE work with 

ASHRAE, AHRI, ASTM, and other 

stakeholders to develop suitable test 

procedures for any additional product 

categories so that new or modified 

industry standards are comprehensive, 

reliable, and repeatable for many 

equipment types, with minimal 

additional testing burden. Id. 

Continental expressed significant 

concerns with ASTM F2143–16, stating 

that DOE recognized many of the same 

issues in the NOPR and, as a result, DOE 

should delay adoption of a test 

procedure for refrigerated buffet and 

preparation tables, and work in depth 

with industry associations and other 

stakeholders to develop an appropriate 

standard procedure. (Continental, No. 

29, p. 4) Continental commented that 

attempting to combine existing test 

standards was likely to result in 

excessive testing burden, inconsistent 

results, and confusion for stakeholders. 

Id. Continental added that ENERGY 

STAR had expressed a desire to include 

buffet tables and preparation tables in 

its most recent standards revision, but 

recognized that an appropriate standard 

test method has not been used by 

industry and declined to include this 

equipment. Id. 

AHRI recommended that DOE use 

ASTM F2143–16 only as intended and 

not impose additional provisions and 

restrictions in testing buffet tables and 

preparation tables. (AHRI, No. 38, p. 6) 

AHRI commented that test standards 

should not be combined and 

recommended regulating this issue 

under a single standard. Id. AHRI 

commented with concern that the data 

set used in testing failed to indicate 

energy efficiency, and that DOE should 

wait to update this regulation until 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66175 

clearer test standards have been 

determined through consensus by 

manufacturers and third parties. Id. 

AHRI noted that ENERGY STAR was 

not employing ASTM F2143–16, 

indicating that DOE’s adoption was 

premature. Id. AHRI commented that it 

had numerous concerns with ASTM 

F2143–16 and advised that this standard 

may not be ready for use in a DOE test 

procedure. Id. AHRI added that if DOE 

were to use this standard in a test 

procedure, it should only apply to selfcontained equipment. Id. AHRI 

commented that it could not determine 

the impacts of employing the standard 

because it is not widely used. Id. 

Hoshizaki commented in agreement 

with the proposal to use test procedures 

from ASTM F–2143–2016, but in 

disagreement with the proposal to have 

additional requirements from other 

standards. (Hoshizaki, No. 30, p. 2) 

Hoshizaki commented that if DOE wants 

to use a standard only in part, it should 

request to have a single standard 

updated with proposed changes and 

wait for the standard process to 

complete before publishing a test 

procedure. Id. Hoshizaki stated that this 

would give manufacturers a chance to 

see the final standard and prepare for 

testing prior to the implementation of 

new regulations. Id. 

Hillphoenix stated its disagreement 

with the proposal to adopt ASTM 

F2143–16 as the basis for testing buffet 

and preparation tables, as it is not 

widely utilized by all manufacturers. 

(Hillphoenix, No. 35, p. 3) Hillphoenix 

recommended that DOE approach the 

industry and request updated testing 

standards that better reflect actual 

product intent, stating this approach 

would (1) cause less confusion than 

referencing portions of multiple 

standards, (2) drive consistency within 

the industry, and (3) be less burdensome 

on manufacturers. Id. Hillphoenix 

agreed that ASTM F2143–16 only 

pertained to self-contained models, and 

if adopted against industry 

recommendations, the proposed test 

procedure should reflect self-contained 

models only, as in ASTM F2143–16. Id. 

Hussmann cautioned DOE that ASTM 

F2143–16 was not a commonly used 

standard in the industry and contained 

many holes and gaps common to DOE 

test procedures. (Hussmann, No. 32, p. 

4) Hussmann added that combining test 

standards would cause confusion and 

disruption to the industry as the 

different standards were revised and 

therefore recommended adopting buffet/ 

prep cases under a single standard that 

would be widely accepted across the 

industry. Id. 

In the August 2022 public meeting, 

True commented that ASTM–F2143–16 

is only required by the State of 

California for reporting energy, and that 

it is surprised NSF–7 is not being used 

as a standard for consideration, since 

that is a de facto national standard in 

place for the United States and Canada. 

(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 41, p. 

38) True commented that ASTM F2143– 

16 is not an industry standard used by 

the food service industry or by local 

health inspectors. (True, No. 28, p. 2) 

True stated that NSF 7 is the food 

service industry standard for the 

performance rating, food safety, and 

evaluation of refrigerated food 

preparation units (tables); that local 

United States and Canada food safety 

and sanitation inspectors (health 

inspectors) require the NSF 7 

compliance logo; and that certificates of 

occupancy are issued based on NSF 7 

Standard compliance. Id. 

True also commented that the 

proposed ASTM F2143–16 standard is 

not a suitable standard that should be 

used to evaluate these products. (True, 

No. 28, p. 6) True stated that 

consideration should be given to the fact 

ASTM F2143–16 does not address food 

safe temperatures (water as the test 

media is not representative of food), and 

adding this test setup would increase 

testing and lab burdens to all 

manufacturers. Id. True pointed to NSF/ 

ANSI 7–2021 as the reference standard 

recommended for this type of 

equipment and noted that ASTM 

F2143–16 is in review and has not been 

presented publicly. Id. 

As discussed in section III.C.1.a, DOE 

is establishing test procedures only for 

self-contained buffet tables or 

preparation tables. 

DOE agrees with commenters that 

ASTM F2143–16 cannot be referenced 

as a standalone test method and, 

accordingly, DOE proposed deviations 

and additional specifications in the June 

2022 NOPR. DOE recognizes that not all 

manufacturers currently use ASTM 

F2143–16, but DOE has determined the 

approach based on ASTM F2143–16 

with additional requirements is 

representative and not unduly 

burdensome to conduct. If a new or 

updated industry standard that 

measures the energy consumption of 

buffet tables or preparation tables 

becomes available, DOE will consider it 

in a future test procedure rulemaking. 

DOE has evaluated ASTM F2143–16 

and identified the need for additional 

provisions or alternate requirements. To 

the extent that additional provisions are 

consistent with requirements in other 

industry methods, DOE has 

incorporated by reference those other 

methods. This approach makes it easier 

to determine where requirements are 

harmonized across industry standards. 

In response to combining multiple 

standards, DOE is not applying each 

standard in whole to this equipment, 

but rather is adopting the appropriate 

provisions to result in a representative 

DOE test procedure. The regulatory text 

is located in appendix C established in 

this final rule is the DOE test procedure 

for this equipment, and the 

requirements in appendix C clearly 

outline when to use requirements from 

each standard. 

As discussed in section III.C.1.a, NSF 

7 is intended to ensure refrigerating 

performance and food safety, not energy 

use. ASTM F2143–16 was developed to 

evaluate energy performance, and with 

the additional requirements established 

in this final rule, DOE has determined 

that referencing ASTM F2143–16 is 

appropriate and meets the EPCA 

requirements. 

DOE’s determination to establish test 

procedures consistent with EPCA 

requirements is not impacted by 

ENERGY STAR’s specification review 

process. To the extent that ENERGY 

STAR considers this equipment in 

future updates, the ENERGY STAR 

program typically adopts DOE test 

procedures and DOE will coordinate 

with ENERGY STAR to harmonize 

requirements. 

As discussed, DOE is establishing a 

test procedure for buffet tables and 

preparation tables based on ASTM 

F2143–16 with additional requirements. 

The following sub-sections describe 

additional details of the test procedure. 

Test Conditions 

ASTM F2143–16 specifies different 

rating conditions for test room dry-bulb 

temperature and moisture content than 

the current DOE test procedure. NSF 7– 

2019 also specifies test conditions 

similar to those in ASTM F2143–16. 

Table III.1 summarizes these 

differences. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66176 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE III.1—TEST ROOM DRY-BULB TEMPERATURE AND MOISTURE CONTENT STANDARDS COMPARISON

Equipment type Test standard Test room dry 

bulb temperature 

Wet bulb temperature 

(relative humidity) 

Moisture 

content 

(lb/lb dry air) 

Currently Covered CRE ................. ASHRAE 72 (2005 and 2022 with 

Errata).

75.2 °F ±1.8 °F ... 64.4 °F ±1.8 °F (49%–62%) ........... 0.009–0.011. 

Buffet and Preparation Tables ....... ASTM F2143–16 ........................... 86 °F ±2 °F ......... 66.2 °F ±1.8 °F (30%–40%) ........... 0.008–0.010. 

Buffet and Preparation Tables ....... NSF 7–2019 .................................. 86 °F ±2 °F ......... Max 72 °F (based on max 50%) .... Max 0.013. 

As previously described, the apparent 

purpose of the NSF 7–2019 test is to 

determine the capability of a unit to 

maintain refrigerated temperature in the 

conditions specified by the industry 

testing standard. The ASTM F2143–16 

ambient conditions match those in NSF 

7–2019. However, DOE initially 

determined in the June 2022 NOPR that 

these conditions are not necessarily the 

most representative of typical use. 87 FR 

39164, 39182. As discussed in the June 

2022 NOPR, buffet tables and 

preparation tables are typically installed 

in locations similar to other CRE (e.g., 

food service areas, supermarkets, 

commercial kitchens) and would be 

subject to the same ambient conditions 

during typical use. Id. DOE 

acknowledged in the June 2022 NOPR 

that the ambient conditions at the point 

of installation may vary. Id. However, 

DOE determined that the conditions in 

ASHRAE 72 (in both the currently 

referenced 2005 version and the 2022 

with Errata version) are appropriately 

representative of the average use of CRE. 

79 FR 22277, 22283. For consistency 

with other CRE testing, DOE proposed 

in the June 2022 NOPR that the ambient 

conditions specified in ASHRAE 72– 

2018R also apply for testing buffet tables 

and preparation tables. 87 FR 39164, 

39182. 

For measuring these ambient 

conditions, ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Eratta and ASTM F2143–16 specify the 

same measurement locations; however, 

the locations may require further 

specificity depending on the 

configuration of the refrigerated buffet 

table or preparation table under test. For 

example, the specified measurement 

location based on the highest point of 

the unit under test as provided in ASTM 

F2143–16 could be based on the height 

of the refrigerated table surface and pan 

openings or on the height of any lid or 

cover over the pans, if included. 

Additionally, the specified 

measurement location at the center of 

the unit as provided in ASTM F2143– 

16 could be based on the geometric 

center of the unit determined from the 

height of the open pan surfaces or on 

the geometric center of any door 

openings (for those units with 

refrigerated compartments below the 

pan area). 

As described, DOE proposed in the 

June 2022 NOPR to incorporate by 

reference ASTM F2143–16 rather than 

NSF 7–2019 as the basis for testing 

buffet tables and preparation tables. 87 

FR 39164, 39182. The ASTM F2143–16 

ambient measurement locations are 

generally consistent with those in the 

current DOE test procedure and the 

provisions in ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Errata, but ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Errata includes additional specificity 

regarding ambient measurement 

locations. To ensure appropriate 

measurement locations, DOE proposed 

in the NOPR to reference ASHRAE 72– 

2018R rather than ASTM F2143–16 for 

ambient condition measurement 

locations. 87 FR 39164, 39183. To 

provide additional specifications for 

thermocouple placement to 

accommodate different buffet table and 

preparation table configurations, DOE 

proposed to add an instruction that the 

‘‘highest point’’ of the buffet table or 

preparation table is determined as the 

highest point of the open-top 

refrigerated area of the buffet table or 

preparation table, without including the 

height of any lids or covers. Id. DOE 

also proposed to specify that the 

geometric center of the buffet table or 

preparation table is: for buffet tables or 

preparation tables without refrigerated 

compartments, the geometric center of 

the top surface of the open-top 

refrigerated area; and for buffet tables or 

preparation tables with refrigerated 

compartments, the geometric center of 

the door opening area for the 

refrigerated compartment. Id. DOE 

proposed this specification because the 

geometric center of the unit is used to 

measure ambient temperature gradient. 

Id. For units with refrigerated 

compartments, this instruction 

referencing the center of the door 

opening area would ensure that the air 

entering the compartment during door 

openings is within the allowable 

temperature range. 

Regarding electrical supply 

requirements and measurements, 

appendix A to ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Errata provides greater specificity for 

testing as compared to ASTM F2143–16. 

To improve test repeatability and 

reproducibility, DOE proposed in the 

June 2022 NOPR to reference the 

electric supply and measurement 

requirements specified in appendix A to 

ASHRAE 72–2018R for testing buffet 

tables and preparation tables. 87 FR 

39164, 39183. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE similarly 

proposed to adopt through reference 

certain provisions in ASHRAE 72– 

2018R rather than ASTM F2143–16 for 

instrumentation requirements for 

consistency with other CRE testing and 

with the proposed test conditions (e.g., 

wet-bulb temperature as specified in 

ASHRAE 72–2018R rather than relative 

humidity as specified in ASTM F2143– 

16). Id. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on the proposal for 

testing buffet tables and preparation 

tables with test conditions (i.e., test 

chamber conditions, measurement 

location, and electric supply conditions) 

consistent with ASHRAE 72–2018R, 

with additional detail specific to buffet 

tables and preparation tables. Id. 

AHRI commented that it supports 

DOE’s inclusion of the ASHRAE 72– 

2022 ambient testing conditions with 

the qualification that DOE not combine 

test standards, which would be 

unnecessary and inadvisable. AHRI 

recommended regulation through a 

singular standard using a test procedure 

developed through industry consensus 

and one that had been referred to an 

appropriate standards committee. 

(AHRI, No. 38, p. 6) 

AHRI noted that ASHRAE 72–2022 

does not address areas with two 

different cooling spaces. (AHRI, No. 38, 

p. 6) 

Continental stated a belief that 86 °F 

ambient better reflected the application 

temperature for food preparation tables 

used in commercial kitchens, which are 

often in proximity of cooking equipment 

and that 75 °F conditions reflect an 

applicable ambient temperature for 

buffet tables used in restaurant front-ofhouse and supermarket applications. 

(Continental, No. 29, p. 5) Continental 

reiterated that DOE should not attempt 

to merge different aspects of existing 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66177 

test methods into a new amalgamated 

test procedure within a rulemaking, and 

that DOE should delay adoption of a test 

procedure for refrigerated buffet and 

preparation tables, instead working with 

stakeholders to develop an appropriate 

standard procedure. Id. 

Hillphoenix stated agreement with the 

proposal to use ASHRAE 72 to establish 

the conditions in which buffet and 

preparations tables should be tested, as 

this standard already applies to existing 

CRE. (Hillphoenix, No. 35, p. 4) 

Hillphoenix recommended referencing 

ASHRAE 72–202x, which would align 

with the incorporation of other 

standards that are referenced but not yet 

released. Id. Hillphoenix recommended 

against specifying alternate definitions 

for portions not covered by an existing 

industry standard and advised DOE to 

allow the industry to develop 

procedures through consensus. Id. 

Hussmann supported the use of 

ASHRAE 72 for ambient conditions, 

which more accurately resemble 

conditions in normal use, and which 

would reduce test burden for testing a 

new equipment category, as industry 

test chambers and conditions were not 

set for testing to different standards. 

(Hussmann, No. 32, p. 4) Hussmann 

recommended that DOE avoid 

combining sections from different 

standards to create a test procedure, 

because doing so would provide results 

not yet tested and proven by the 

industry. Id. Hussmann added that 

combining test standards would cause 

confusion and disruption to the 

industry as the different standards went 

through revisions and stated support for 

creating a universal standard for buffet/ 

prep tables. Id. 

Hoshizaki agreed with the proposal to 

use test procedures from ASTM F– 

2143–2016, but disagreed with the 

proposal to have additional 

requirements from other standards. 

(Hoshizaki, No. 30, p. 2) Hoshizaki 

commented that if DOE wants to use a 

standard only in part, DOE should 

request to have a single standard 

updated with proposed changes and 

wait for the standard process to 

complete before publishing a test 

procedure, which would give 

manufacturers a chance to see the final 

standard and prepare for testing prior to 

the implementation of new regulations. 

Id. 

True recommended the use of NSF 

ANSI 7–2021, with the following test 

conditions: (1) ambient temperature of 

86 ±2 °F (30 ±1 °C); (2) no vertical 

temperature gradient exceeding 1.5 °F/ft 

(2.5 °C/m); (3) maximum relative 

humidity of 50 percent; and (4) 

maximum air current velocity of 50 ft/ 

min (0.25 m/s) across the surfaces of the 

test pans. (True, No. 28, p. 6) 

DOE recognizes that CRE across all 

categories, including buffet tables or 

preparation tables, can be used in a 

range of installations, (e.g., in 

commercial kitchens or in front-ofhouse installations). Other CRE 

currently installed in these locations are 

tested per the ASHRAE 72 conditions. 

DOE understands that ASTM F2143– 

16 is currently under revision and may 

harmonize test conditions with 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata. Buffet 

tables or preparation tables have the 

same energy use metric, kWh/day, as 

other CRE equipment. Test conditions 

consistent with ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Errata will allow for better comparisons 

between hybrid buffet tables or 

preparation tables and other buffet 

tables or preparation tables. 

As stated earlier in this section, the 

purpose of NSF 7 is to determine 

refrigerating performance for food safety 

requirements. While the elevated 

ambient temperature may be 

appropriate to ensure food safety, DOE 

has determined that the existing test 

condition based on ASHRAE 72–2022 

with Errata provides the most 

appropriate test condition for the 

purpose of energy testing. 

For these reasons and consistent with 

the discussion in section III.C.1.b of the 

June 2022 NOPR, DOE has determined 

that the ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata 

test conditions are representative for 

buffet tables or preparation tables. DOE 

is establishing these conditions in 

appendix C by referencing ASHRAE 72– 

2022 with Errata. 

Test Setup 

Section 9.1 of ASTM F2143–16 

specifies installation of the buffet table 

or preparation table for testing 

according to the manufacturer’s 

instructions, with 6 in. of rear clearance, 

at least 12 in. of clearance to any side 

wall or partition, and at least 3 feet of 

clearance from the front of the unit. 

Section 5.2 of ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Errata specifies that the test unit be 

installed next to a wall or vertical 

partition in the direction of (a) the 

exhaust, (b) the intake, or (c) both the 

exhaust and the intake at the minimum 

clearance, ±0.5 in., as specified in the 

installation instructions; if the 

installation instructions do not provide 

a minimum clearance, the vertical 

partition or wall shall be located 4 ±0.5 

in. from the sides or rear of the cabinet 

and extend at least 12 in. beyond each 

side of the cabinet from the floor to at 

least 12 in. above the top of the cabinet. 

DOE determined in the June 2022 

NOPR that the installation instructions 

in ASHRAE 72–2018R are more 

representative of actual use, as they 

require testing according to the 

minimum manufacturer-specified 

clearance in the direction of air exhaust 

or intake rather than a constant 6 in. 87 

FR 39164, 39183. DOE expects that CRE 

are typically installed with minimum 

installation clearances due to the spaceconstrained locations in which they 

operate (e.g., commercial kitchens or 

food service areas). DOE proposed in the 

June 2022 NOPR to reference the 

installation requirements in section 5.2 

of ASHRAE 72–2018R for buffet table 

and preparation table testing to 

represent typical use and to ensure 

consistency with appendix B test 

requirements. 87 FR 39164, 39183. 

Sections 5.1 and 5.3 of ASHRAE 72– 

2022 with Errata also provide additional 

instructions regarding test unit 

installation and setup that are not 

addressed in ASTM F2143–16. 

Specifically, section 5.1 provides 

instructions regarding test unit 

installation within the test facility and 

section 5.3 specifies test requirements 

for components and accessories. While 

these provisions were established for 

conventional CRE, DOE initially 

determined in the June 2022 NOPR that 

they are also applicable to buffet table 

and preparation table installation and 

use due to both categories having 

similar installation locations and similar 

accessories available for use. 87 FR 

39164, 39183. DOE proposed in the June 

2022 NOPR to also reference these 

sections in ASHRAE 72–2018R for 

buffet table and preparation table testing 

to ensure consistent testing that is 

representative of actual use. Id. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on the proposal for 

testing buffet tables and preparation 

tables with test setup instructions 

consistent with ASHRAE 72–2018R 

rather than ASTM F2143–16. Id. 

Hillphoenix commented that it agrees 

with the proposal to use ASHRAE 72 for 

testing setup requirements for buffet and 

preparations tables as this standard 

already applies to existing CRE and 

allows testing that is more 

representative of the end use 

installations. (Hillphoenix, No. 35, p. 4) 

Hillphoenix recommended referencing 

ASHRAE 72–202X, which would align 

with the incorporation of other 

standards that are being referenced but 

that are not yet released. Id. 

Hussmann stated its support for the 

ASTM F2143–16 test set-up instructions 

as they more closely resembled typical 

use. (Hussmann, No. 32, p. 4) Hussmann 

also cautioned DOE against combining 

sections from different standards to 

create a test procedure, commenting that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66178 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

combining different standards would 

provide unsupported results not yet 

tested and proven by the industry. Id. 

Hussmann added that combining test 

standards would cause confusion and 

disruption to the industry as the 

different standards were revised. Id. 

AHRI stated support for test setup 

conditions consistent with ASTM 

F2143–16, but with the qualification 

that test standards not be combined, 

which would be unnecessary and 

inadvisable. (AHRI, No. 38, p. 6) AHRI 

recommended that DOE should regulate 

this issue under a singular standard and 

advised that small business retailers 

especially could be negatively impacted 

by the proposed leapfrogging of 

standards, especially for buffet tables, 

where full analysis of testing had not 

been completed. Id. AHRI commented 

that ASTM F2143–16 was under review 

and might be updated within the next 

one to two years, making it prudent for 

DOE to wait to further regulate. Id. 

Hoshizaki repeated their previous 

comment, commenting in agreement 

with the proposal to use test procedures 

from ASTM F–2143–2016, but in 

disagreement with the proposal to have 

additional requirements from other 

standards. (Hoshizaki, No. 30, p. 2) 

They commented that if DOE wants to 

use a standard only in part, they should 

request to have a single standard 

updated with proposed changes and 

wait for the standard process to 

complete before publishing a test 

procedure. Id. Hoshizaki stated that this 

will give manufacturers a chance to see 

the final standard and prepare for 

testing prior to the implementation of 

new regulations. Id. 

Continental commented that the 

ASHRAE 72 committee has discussed 

requirements for testing buffet and 

preparation tables, concluded that 

ASHRAE 72 is not appropriate for these 

product types, and determined that a 

new standard procedure would be 

needed, but that combining existing test 

standards is unnecessary, inadvisable, 

and likely to result in excessive testing 

burden and confusion for stakeholders. 

(Continental, No. 29, p. 5) Continental 

commented that DOE should not 

attempt to merge different aspects of 

ASHRAE and ASTM standards into a 

test procedure for refrigerated buffet and 

preparation tables and instead should 

work with stakeholders to develop and 

thoroughly assess a single 

comprehensive standard procedure. Id. 

As discussed in the June 2022 NOPR, 

DOE recognizes that the ASHRAE 72– 

2022 with Errata provisions apply to 

conventional CRE, but has determined 

that the installation instructions 

specified in ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Errata provide for more representative 

installation instructions when testing 

buffet tables and preparation tables as 

compared to those specified in ASTM 

F2143–16. Specifically, DOE maintains 

that this equipment is typically installed 

in space-constrained locations, and 

therefore the manufacturer specified 

minimum clearances are most 

representative of actual use. 

Additionally, ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Errata provides additional instructions 

regarding test unit installation within 

the test facility and for components and 

accessories. These provisions are 

necessary to ensure consistent testing. 

Regarding combining references to 

multiple industry test standards within 

the test procedure in appendix C, as 

discussed in sections III.B and III.C.1.b 

of this document, DOE references 

specific sections of the applicable 

industry standards for testing in 

appendix C rather than incorporating 

the industry standards in full. This 

approach makes it easier to determine 

where requirements are harmonized 

across industry standards. 

For these reasons, DOE is maintaining 

references to ASTM F2143–16 as 

appropriate for test conduct, but DOE is 

additionally specifying instructions 

based on ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata 

for certain installation provisions, as 

appropriate, in appendix C. 

Test Load 

ASTM F2143–16 specifies that 

temperature measurements for 

preparation tables or buffet tables be 

taken from standardized pans filled 

with distilled water. ASTM F2143–16 

also specifies measuring the 

temperature in any chilled 

compartments for refrigerated buffet and 

preparation tables using three 

thermocouples in an empty, unloaded 

compartment. DOE’s current test 

procedure for CRE requires that 

integrated average temperature 

measurements be taken from test 

simulators consisting of a plastic 

container filled with a sponge saturated 

with a 2-percent mixture of propylene 

glycol and distilled water. See ASHRAE 

72–2005, section 6.2.1. Additionally, the 

DOE test procedure requires 70 to 90 

percent of the compartment net usable 

volume to be loaded with filler material 

and test simulators for testing (60 to 80 

percent as proposed in this final rule by 

referencing section 5.4.8 of ASHRAE 

72–2022 with Errata). See ASHRAE 72– 

2005, section 6.2.5. Buffet tables and 

preparation tables may not typically be 

loaded to 70 percent of their net usable 

volume due to their use for service 

rather than long-term storage, but testing 

with the refrigerated compartment 

entirely empty also may not be 

representative of average use. 

DOE initially determined in the June 

2022 NOPR that the distilled water pan 

loading as specified in ASTM F2143–16 

provides a representative test load for 

the open-top refrigerated areas of buffet 

tables and preparation tables, while 

limiting test burden, and is consistent 

with the filler material specified in both 

ASHRAE 72–2005 and ASHRAE 72– 

2018R (i.e., filler material that consists 

of water, a 50/50 mixture (±2 percent) of 

distilled water and propylene glycol, or 

wood blocks with an overall density not 

less than 480 kg/m3 (30 lb/ft3). 87 FR 

39164, 39184. Typical food loads are 

composed mostly of water, such that 

water is a representative test medium. 

Additionally, distilled water does not 

require any additional preparation by 

the test laboratory, limiting test burden 

and ensuring a consistent test medium 

across different test facilities. 

DOE acknowledges that using water 

would not accommodate testing at 

conditions at and below 32 °F. However, 

ASTM F2143–16 specifies pan 

temperature to be within 33 °F and 41 °F 

for a valid test. As discussed later in this 

section, DOE proposed in the June 2022 

NOPR that the integrated average pan 

temperature be 38 °F ±2 °F for buffet 

table and preparation table testing. 87 

FR 39164, 39184. At these temperatures, 

the distilled water would be liquid and 

would not result in the testing issues 

associated with freezing. Additionally, 

DOE observed during investigative 

testing that individual pans filled with 

distilled water did not reach 

temperatures lower than 33 °F when 

tested with an integrated average pan 

temperature of 38 °F ±2 °F. 

In addition to proposing the water test 

load, DOE proposed in the June 2022 

NOPR that pans for testing be loaded to 

within 0.5 in. of the top of the pan. 87 

FR 39164, 39184. For pans that are not 

configured in a horizontal orientation, 

DOE proposed that only the lowest side 

of the pan be loaded to within 0.5 in. 

of the top of the pan. Id. ASTM F2143– 

16 specifies a pan loading procedure 

based on the weight of water needed to 

load pans to 0.5 in. of the top of the pan. 

DOE expects that a loading method 

based on marking pans or measuring 

distance from the water to the top of the 

pan would limit test burden as 

compared to the weight-based method 

in ASTM F2143–16 and that both the 

loads and loading methods would be 

substantively the same. 

ASTM F2143–16 specifies the pans 

for holding water to be standard 4-in. 

deep 1⁄6-size metal steam table pans 

with a weight of 0.70 ±0.07 lb. ASTM 

F2143–16 allows for manufacturerVerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Sep 25, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26SER2.SGM 26SER2

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66179 

specified pans if the unit is designed 

specifically for such pans. DOE notes 

that manufacturers typically specify pan 

dimensions or provide pans for their 

units, but some manufacturers do not 

provide a pan depth or may specify a 

range of possible pan depths. DOE also 

notes that pan materials can vary and 

are not always specified by the 

manufacturer. 

Based on a review of buffet tables and 

preparation tables available on the 

market, manufacturers typically allow 

for a range of pan configurations in the 

open-top refrigerated area. These 

configurations can nearly always 

accommodate the 1⁄6-size steam table 

pans referenced in ASTM F2143–16. To 

ensure consistent testing for units that 

offer multiple pan configurations, DOE 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR to 

reference the pan instructions in ASTM 

F2143–16. 87 FR 39164, 39184. If a 

buffet table or preparation table cannot 

be loaded with the specified standard 

pans, DOE proposed in the June 2022 

NOPR to test with pans that are 

consistent with the manufacturer 

installation instructions and with 

dimensions as close to the standard 

pans as is available, consistent with the 

ASTM F2143–16 loading instructions. 

Id. 

Under the current test procedure, a 

thermal separation would be required 

between the buffet table or preparation 

table and a refrigerated compartment for 

that compartment to be subject to the 

testing requirements, which include test 

simulators and loading requirements. 

Buffet tables and preparation tables may 

include refrigerated compartments that 

are not thermally separated from the 

open-top refrigerated area, and in the 

NOPR, DOE considered whether 

different loads (or no load) would be 

appropriate for testing such 

compartments. 87 FR 39164, 39185. 

DOE proposed in the June 2022 NOPR 

that any refrigerated compartment of a 

buffet table or preparation table (i.e., any 

refrigerated compartment that is not 

thermally separated from the open-top 

refrigerated area) be tested with no load. 

Id. DOE proposed in the June 2022 

NOPR to reference the ASTM F2143–16 

requirements, which specify placing 

three thermocouples in specific 

locations within the empty refrigerated 

compartment. Id. DOE tentatively 

determined in the June 2022 NOPR that 

this approach would limit test burden 

by not requiring additional test 

simulator preparation or loading of filler 

materials. Id. Additionally, DOE expects 

that the refrigerated compartments of 

buffet tables and preparation tables are 

typically used for short-term storage of 

items used during food service and food 

preparation (i.e., with additional pans of 

prepared food or ingredients for food 

preparation) rather than long-term 

storage, and that, therefore, an unloaded 

cabinet would be more representative of 

typical usage. This is also consistent 

with the DOE test procedures for 

consumer refrigeration products, which 

measure internal compartment 

temperatures with no load. See 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B, appendix A and 

appendix B. 

ASTM F2143–16 does not specify 

whether the internal compartment 

thermocouples are weighted or 

unweighted. For consistency with the 

NSF 7–2019 approach, DOE proposed in 

the June 2022 NOPR that the 

thermocouples be weighted—i.e., in 

thermal contact with the center of a 1.6- 

oz (45-g) cylindrical brass slug with a 

diameter and height of 0.75 in. 87 FR 

39164, 39185. The brass slugs shall be 

placed at least 0.5 in from any heatconducting surface. Id. While ASHRAE 

72–2022 with Errata requires internal 

compartment temperatures to be 

measured using test simulators, ambient 

temperature measurements are similarly 

made by thermocouples in contact with 

cylindrical brass slugs with the same 

specifications. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on the proposed test 

loads and temperature measurement 

locations for buffet tables and 

preparation tables—i.e., distilled water 

in pans for the open-top refrigerated 

area and no load in any refrigerated 

compartment—consistent with the 

approach in ASTM F2143–16. 87 FR 

39164, 39185. 

Hoshizaki commented that it agrees 

with the proposal to use test procedures 

from ASTM F2143–2016. (Hoshizaki, 

No. 30, p. 3) Hoshizaki noted that if 

DOE were to seek changes in the future, 

those changes should go through the 

ASTM standards committee. Id. 

Hillphoenix stated agreement with the 

proposal to load pans with distilled 

water, assuming there is no requirement 

to move the pans (i.e., physically 

relocating, opening of drawer with pans, 

etc.), which would cause spillage and 

splashing. (Hillphoenix, No. 35, p. 4) 

Hillphoenix also agreed with the 

temperature measurement location in 

the center of the pan and recommended 

a sponge or similar material be used to 

stabilize the measuring device and 

maintain consistent placement of the 

sensor. Id. Hillphoenix recommended 

that DOE approach industry and request 

updated testing standards that better 

reflect actual product intent, which 

would drive consistency within the 

industry and be less burdensome on 

manufacturers. Id. 

AHRI commented that it urged DOE to 

defer requirements for this issue in the 

test procedure until the ASTM F2143– 

16 standard has been updated in an 

estimated 1 to 2 years. (AHRI, No. 38, 

p. 7) AHRI stated a number of concerns, 

including the fact that proposed changes 

under consideration for test mediums or 

loading would be subjected to a test 

revision process. Id. AHRI pointed out 

its concerns with the proposed use of 

distilled water as a medium because it 

may have limitations in certain 

applications, even though it is much 

less burdensome than alternative 

mediums, such as glycol, used for 

testing. Id. AHRI noted that 

manufacturers are concerned that test 

results using distilled water sent to 

third-party testing labs may be 

inconsistent and difficult to replicate, 

and manufacturers need further testing 

to determine if distilled water is the 

decisively preferred testing medium, or 

if a lack of testing repeatability makes 

distilled water a less-preferred testing 

medium. Id. AHRI also repeated its 

concern that ENERGY STAR is not yet 

ready to employ ASTM F2143–16 and 

that DOE’s adoption may be premature. 

Id. 

Hussmann commented that distilled 

water was less of a burden for testing; 

however, water may have test 

limitations due to freezing/slush that 

could affect test measurements. 

(Hussmann, No. 32, p. 5) Hussmann 

recommended that DOE refer this issue 

to a standards committee to determine 

how water affected the temperature 

measurements and to determine the 

appropriate test medium. Id. 

Continental commented that it had 

not performed extensive equipment 

testing using ASTM F2143–16 to 

provide comprehensive feedback on any 

proposed test conditions, and stated 

support for use of a no-load test for 

buffet tables or preparation tables that 

do not have a refrigerated storage 

compartment that is thermally separated 

from the open-top pan area. 

(Continental, No. 29, p. 6) Continental 

advised that empty pans could be used 

in the top opening to minimize 

additional burden, but potential 

inconsistencies in methods and results 

would need to be evaluated. Id. 

Continental commented that filling pans 

in the top with distilled water for testing 

was significantly less burdensome than 

alternative product simulator 

compounds, but that this approach is 

problematic because distilled water can 

be subject to partial freezing under 

certain application conditions, resulting 

in inconsistent test results. Id. 

Continental added that a mixture of 

propylene glycol and distilled water 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66180 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

would eliminate potential freezing 

concerns, but also add cost and 

potentially result in inconsistencies. Id. 

Continental alluded to another type of 

testing, a special test media, such as a 

solution of water, sodium chloride, and 

methocel as prescribed for ANSI/NSF 7– 

2019 sanitation testing, which would be 

extremely burdensome for separate 

energy testing due to relatively 

expensive ingredients, significant 

preparation time, and limited shelf life 

before the solution must be discarded. 

Id. Continental urged DOE to postpone 

adoption of a test procedure for 

refrigerated buffet and preparation 

tables and address these issues with 

relevant standards committees, such as 

ASTM, ASHRAE, and AHRI, as well as 

stakeholders. Id. 

In the August 2022 public meeting, 

True commented that the problem with 

using distilled water in a cabinet, 

especially a food preparation table, is 

the threat of dual freeze; in other words, 

the distilled water dropping below 

32 °F. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 4, 

p. 56) True stated that when using 

water, measurements of the actual 

temperature of the product cannot be 

taken because as the water changes 

state, it will not move from 32 °F. Id. 

True added that the design of food 

preparation tables and buffet tables 

results in cold air coming out, or a cold 

rail either making direct contact or 

blowing directly on pans. Id. True stated 

that because of this, pans will freeze 

even though the average may be 38 °F. 

Id. Therefore, True stated that using 

water only as a test media is 

irresponsible because it is not producing 

adequate temperatures. Id. True 

suggested instead filling a pan with 50/ 

50 water and glycol. Id. 

In response to the Hillphoenix 

comment, DOE is not requiring pans to 

be moved during testing (as discussed in 

a later sub-section of III.C.1.b in this 

document), therefore limiting any 

spillage or splashing concerns. DOE has 

not identified an issue with maintaining 

thermocouple placement in the center of 

the pan during its internal testing of 

buffet tables and preparation tables, and 

therefore is not requiring the use of a 

sponge or similar material to stabilize 

the thermocouple during testing. 

In response to AHRI’s comment, DOE 

has determined that distilled water is a 

repeatable and reproducible test 

medium that limits test burden. 

Distilled water provides a consistent, 

representative basis for testing, limits 

burden by avoiding the need for test 

facilities to create solutions or mixtures 

(e.g., propylene glycol and water 

solutions, methocel, or sawdust 

mixtures), and is cost effective. In 

response to Continental’s suggestion 

that empty pans could be used for 

testing, DOE has determined that a 

thermal load in the pans is most 

representative of actual use and is 

necessary to allow for temperature 

measurements of the pan load. 

DOE recognizes that water in pans of 

buffet tables or preparation tables could 

freeze under certain conditions but that 

the target pan temperatures are above 

water’s freezing point. Based on DOE’s 

investigative testing, DOE does not 

expect freezing of water in the pans 

during the test. If a buffet table or 

preparation table has a specific design 

characteristic that results in water 

freezing in a pan during the DOE test 

and that prohibits the conduct of the 

test, manufacturers can petition for a 

waiver under the provisions in 10 CFR 

431.401. 

DOE has determined that distilled 

water represents a consistent test load 

that represents the thermal load in pans 

during buffet table or preparation table 

operation. Therefore, DOE is adopting 

distilled water as the test medium for 

pans in buffet tables and preparation 

tables, and is requiring that any 

refrigerated compartments in buffet 

tables and preparation tables be tested 

with no load using weighted 

thermocouples, consistent with the June 

2022 NOPR approach. 

Test Conduct—Defrosts 

ASTM F2143–16 does not provide 

specific instructions for addressing 

defrost cycles when testing buffet tables 

and preparation tables, other than 

indicating in the test report whether a 

defrost cycle occurred. Section 7.3 of 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata directs 

that the test period begins with a defrost 

cycle. This section also requires that for 

refrigerators with manual defrost or offcycle defrost, the test is started at the 

beginning of a refrigeration system off 

cycle (if the off-cycle defrost is not 

identifiable); or, if the refrigeration 

system never cycles off, the test is 

started at any point during refrigeration 

system operation. 

Defrost cycles can increase the energy 

consumption of refrigeration equipment 

as compared to stable operation; 

however, DOE has observed that most 

buffet tables and preparation tables 

often incorporate off-cycle defrosts, 

which melt frost accumulation by 

running the evaporator fan during a 

compressor off cycle. This method of 

defrost does not actively introduce heat 

to melt the accumulated frost and may 

occur during the compressor’s normal 

cycling operation. With this defrost 

approach, there may not be an 

identifiable defrost occurrence in the 

measured test data. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

determined that to the extent buffet 

tables or preparation tables incorporate 

automatic electric or hot gas defrosts 

(i.e., heating the evaporator to melt frost 

accumulation), or any automatic 

extended off-cycle defrost (i.e., off-cycle 

defrost with a duration longer than a 

compressor off cycle), the energy 

consumption of these defrosts should be 

captured in the test period to measure 

energy use representative of typical use. 

87 FR 39164, 39186. DOE observed 

during investigative testing that 

automatic extended off-cycle defrost is 

used in both buffet tables and 

preparation tables. To incorporate this 

energy use and ensure consistent testing 

of buffet tables and preparation tables, 

DOE proposed in the June 2022 NOPR 

to require that test periods for buffet 

tables and preparation tables account for 

any defrosts consistent with the 

requirements in ASHRAE 72–2018R. 87 

FR 39164, 39186. This would require 

capturing a defrost at the start of the test 

period or starting the test period at the 

beginning of a refrigeration off cycle if 

there is no identifiable defrost (or at any 

point during refrigeration system 

operation if the refrigeration system 

never cycles off). 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on the proposal to 

account for defrosts when testing buffet 

tables and preparation tables, consistent 

with the approach in ASHRAE 72– 

2018R. 87 FR 39164, 39186. 

AHRI commented that it supports 

DOE’s proposal to account for defrosts 

for buffet tables and preparation tables 

in a test period greater than 4 hours, 

although AHRI cautioned DOE against 

combining test standards as it is 

unnecessary and inadvisable and 

restated the call for DOE to regulate this 

issue under a singular standard. (AHRI, 

No. 38, p. 7) 

Hillphoenix stated agreement with the 

proposal to use ASHRAE 72 for defrost 

requirements pertaining to buffet and 

preparations tables as this standard 

already applies to existing CRE. 

(Hillphoenix, No. 35, p. 4) Hillphoenix 

recommended referencing ASHRAE 72– 

202x, which would align with the 

incorporation of other standards that are 

being referenced but that are not yet 

released. Id. Hillphoenix recommended 

this only be applied to units consisting 

of open tops with pans that incorporate 

other refrigerated zones. Hillphoenix 

commented that in reference to the test 

period duration, a defrost cycle may not 

be required due to a shortened active 

refrigeration time. Id. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66181 

Continental commented it had not 

sufficiently tested equipment using the 

proposed methods to provide an 

adequate response regarding defrost 

periods. (Continental, No. 29, p. 6) 

Continental commented that DOE’s 

recognition of this issue is another 

indication as to why development of a 

new test procedure should not be 

attempted within a rulemaking, and 

why DOE should delay publication of a 

test procedure for refrigerated buffet and 

preparation tables, instead working with 

stakeholders to develop an appropriate 

standard procedure. Id. 

Hussmann cautioned DOE on using a 

hybrid approach to creating a test 

procedure, but stated support for 

accounting for defrosts in a test period 

greater than 4 hours. (Hussmann, No. 

32, p. 5) 

Hoshizaki commented that it does not 

agree with proposing the use of one 

standard but then incorporating parts of 

other standards without going through 

the standard review process. (Hoshizaki, 

No. 30, p. 3) Hoshizaki noted that if 

DOE feels that starting the test with 

defrost is the best way to capture energy 

values, then DOE should make requests 

to amend ASTM F–2143 for those 

changes. Id. 

In response to the comments 

regarding DOE referencing multiple test 

standards, refer to the same comments 

discussed in sections III.B and III.C.1.b 

of this document. 

Because defrost occurrences can 

impact energy use, DOE is requiring that 

the test period begin at the start of a 

defrost occurrence, or at the beginning 

of a refrigeration off-cycle if there is no 

identifiable defrost (or at any point 

during refrigeration system operation if 

the refrigeration system never cycles 

off). This approach is consistent with 

the test period requirements for other 

CRE and would ensure repeatable and 

reproducible testing of buffet tables and 

preparation tables that is representative 

of actual use. 

Test Conduct—Moving Pans 

Section 10.5.6 of ASTM F2143–16 

specifies that if it is possible to control 

cooling to the display area 

independently of the refrigerated 

cabinet, the cooling to the display area 

is turned off and all pans are to be 

moved from the display area to the 

refrigerated cabinet underneath after the 

active period. The ability to control 

cooling in both the display area and the 

refrigerated cabinet independently of 

each other suggests that this language 

applies to units with thermally 

separated compartments and pan areas. 

DOE currently provides test 

procedures for any refrigerated 

compartments that are combined with 

buffet tables and preparation tables and 

that are thermally separate from the 

open-top refrigerated area. In the June 

2022 NOPR, DOE did not propose to 

amend the test requirements for such 

thermally separated refrigerated 

compartments. 87 FR 39164, 39186. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to reference ASTM F2143–16 

rather than NSF 7–2019 as the basis for 

buffet table and preparation table 

testing. Id. Section 10.5.6 of ASTM 

F2143–16 specifies moving pans from 

the display area to the refrigerated 

cabinet underneath after the active 

period if it is possible to control cooling 

to the display area independently of the 

refrigerated cabinet. As stated, the 

separate cooling control suggests 

thermal separation between the opentop area and the refrigerated cabinet. 

Because DOE did not propose changes 

to the current test requirements for any 

thermally separated refrigerated 

cabinets, DOE proposed that all buffet 

tables and preparation tables be tested 

with the pans in the display area for the 

entire test, including the ‘‘standby 

period’’ specified in section 10.5.6 of 

ASTM F2143–16. 87 FR 39164, 39186. 

DOE determined in the June 2022 

NOPR that this proposed approach 

would limit test burden and variability 

by avoiding moving pans during the test 

period, which could introduce varying 

heat loads depending on how the 

movement is conducted. Id. 

Additionally, DOE expects that the 

proposed test procedure is 

representative of typical buffet table and 

preparation table use. As previously 

discussed, DOE expects that buffet 

tables and preparation tables are used 

for short-term storage during food 

service and food preparation. Therefore, 

it is unlikely that these units would be 

used for storage in the refrigerated 

compartment without any pans loaded 

in the open-top pan area. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on its proposal to 

require loading pans in the open-top 

refrigerated area and not moving them 

to a refrigerated compartment, if 

applicable, during testing. 87 FR 39164, 

39186–39187. 

Hillphoenix stated agreement with the 

proposal to have open-top pans remain 

in place once they are loaded and 

testing begins, which would be 

consistent with the ASHRAE 72 

approach that applies to existing CRE. 

(Hillphoenix, No. 35, p. 5) Hillphoenix 

recommended referencing ASHRAE 72– 

202x, which would align with the 

incorporation of other standards that are 

being referenced but that are not yet 

released. Id. Hillphoenix recommended 

DOE approach industry and request 

updated testing standards that better 

reflect actual product intent, an 

approach intended to drive consistency 

within the industry while proving less 

burdensome on manufacturers. Id. 

Hoshizaki commented agreeing that 

keeping the pans in and closing the lid 

would be simpler for the test. 

(Hoshizaki, No. 30, p. 3) Hoshizaki 

commented that manufacturers that 

have a separated rail and compartment 

temperature zones would have to 

change their test process. Id. Hoshizaki 

noted that if DOE wants to change this 

for all manufacturers regardless of 

design constraints of units, then this 

process should be updated in the ASTM 

F2143 standards committee. Id. 

Continental commented that 

equipment with the ability to 

independently turn off the refrigeration 

system for the pan display area should 

be classified separately from other 

refrigerated buffet and prep tables. 

(Continental, No. 29, p. 6) 

Continental added that if the 

manufacturer’s instructions require 

relocating pans to the storage area at 

night, moving the pans would more 

accurately reflect the actual energy 

consumption of the equipment usage, 

although Continental had not tested 

equipment in this manner to thoroughly 

judge the suitability of moving pans. 

(Continental, No. 29, p. 6) Continental 

found making physical changes to 

equipment setup, such as relocating 

pans during a test, to be problematic 

because it could lead to significant 

differences in results by, for example, 

skewing measurements by the order in 

which pans were removed or arranged 

in the storage compartment, or how long 

doors or drawers were opened for the 

relocation of pans, etc. Id. Continental 

commented that this issue is another 

reason DOE must delay adoption of a 

test procedure for refrigerated buffet and 

preparation tables, and instead work 

with the standards committees and 

stakeholders to develop a 

comprehensive industry standard. Id. 

AHRI recommended that any changes 

to the ASTM F2143–16 standard should 

be addressed by the appropriate 

standards committee. (AHRI, No. 38, p. 

7) AHRI advised DOE that 

manufacturers have not tested 

equipment to the specifications 

proposed, and therefore AHRI does not 

have the knowledge to advise DOE 

regarding the appropriateness of this 

change. Id. AHRI commented that it 

supported DOE’s proposal and 

recommended that DOE should not 

support moving pans during the test 

procedure, as this might affect test 

outcomes. Id. AHRI repeated that DOE 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66182 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

should not combine test standards and 

recommended that DOE regulate this 

issue under a singular standard. 

Hussmann again cautioned DOE 

against combining sections from 

different standards to create a test 

procedure and that doing so would 

result in unsupported results not yet 

tested and proven by industry. 

(Hussmann, No. 32, p. 5) Hussmann 

commented that the method mentioned 

provides for testing variability and 

additional burden of testing on the 

manufacturer and was not 

recommended. Id. Hussmann instead 

recommended that the matter be taken 

before the proper standards committee 

for validation and vetting before being 

adopted. Id. 

In response to the comments 

regarding DOE referencing multiple test 

standards, refer to the same comments 

discussed in sections III.B and III.C.1.b 

of this document. 

DOE agrees with the comments 

indicating that moving pans in the 

middle of a test period would increase 

test burden and potentially increase 

variability. Therefore, DOE is requiring 

that pans stay in place for the duration 

of the test period, consistent with the 

approach proposed in the June 2022 

NOPR. 

DOE recognizes that typical buffet 

table and preparation table use may 

include movement of food pans from 

the top pan area or maintaining pans in 

that location depending on end use. 

However, the function of this equipment 

is to provide cooling to food loads in the 

top pan areas. DOE has determined that 

maintaining pans in the top open 

storage area allows for representative 

measures of energy consumption while 

limiting test burden. 

Test Conduct—Operating Periods and 

Door/Lid Openings 

As described, buffet tables and 

preparation tables temporarily store and 

display perishable items during food 

preparation or service. Because buffet 

tables and preparation tables are used 

only during food preparation or service, 

these equipment types may not be used 

for the same 24-hour duration used to 

characterize performance for other 

categories of CRE. Sections 10.5.5 and 

10.5.6 of ASTM F2143–16 specify a 24- 

hour test, with an active period of 8 

hours and a standby period of 16 hours. 

The active period specified in section 

10.5.5 contains instructions for a cover, 

if equipped (open for 2 hours, then 

closed for 4 hours, then open for 2 

hours), and a door opening sequence for 

any refrigerated compartments (every 30 

minutes, each cabinet door or drawer, or 

both, shall be fully opened sequentially, 

one at a time, for 6 consecutive seconds; 

for units with pass-thru doors, only the 

doors on one side of the unit are 

opened). 

DOE tentatively determined in the 

June 2022 NOPR that buffet tables and 

preparation tables are typically used for 

food service and food preparation rather 

than longer-term food storage. 87 FR 

39164, 39187. In the June 2022 NOPR, 

DOE proposed to test this equipment 

with pans loaded into the open-top 

display areas for the duration of the test, 

which DOE has tentatively determined 

represents typical use during food 

service and food preparation. Id. 

DOE recognizes that the duration of 

use per day varies based on the 

application and installation location for 

this equipment. In the June 2022 NOPR, 

DOE identified that buffet tables and 

preparation tables can be used for up to 

24 hours per day. DOE initially 

determined in the June 2022 NOPR that 

a 24-hour test period as specified in 

ASTM F2143–16 incorporates the likely 

aspects of buffet table and preparation 

table operation—i.e., an active dooropening period and a period of stable 

operation. 87 FR 39164, 39187. While 

the actual durations of use may vary 

based on end-use application, the 

measured energy use in kWh/day is 

representative of the energy use of a unit 

operated in 24 hours and allows for 

consistent energy use comparisons 

among models. Id. DOE proposed in the 

June 2022 NOPR to require a 24-hour 

test period for buffet tables and 

preparation tables as specified in ASTM 

F2143–16. Id. The proposed 24-hour test 

period is consistent with the industry 

test procedure, the test procedure for 

other CRE; the 24-hour test period also 

limits test burden and variability by 

allowing for stable operation over a 

longer period and incorporates the door 

openings while allowing the stable 

operation expected during typical usage. 

Id. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on the proposed 24- 

hour test period, which is consistent 

with the approach in ASTM F2143–16. 

Id. 

Hoshizaki commented that it 

continues to agree with DOE’s proposal 

to incorporate ASTM F2143–2016, but 

with revisions. (Hoshizaki, No. 30, p. 3) 

Hoshizaki stated that any revisions DOE 

feels necessary to make should be 

proposed to the ASTM F2143–2016 

standards committee. Id. 

Continental commented it had not 

thoroughly tested equipment using 

ASTM F2143–16 to judge the 

applicability of the 24-hour test period, 

but generally believed a 24-hour test to 

be appropriate. (Continental, No. 29, p. 

6) Continental stated DOE should 

address any concerns raised regarding 

this test method with the appropriate 

standards committee and delay 

adoption of a test procedure for 

refrigerated buffet and preparation 

tables. Id. 

Hillphoenix stated partial agreement 

with the ASTM 24-hour test period and 

recommended it only apply to buffet 

and prep units that share a thermostat 

with another refrigerated portion (i.e., a 

refrigerated storage box), as these units 

could be used to maintain product 

temperatures while the pan section is 

not in use. (Hillphoenix, No. 35, p. 5) 

Hillphoenix commented that buffet and 

preparation units that incorporate only 

an open top with pans typically operate 

between 8–12 hours, after which, 

product was removed and relocated to 

other storage units. Id. Hillphoenix 

commented that because of this typical 

use, the test period should be shortened. 

Id. 

AHRI recommended that DOE use this 

procedure within its intended 8- to 12- 

hour window, rather than the proposed 

24-hour test period, because the 

equipment in question is generally used 

during store hours only and a 24-hour 

test period would not be representative 

of actual use. (AHRI, No. 38, p. 7) AHRI 

commented that the hours of uncovered 

time create a strain on the case and 

product while not reflecting typical use, 

and that the procedure is burdensome 

for those conducting the testing. Id. 

AHRI asked DOE for clarification 

regarding this issue as a 24-hour test 

period has been part of the test 

procedure and has already been 

confirmed by manufacturers. Id. 

Hussmann commented that a 24-hour 

use period was not typical use for these 

types of CRE, which should therefore be 

tested in an 8- to 12-hour period that 

more closely resembled typical use. 

(Hussmann, No. 32, p. 5) Hussmann 

added that the hours of uncovered time 

created a strain on the case and on the 

product and were not reflective of 

typical use, and that this procedure was 

also burdensome for those conducting 

the testing. Id. Hussmann recommended 

this issue be taken before a standards 

committee to be tested and accepted by 

the industry instead of combining 

sections from different standards. Id. 

The CA IOUs commented that the 

current proposed test procedure for 

buffet tables or preparation tables is not 

representative of average use for this 

category because pizza and sandwich 

prep tables almost always have lids, as 

this equipment is designed for 24-hour 

operation while many refrigerated rail 

models are turned off at night and 

precooled in the morning. (CA IOUs, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66183 

No. 36, p. 3) As a result, the CA IOUs 

recommended that refrigerated rails 

with a user-accessible on/off switch be 

tested for a period of 8 hours excluding 

the precool time (from ambient to below 

40 °F), since the 8-hour period would 

represent two meal periods typical of 

most food-service establishments 

serving breakfast and lunch or lunch 

and dinner. Id. The CA IOUs further 

recommended including precool energy 

without pans in place in the daily 

energy use, in addition to the energy 

used during the 8-hour test, to maintain 

pans in the refrigerated rail at the target 

temperature, because refrigerated rails 

tested for 8 hours typically do not go 

into defrost mode, as the condensate is 

wiped down at the end of the day after 

pan removal and placement into another 

refrigerator. Id. Finally, the CA IOUs 

recommended testing refrigerated rails 

that do not have on/off switches or 

controllers for a period of 24 hours as 

currently defined in the ASTM F2143 

Standard Test Method for Performance 

of Refrigerated Buffet and Preparation 

Tables. Id. 

True commented that buffet tables 

and food preparation tables are not 

effective for around-the-clock food 

storage, and that the suggested test 

period (i.e., 8 hours active and 16 

inactive) does not represent how these 

units are meant to be used and operated; 

both model types are designed to be 

used during meal rush times (breakfast, 

lunch, dinner) to store perishable, open 

food during 1-to-3-hour intervals and 

not during a constant 8-hour period. 

(True, No. 28, p. 6) True stated that 

measuring the energy consumption 

during the NSF/ANSI 7–2021 7.5.2 test 

method for refrigerated buffet units and 

refrigerated food preparation would be 

the most representative measurement of 

energy consumption, and if a 24-hour 

number is required, simply multiplying 

the energy consumption during the 4- 

hour test by 6 would suffice. Id. 

DOE notes that ASTM F2143–16 

currently includes a 24-hour test period 

for all units—with an 8-hour active 

period, and 16-hour standby period. 

DOE recognizes that duration of usage 

per day varies depending on application 

and installation location. However, as 

noted by commenters, this equipment 

can be used for 24 hours. A 24-hour test 

allows for a representative measurement 

of energy use and allows for a consistent 

comparison of energy use. Therefore, 

DOE is adopting a 24-hour test period 

for buffet tables and preparation tables, 

consistent with the approach in ASTM 

F2143–16. As discussed in the following 

paragraphs, the 24-hour period includes 

active and standby periods, consistent 

with ASTM F2143–16, to reflect usage 

during service and storage periods. 

As discussed, ASTM F2143–16 

includes an 8-hour ‘‘active period’’ that 

includes instructions for any open-top 

display area covers (2 hours open, 4 

hours closed, and 2 hours open) and any 

refrigerated compartment doors and/or 

drawers (fully opened sequentially for 6 

seconds every 30 minutes). DOE 

recognizes that the actual use of buffet 

tables and preparation tables can vary 

depending on application. The cover 

and door opening requirements in 

ASTM F2143–16 were developed by an 

industry committee with the intent of 

evaluating energy performance. While 

the door openings specified in ASTM 

F2143–16 are less frequent than those 

required in ASHRAE 72–2018R, DOE 

expects that any refrigerated 

compartments in buffet tables or 

preparation tables are accessed less 

frequently than in other CRE because 

maintaining the refrigerated temperature 

of food items held in the open-top pan 

area is the primary function of buffet 

tables or preparation tables during 

operation. Additionally, the 8-hour 

‘‘active period’’ during which door 

openings occur is consistent with the 8- 

hour period of door openings required 

in ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata. Based 

on the foregoing, DOE tentatively 

determined in the June 2022 NOPR that 

the cover and door opening provisions 

of ASTM F2143–16 are appropriately 

representative. 87 FR 39164, 39188. 

Accordingly, DOE proposed in the 

June 2022 NOPR to incorporate the 

‘‘active period’’ requirements for cover 

and door and/or drawer openings as 

specified in section 10.5.5 of ASTM 

F2143–16. Id. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on the proposed 

door and cover opening procedures, 

which are consistent with the approach 

specified in ASTM F2143–16. DOE 

requested data and information on 

representative usage of buffet tables and 

preparation tables, including door and 

cover openings. Id. 

Hoshizaki commented in agreement 

with DOE that the cover and door 

opening provisions of ASTM F2143–16 

are appropriately representative for 

energy testing. (Hoshizaki, No. 30, p. 4) 

Hoshizaki commented that ASTM 

F2143–2016 should be either accepted 

in its entirety or changes suggested 

should be made at the ASTM F2143– 

2016 standards committee level and 

await approval before accepting said 

standard as a test procedure. Id. 

Hillphoenix stated agreement with the 

proposal to use the door and cover 

opening procedures as referenced in 

ASTM F2143–16, as they are more 

representative of end use than the door 

opening procedure referenced in 

ASHRAE 72. (Hillphoenix, No. 35, p. 5) 

Hillphoenix commented that the doors 

on this type of equipment are normally 

operated by store personnel and are not 

customer facing, which excludes the 

intent of the opening procedures 

specified in ASHRAE 72. Id. 

Hillphoenix recommended that DOE 

approach industry and request updated 

testing standards that better reflect 

actual product intent, an approach that 

would drive consistency within the 

industry and be less burdensome on 

manufacturers. Id. 

AHRI commented that the issue of 

proposed door and cover opening 

procedures consistent with ASTM 

F2143–16 depend on DOE’s ultimate 

decision regarding use of ASHRAE 72– 

2018R. (AHRI, No. 38, p. 8) AHRI stated 

that ambient conditions must be 

selected in order to select the door type 

in use for equipment and recommended 

that changes to this standard be 

addressed by the appropriate standards 

committee for review and approval, and 

that a test procedure should be 

developed prior to regulating this 

equipment. Id. 

Continental commented that it had 

not performed sufficient testing to 

ASTM F2143–16 to form a conclusive 

position on the suitability of utilizing 

the proposed door and cover opening 

procedures, but stated concerns with the 

practicality, burden, and repeatability of 

the simultaneous door and cover 

opening method specified in the ASTM 

test method. (Continental, No. 29, p. 7) 

Continental stated that results may be 

significantly skewed by ambient test 

conditions and the process used, and 

DOE should delay adoption of a test 

procedure for refrigerated buffet and 

preparation tables and address feedback 

regarding ASTM F2143–16 with the 

appropriate standards committee. Id. 

Hussmann commented that due to the 

uncertainty of DOE selecting sections 

from both standards, it would be 

difficult to choose what method would 

work for a majority of manufacturers. 

(Hussmann, No. 32, p. 6) Hussmann 

commented that options determined 

from this test procedure may include: 

ASHRAE 72 conditions with ASHRAE 

72 door openings; ASHRAE 72 

conditions with the ASTM door opening 

procedure; ASTM conditions with the 

ASTM door opening procedure; or 

ASTM conditions with ASHRAE door 

openings. Id. Hussmann requested that 

DOE select test conditions in order to 

determine the suitable door opening 

procedure and cautioned against 

combining test standards for this reason. 

Id. Hussmann added that overall 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66184 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

measurements and results would have 

varying effects based on openings, 

ambient conditions, and test mediums 

used, and recommended that any 

changes be brought to the appropriate 

standards committee for review and 

approval prior to adoption. Id. 

DOE agrees that the usage of buffet 

tables or preparation tables likely varies 

between high usage and low usage 

periods over a 24-hour period. The 

existing ASTM F2143–16 test procedure 

is representative of field use because it 

accounts for high and low usage periods 

with the active and standby periods. 

Therefore, DOE is adopting the active 

mode provisions of the ASTM test 

procedure for pan covers and door 

openings of any refrigerated 

compartments. This includes 4 hours 

total of uncovered pan area (2 hours 

open, 4 hours closed, 2 hours open for 

the 8-hour active period) and 8 hours of 

door openings (occurring every 30 

minutes). 

DOE is not adopting door openings 

based on ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata 

as the doors are likely opened less 

frequently for this equipment, 

consistent with the ASTM F2143–16 

requirements. 

DOE recognizes that the impact of 

uncovered pan operation and door 

openings will vary depending on 

ambient conditions. As discussed, DOE 

has determined that the ASHRAE 72– 

2022 with Errata ambient conditions are 

appropriate for testing this equipment. 

DOE expects that any ‘‘strain’’ on 

uncovered operation would be mitigated 

by the lower ambient temperature of 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata as 

compared to the ambient temperature 

specified in ASTM F2143–16, as well as 

the use of pan covers when applicable 

during a portion of the active period and 

the duration of the standby period. 

In response to the comments 

regarding DOE referencing multiple test 

standards, refer to the same comments 

discussed in sections III.B and III.C.1.b 

of this document. 

Test Conduct—Stabilization 

Sections 10.3 and 10.4 of ASTM 

F2143–16 require that the unit be 

operated with empty pans and open 

covers for at least 24 hours, that the unit 

operate with empty pans for at least 2 

hours, that water be pre-cooled before 

being loaded into the pans, and, once 

the water has been loaded into the pans, 

that the thermostat be calibrated until 

the pan temperatures are never outside 

of 33 °F to 41 °F for any 15-minute 

period over a 4-hour measurement 

period. In contrast, the current CRE test 

procedure, by reference to ASHRAE 72– 

2005, generally provides that the unit be 

loaded with test simulators and filler 

packages prior to pre-cooling, operated 

to establish steady-state conditions over 

consecutive 24-hour periods or 

refrigeration cycles, and, once steadystate conditions have been achieved, 

continue to operate for at least 12 hours 

without any adjustment to the controls. 

As discussed, DOE proposed in the 

June 2022 NOPR generally to reference 

ASTM F2143–16 rather than NSF 7– 

2019 for buffet table and preparation 

table testing. 87 FR 39164, 39188. 

However, the stabilization and 

thermostat calibration requirements in 

sections 10.3 and 10.4 of ASTM F2143– 

16 may require an iterative process of 

thermostat adjustment and recalibration 

to achieve stability and then to ensure 

that appropriate conditions are 

maintained during the test period. 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata specifies 

provisions for other CRE that require 

stability to be confirmed over two test 

periods with identical operation in 

order to avoid the need for an iterative 

process. In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to reference sections 7.1 

through 7.5 (excluding sections 7.2.1, 

7.2.2, 7.3.1, 7.3.2, 7.3.3, and 7.3.4, as 

those sections would not be applicable 

to self-contained buffet tables or 

preparation tables because those 

sections are intended for CRE with 

remote condensing units, CRE without 

doors, CRE with different door opening 

sequences, and CRE with lighting 

occupancy sensors and controls) of 

ASHRAE 72–2018R for determining 

stabilization and specifying the testing 

sequence for testing buffet tables and 

preparation tables. 87 FR 39164, 39188. 

The preparation period under section 

7.2 of ASHRAE 72–2018R would 

include loading the pans with water and 

adjusting the necessary controls to 

maintain the specified temperatures. Id. 

For the purposes of determining 

stability as specified in section 7.5 of 

ASHRAE 72–2018R, the average 

temperatures of measured pans would 

be used to compare Test A and Test B 

rather than the temperatures of test 

simulators. Id. DOE tentatively 

determined in the June 2022 NOPR that 

this approach would ensure stability 

over the test period and limit test 

burden by avoiding an iterative 

approach to determine stability and test 

conditions. Id. This approach would 

also maintain consistency with the 

procedures used for testing other CRE. 

Id. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on the proposed 

stabilization approach for buffet table 

and preparation table testing, which 

would reference the approach specified 

in ASHRAE 72–2018R. Id. 

AHRI commented that it supports 

DOE’s proposed stabilization approach 

while again recommending that DOE 

regulate this issue under a single 

standard, cautioning DOE against 

combining test standards as unnecessary 

and inadvisable. (AHRI, No. 38, p. 8) 

AHRI further noted that buffet tables 

have not yet been addressed by 

ASHRAE Standard 72–2022. (AHRI, No. 

38, p. 8) 

Hussmann stated its support for 

adopting the stabilization method for 

self-contained CRE identified in section 

7.4 in ASHRAE 72–2018R, but 

cautioned that this method does not yet 

address buffet/prep CRE and as a result, 

the proposed stabilization approach 

should be taken to the appropriate 

standards committee prior to adoption. 

(Hussmann, No. 32, p. 6) 

Hillphoenix stated agreement with the 

proposal to use the ASHRAE 72 

approach for stabilization of buffet table 

and preparation table testing as 

ASHRAE 72 followed methods used for 

other CRE equipment. (Hillphoenix, No. 

35, p. 5) Hillphoenix commented that 

ASTM F2143–16 allowed many factors 

that could be burdensome when trying 

to stabilize temperatures. Id. 

Hillphoenix recommended that DOE 

approach industry and request updated 

testing standards that better reflect 

actual product intent, an approach that 

would drive consistency within the 

industry and be less burdensome on 

manufacturers. Id. 

Hoshizaki commented requesting that 

if DOE is proposing to reference ASTM 

F2143–2016 for buffet table and 

preparation table testing but use the 

stabilization and thermostat calibration 

requirements as specified in section 7.5 

of ASHRAE 72–2022, then those 

changes should be proposed to the 

ASTM F2143–2016 standards 

committee. (Hoshizaki, No. 30, p. 4) 

Hoshizaki noted than when DOE is 

content with a proper test procedure, 

then DOE can propose use of the test 

procedure at that time. Id. 

Continental stated a belief that the 

stabilization period prescribed in 

ASHRAE 72–2022 may have 

applicability for buffet or preparation 

tables, but had not tested this 

equipment in the proposed manner to 

inform a comprehensive opinion. 

(Continental, No. 29, p. 7) Continental 

maintained that combining aspects of 

different test standards was inadvisable 

and that DOE should delay adoption of 

a test procedure for refrigerated buffet 

and preparation tables, and work with 

the appropriate standards committees 

and other stakeholders to develop an 

appropriate standard method that 

addresses this issue. Id. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66185 

In response to the comments 

regarding DOE referencing multiple test 

standards, refer to the same comments 

discussed in sections III.B and III.C.1.b 

of this document. 

DOE maintains its determination from 

the June 2022 NOPR that the ASTM 

F2143–16 approach is burdensome and 

requires an iterative approach to 

determine stability, whereas the 

approach in ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Errata allows for consistent testing 

while limiting test burden. Therefore, 

DOE is adopting the relevant sections of 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata to require 

that stability be confirmed over two 

identical test periods. 

DOE will continue to monitor 

industry committee work to update 

relevant standards and will consider 

any updated industry standards 

available during future test procedure 

rulemakings. 

Test Conduct—Target Temperatures 

ASTM F2143–16 instructs that if a 

buffet table or preparation table is 

equipped with a refrigerated 

compartment, the compartment air 

temperature is to be between 33 °F and 

41 °F. Likewise, the water temperature 

in each of the pans placed in the display 

area also is to be between 33 °F and 

41 °F. The DOE test procedure for other 

CRE requires IATs of 38 °F ±2.0 °F for 

medium temperature applications. 

Through research, DOE found that 

buffet and preparation tables use a 

variety of refrigeration methods for 

cooling the pans in the display area and 

the refrigerated compartment. In some 

configurations, units might not be able 

to maintain all pans and the refrigerated 

compartment within the specified 

temperature range. For example, units 

with a single refrigeration system and 

thermostat control for temperatures in 

either the refrigerated compartment or 

in the pan area would control for 

temperature in either the pan area or 

refrigerated compartment, and both may 

not be within the target range. As a 

result, certain equipment may maintain 

only the refrigerated compartment or the 

pan area, but not both, within a 

specified temperature range during 

operation. 

As discussed, ASTM F2143–16 and 

NSF 7–2019 both specify a pan and 

compartment temperature range of 33 °F 

to 41 °F for testing. The current DOE test 

procedure for CRE requires testing to an 

IAT within 2 °F of the specified target 

temperature. DOE expects that this 

smaller allowable temperature range 

would limit test variability as compared 

to the 8 °F allowable range specified in 

ASTM F2143–16 and NSF 7–2019. 

The ASTM F2143–16 and NSF 7– 

2019 temperature ranges apply to all 

measured pan and compartment 

temperatures, whereas DOE’s current 

temperature specifications apply to the 

IAT—i.e., the average of all test 

simulator temperature measurements 

over the test period. DOE tentatively 

determined in the June 2022 NOPR that 

the temperature specification based on 

an average temperature rather than 

individual temperature measurements 

would limit test burden by limiting the 

need for retests in the case of individual 

temperature measurements being 

outside of the required range. 87 FR 

39164, 39189. Additionally, DOE 

determined that the average temperature 

approach would allow for testing buffet 

tables and preparation tables with 

configurations not capable of 

maintaining all temperature 

measurements within the required 

range. Id. For example, if the 

refrigerated compartment provides 

cooling to the open-top pan area, the 

refrigerated compartment temperature 

measurements may be colder than the 

pan temperatures and not necessarily 

within a specified range. Id. 

Additionally, certain temperature 

measurement locations may be warmer 

or colder than others depending on 

proximity to the evaporator or 

refrigerated areas, resulting in ‘‘hot’’ or 

‘‘cold’’ spots. Id. Testing to a specified 

average temperature would consider the 

overall average measured temperature 

and would allow for testing such 

configurations. Id. 

Based on these initial determinations, 

DOE proposed in the June 2022 NOPR 

to require testing buffet tables and 

preparation tables to a specified average 

temperature rather than an allowable 

range. Id. DOE proposed in the June 

2022 NOPR that the average temperature 

be calculated over the test period 

separately for the pan temperature 

measurements (i.e., the average of 

temperatures measured throughout the 

test period at each pan measurement 

location specified in ASTM F2143–16) 

and the temperature measurements in 

any refrigerated compartment (i.e., the 

average of temperatures measured 

throughout the test period at each of the 

three compartment measurement 

locations specified in ASTM F2143–16). 

DOE proposed in the June 2022 NOPR 

that the average temperature of all 

refrigerated pans be 38 °F ±2 °F. Id. This 

temperature is consistent with the 

current DOE test procedure for mediumtemperature CRE and is within the 

allowable range specified in ASTM 

F2143–16 and NSF 7–2019. In the June 

2022 NOPR, DOE similarly proposed 

that the average temperature of any 

refrigerated compartment also be 38 °F 

±2 °F. 87 FR 39164, 39189. If the buffet 

table or preparation table configuration 

does not allow independent control of 

the refrigerated compartment and both 

the pan average temperature and 

refrigerated compartment average 

temperature cannot be maintained 

within 38 °F ±2 °F over the test period, 

DOE proposed that the refrigerated 

compartment be tested to the average 

temperature necessary to maintain the 

pan average temperature within the 

specified range. Id. Similar to the 

existing LAPT provision in section 2.2 

of appendix B, DOE also proposed in 

the June 2022 NOPR that if a unit is not 

capable of maintaining average pan 

temperatures within the specified range, 

the unit would be tested at the LAPT. 

Id. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on the proposed 

approach for testing buffet tables and 

preparation tables based on separate pan 

and compartment average temperatures. 

Id. DOE also requested feedback on the 

proposed target temperature of 38 °F 

±2 °F for each average temperature. Id. 

Hillphoenix stated agreement with the 

proposed 38 °F ±2 °F IAT for averaging 

the temperature for each refrigerated 

compartment when there are no 

separate refrigeration controls. 

(Hillphoenix, No. 35, p. 6) Hillphoenix 

also agreed with the approach to only 

apply the 38 °F ±2 °F IAT requirement to 

open-top pans if the other refrigerated 

compartments must be operated colder 

in order to achieve these pan 

temperatures. Id. Hillphoenix disagreed 

with utilizing the LAPT for the open 

tops with pans in order to maintain 

38 °F as required in other compartments, 

but stated that the open top with pans 

should be given priority to achieve 38 °F 

with other compartments allowed to run 

colder. Id. 

Continental repeated its response to 

DOE’s early assessment review, 

supporting use of target temperature 

ranges and moving box car average 

temperatures for pans in the open 

display area, along with maximum and 

minimum thermocouple temperature 

measurements in the refrigerated storage 

compartment, as prescribed in NSF 7 for 

this equipment. (Continental, No. 29, p. 

7) Continental commented that it had 

not energy tested relevant equipment in 

the proposed manner to thoroughly 

evaluate suitability of this approach and 

reiterated that DOE should postpone 

publication of a test procedure for 

refrigerated buffet and preparation 

tables, and work with the appropriate 

standards committees and other 

stakeholders to develop and evaluate an 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66186 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

appropriate single standard method that 

addresses this and other issues. Id. 

Hussmann commented that due to the 

nature of the small refrigerated pans on 

this type of CRE, removing pan lids and/ 

or entering defrost could have warming 

effects on the pans and DOE should 

therefore use an average IAT of below 

41 °F for the target temperature. 

(Hussmann, No. 32, p. 6) Hussmann also 

cautioned DOE against combining 

sections from different standards to 

create a test procedure, stating that the 

proposed changes should be taken to the 

appropriate standards committee prior 

to adoption. Id. 

AHRI recommended that DOE’s target 

temperature should remain below 41 °F 

and restated its belief that combining 

test standards was unnecessary and that 

a single standard should be used to 

regulate the issue. (AHRI, No. 38, p. 8) 

Hoshizaki commented that if DOE is 

proposing to reference ASTM F2143– 

2016 for buffet table and preparation 

table testing but use a modified target 

temperature range, then those proposed 

changes should made to the ASTM 

F2143–2016 standards committee and 

await approval before finalizing a test 

procedure in DOE standards. 

(Hoshizaki, No. 30, p. 4) Hoshizaki 

noted that manufacturers would need to 

be given the opportunity to test with 

those new constraints and make viable 

comments after seeing the differences. 

Id. 

True recommended recording the 

energy consumption during the 4-hour 

NSF/ANSI 7–2021 test method (7.5.2) 

for refrigerated buffet units and 

refrigerated food preparation units 

because for buffet tables or preparation 

tables, the average of the pan 

temperatures is not a food-safe 

measurement. (True, No. 28, p. 3) True 

added that this test procedure is the 

industry standard and that all original 

equipment manufacturers (‘‘OEMs’’) 

should be able to supply energy 

consumption data for all equipment 

already manufactured and certified to 

NSF Standard 7. True asked DOE if such 

information had been requested from 

manufacturers. Id. 

The 38 °F ±2 °F average pan 

temperature is generally consistent with 

the recommended approach for IAT 

below 41 °F and would allow for 

consistent comparisons across models 

by including a target temperature rather 

than a wide allowable range of IATs. For 

example, the energy use of a unit 

maintaining a pan IAT of 34 °F would be 

expected to be higher than a unit with 

an IAT of 41 °F. Additionally, testing 

significantly below the 38 °F ±2 °F range 

may introduce concerns of the distilled 

water freezing during testing. 

DOE is maintaining pan and 

compartment target temperatures 

consistent with June 2022 NOPR and 

test procedure for other medium 

temperature CRE. To clarify, achieving 

the target pan temperature always takes 

priority over achieving the compartment 

temperature. LAPT is only allowed if a 

model cannot achieve the required pan 

temperature target range. 

The boxcar pan temperature averaging 

approach in NSF 7 is for a test method 

serving a different purpose—ensuring 

food safety. For the DOE test procedure, 

the average pan temperature over the 

entire test duration is needed to ensure 

energy consumption corresponds to the 

maintained pan temperatures. DOE 

recognizes that an average pan 

temperature does not necessarily 

represent food safe temperatures (i.e., 

each pan temperature may not be at 

38 °F), but the DOE test procedure is 

intended to provide a representative 

basis for measuring energy consumption 

while not being unduly burdensome to 

conduct rather than ensuring food safety 

or sanitation. DOE has determined that 

the pan temperature averaging approach 

as proposed in the June 2022 NOPR 

satisfies the EPCA requirements. 

Test Conduct—Capacity Metrics 

ASTM F2143–16 specifies the 

reporting of ‘‘production capacity,’’ 

which is defined as the total volume of 

the pans when each pan is filled within 

0.5 in. of the rim. Energy consumption 

of refrigerated buffet and preparation 

tables likely varies with pan volume as 

well as the volume of any closed 

refrigerated compartments. Therefore, 

both values are of interest when 

considering metrics that define energy 

performance. Pan surface area could be 

another possible metric for evaluating 

energy performance, similar to TDA for 

horizontal open equipment classes. 

Reliance on pan surface area may 

eliminate the variability with different 

test pan dimensions. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

tentatively determined that pan storage 

volume, pan display area, and 

refrigerated volume may all contribute 

to the capacity and energy consumption 

of a buffet table or preparation table; 

therefore, DOE proposed that the test 

procedure include measures of these 

three metrics. 87 FR 39164, 39190. DOE 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR to 

define and measure ‘‘pan volume’’ 

consistent with the production capacity 

specified in ASTM F2143–16. Id. DOE 

proposed to refer to pan volume rather 

than production capacity to avoid 

confusion with the other relevant 

capacity metrics. Id. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

proposed that the refrigerated volume of 

buffet table and preparation table 

refrigerated compartments be tested in 

accordance with AHRI 1200–202X, 

consistent with the method proposed for 

use with other CRE. Id. To avoid double 

counting of refrigerated pan volumes, 

DOE proposed that the refrigerated 

compartment volume would not include 

any volume occupied by the pans 

loaded in the open-top display area for 

testing. Id. 

DOE proposed in the June 2022 NOPR 

that pan display area be defined and 

measured as the surface area of the test 

pan when filled to within 0.5 in. of the 

rim. Id. This surface area measurement 

would ensure that the pan display area 

would be consistent with the pan 

storage volume (i.e., both measurements 

would be based on the pans as filled for 

testing). Id. Additionally, the 

measurement based on the surface area 

of the water as loaded for testing would 

ensure that the surface area 

measurement accounts for the actual 

food storage area and excludes any areas 

not providing refrigerated storage for 

food service or food preparation. Id. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on the proposed 

capacity metrics of pan storage volume, 

compartment volume, and pan display 

area. Id. DOE requested feedback on the 

proposed methods for measuring each 

and the extent to which these metrics 

are relevant capacity metrics for buffet 

tables and preparation tables. Id. 

Hillphoenix stated agreement with 

DOE’s intent to only measure volumes 

and TDAs for the referenced products. 

(Hillphoenix, No. 35, p. 6) Hillphoenix 

commented that the method as 

presented in the NOPR was not clearly 

written and needed to be better defined. 

Id. Hillphoenix recommended that DOE 

approach industry and request updated 

testing standards that better reflect 

actual product intent, an approach that 

would drive consistency within the 

industry and be less burdensome on 

manufacturers. Id. 

AHRI recommended that the 

proposed changes to capacity metrics of 

pan storage volume, compartment 

volume, and pan display area need to be 

updated in tandem with the standard for 

consistency and alignment with the 

referenced standard. (AHRI, No. 38, p. 

8) 

Hussmann commented that the issue 

of proposed capacity metrics of pan 

storage volume, compartment volume, 

and pan display area should be taken to 

the appropriate standards committee 

due to the importance of consistency 

within standards. (Hussmann, No. 32, p. 

6) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66187 

20 ‘‘Holding temperature application’’ means a 

use of commercial refrigeration equipment other 

than a pull-down temperature application, except a 

blast chiller or freezer. 10 CFR 431.62 (see also 42 

U.S.C. 6311(9)(B)). 

Continental commented that DOE’s 

proposed use of surface area of the 

water as loaded for testing would 

present a confusing and potentially 

inconsistent method of rating 

equipment because it deviates from 

other industry standards. (Continental, 

No. 29, p. 7) Continental added that 

DOE should delay adoption of a test 

procedure for these products and work 

with the appropriate standards 

committees and other stakeholders to 

develop a suitable standard method that 

sufficiently addresses concerns with 

capacity measurements, which have 

significant impact on potential new 

energy standards in the future. Id. 

The CA IOUs recommended for the 

prep table test procedure using 1⁄8-pan 

capacity as a size (and energy 

normalization) metric for prep tables 

instead of pan display area because prep 

table energy consumption depends 

mostly on the top pan capacity instead 

of bottom compartment volume. (CA 

IOUs, No. 36, p. 4) The CA IOUs 

pointed out that using total volume in 

the top pans and bottom compartment 

as a normalization metric will favor 

units with fewer top pans and larger 

bottom compartments compared to units 

with more top pan capacity. Id. 

Hoshizaki commented that pan 

display area is not currently used as a 

metric in ASTM F2143–2016. 

(Hoshizaki, No. 30, p. 4) Hoshizaki 

commented that if DOE wants to add an 

additional metric for measurement, this 

should be proposed to the ASTM F2143 

standards committee, and that such 

proposals should give manufacturers 

and third-party testing agencies the 

opportunity to do analysis and feedback 

in the standards committee process. Id. 

Hoshizaki stated that only after all 

revisions are finalized should the 

standard be officially proposed as a test 

procedure for product. Id. 

DOE maintains that pan display area, 

pan volume, and refrigerated 

compartment volume can all impact 

energy use and provide information 

regarding usable capacity to end users. 

Because ASTM F2143–16 includes 

‘‘production capacity,’’ which 

represents a measure of pan storage 

volume, DOE is adopting additional 

capacity metrics. These metrics reflect 

the capacity of buffet tables and 

preparation tables to store refrigerated 

items and display or allow access to 

refrigerated items. 

Regarding the CA IOUs 

recommendation, the measured pan area 

rather than a number of standard pans 

would ensure a consistent basis for 

measuring unit capacity regardless of 

pan configuration for a given unit. 

Regarding confusion and need for test 

standard updates, the measurements of 

compartment volume and pan volume 

are consistent with the existing industry 

methods (AHRI 1200–2023 and ASTM 

F2143–16, respectively). Pan area is the 

surface area of the water in the pans 

which represents the refrigerated area in 

contact with the ambient test 

conditions, which ensures a 

representative and comparable 

measurement of the usable capacity that 

contributes to energy consumption. 

Commenters did not provide specific 

information regarding what aspects of 

the June 2022 NOPR approach were 

unclear. DOE has reviewed the test 

instructions as proposed and 

determined they provide sufficient 

clarity regarding measuring each of the 

capacity metrics. Therefore, DOE is 

adopting the capacity metrics as 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR. 

2. Pull-Down Temperature Applications 

As defined, CRE is equipment that is 

designed for holding temperature 

applications 20 or pull-down 

temperature applications. 10 CFR 

431.62 (see also 42 U.S.C. 

6311(9)(A)(vi)). ‘‘Pull-down temperature 

application’’ is a commercial refrigerator 

with doors that, when fully loaded with 

12-ounce beverage cans at 90 °F, can 

cool those beverages to an average stable 

temperature of 38 °F in 12 hours or less. 

10 CFR 431.62 (42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(D)). 

CRE within this definition are typically 

known as beverage merchandisers or 

beverage coolers because of their use in 

displaying individually packaged 

beverages for sale, and their ability to 

pull down temperatures of such 

beverages. Pull-down temperature 

applications with transparent doors and 

a self-contained condensing unit are the 

only pull-down temperature 

applications currently subject to DOE’s 

energy conservation standards specified 

at 10 CFR 431.66(e). 

DOE’s current CRE test procedure 

does not include specific provisions 

related to the performance criteria in the 

pull-down temperature application 

definition. For example, the test 

procedure does not provide instructions 

for the starting conditions of the 

equipment (e.g., whether the equipment 

begins the test in a pre-cooled state or 

at ambient temperature conditions), 

loading of the cans (e.g., whether the 

equipment must be loaded to full within 

a certain amount of time), or a method 

to measure the temperature of the cans 

to confirm cooling to 38 °F. The current 

CRE test procedure specifies that 

commercial refrigerators designed for 

pull-down applications be tested at 

steady state (see 10 CFR 431.64(b) and 

appendix B section 2.1), consistent with 

testing other covered CRE categories. 

While DOE defines ‘‘pull-down 

temperature application’’ and has 

established energy conservation 

standards for self-contained commercial 

refrigerators with transparent doors for 

pull-down temperature applications, no 

models are currently certified to DOE in 

this equipment class.(21) DOE has not 

established energy conservation 

standards for other categories of CRE for 

pull-down temperature applications. 

DOE recognizes that manufacturers 

may represent their models as for use in 

pull-down temperature applications 

rather than holding temperature 

applications. To ensure appropriate 

application of DOE’s definitions, DOE 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR a 

method to determine whether a model 

meets the definition of ‘‘pull-down 

temperature application.’’ 87 FR 39164, 

39191. Specifically, DOE proposed to 

include product-specific enforcement 

provisions for CRE, and proposed to 

include a section to specify how DOE 

would confirm whether a commercial 

refrigerator meets the definition of 

‘‘pull-down temperature application.’’ 

Id. 

As stated, the pull-down temperature 

application definition requires that a 

model be capable of cooling a full load 

of 12-ounce beverage cans from 90 °F to 

an average stable temperature of 38 °F in 

12 hours or less. To confirm this 

capability, DOE proposed in the June 

2022 NOPR to specify in 10 CFR 

429.134 that a classification as pulldown temperature application is valid 

based on meeting the pull-down 

temperature application definition by: 

(1) Measuring the temperatures of 12- 

ounce beverage cans loaded into the 

commercial refrigerator at locations 

consistent with those specified in 

ASHRAE 72–2018R (i.e., those 

temperature measurement locations 

required for test simulators during DOE 

testing of other commercial 

refrigerators); 

(2) Operating the commercial 

refrigerator under the required 

commercial refrigerator test conditions 

(e.g., 75.2 °F ±1.8 °F dry-bulb 

temperature) and at the control setting 

necessary to achieve a stable integrated 

average temperature of 38 °F prior to 

loading; 

(3) Fully loading the commercial 

refrigerator with 12-ounce beverage cans 

maintained at 90 °F ±2 °F; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66188 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

(4) Determining the duration of pull 

down (which must be 12 hours or less) 

starting from closing the commercial 

refrigerator door after completing the 

12-ounce beverage can loading until the 

integrated average temperature reaches 

38 °F ±2 °F; and 

(5) Determining an average stable 

temperature of 38 °F by operating the 

commercial refrigerator for an 

additional 12 hours after initially 

reaching 38 °F ±2 °F with no changes to 

control settings, and determining an 

integrated average temperature of 38 °F 

±2 °F at the end of the 12-hour stability 

period. 87 FR 39164, 39191. 

The proposed product-specific 

enforcement provisions are consistent 

with the existing definition of ‘‘pulldown temperature application,’’ but 

would provide additional clarity 

regarding how DOE would determine 

whether a commercial refrigerator could 

be classified as such. Id. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on the proposed 

product-specific enforcement provisions 

regarding how DOE would determine 

whether a model meets the pull-down 

temperature application definition. 87 

FR 39164, 39191. DOE also requested 

data and comment on whether the 

proposed product-specific enforcement 

provisions sufficiently differentiate 

pull-down temperature applications 

from holding temperature applications. 

Id. 

AHRI commented that detailed 

information regarding pull down of 

‘‘full load’’ wasn’t available. (AHRI, No. 

38, p. 9) As a result, AHRI believed this 

proposal is in conflict with NSF 

requirements. Id. AHRI cited DOE’s 

slide deck used in an August 1, 2022, 

webinar for the CRE test procedure, 

noting two concerns with pull-down 

temperature and enforcement actions. 

Id. 

AHRI commented by citing issue 24 (a 

question on the request for comment for 

pull-down temperature applications) to 

ask whether DOE is referring only to the 

category of pull-down CRE, or if DOE is 

adding pull down to all categories for 

enforcement. AHRI also asked if this 

would allow for the randomized 

placement of bottles during a legitimate 

test procedure. Id. AHRI referred to 

issue 56 related to certified volume 

versus volume measurement to ask if 

this will allow manufacturers to use 

their discretion. Id. 

The Joint Commenters stated their 

support for the proposed test procedure 

to verify pull-down temperature 

performance. (Joint Commenters, No. 

31, p. 3) The Joint Commenters noted 

they had expressed previous support for 

eliminating the pull-down temperature 

CRE class. As discussed in their 

comments to the preliminary TSD for 

CRE standards, the Joint Commenters 

now supported the proposed NOPR 

amendment maintaining the pull-down 

class as it would clarify how DOE 

would determine whether a model is 

appropriately certified as a pull-down 

unit. Id. 

NAMA expressed concern about the 

pull-down temperature provision 

because of the lack of specificity and 

asked if the provision related only to 

those products for which DOE had pulldown requirements or whether the 

provision referred to all CRE equipment 

that stored and cooled beverage cans/ 

bottles. (NAMA, No. 33, p. 2) NAMA 

noted that large beverage companies had 

requirements for pull down, based on 

customer preference and sanitary 

conditions for food items that must 

reach 38 °F in 16 hours, not 12 hours. 

Id. NAMA commented that the DOE 

proposal would set up a conflicting set 

of requirements as more and more bottle 

coolers were used to store food in 

addition to beverages, making 12 hours 

a much shorter pull-down time. Id. 

NAMA suggested that DOE harmonize 

at 16 hours since the customers of its 

manufacturers already had 

specifications on pull down, adding that 

manufacturers already must test to 

determine pull down in 16 hours, and 

additional testing to show an arbitrary 

pull down at 12 hours was unnecessary 

and unduly burdensome. Id. 

NAMA additionally requested that 

DOE develop specific test procedures 

for placing cans/bottles into the cooler, 

stating it was possible to obtain different 

results with a cooler packed with every 

conceivable space used and shelves 

removed versus cans/bottles packed as 

in a retail store; different results could 

also be obtained with cans versus 

bottles. (NAMA, No. 33, p. 2) NAMA 

recommended that DOE use a glycol 

liquid, as with the beverage vending 

machine (BVM) test procedure. Id. 

In the August 2022 public meeting, 

True commented that the subject of 12- 

ounce cans will lead to some serious 

discussions on loading them. (Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 41, p. 53) True 

stated these cans are very convenient to 

load two or three high per shelf, and if 

they are not single-loaded on a shelf, 

there could be a situation in which the 

middle cans are getting far less surface 

area and are more difficult to cool 

down. Id. True commented that some 

specification is needed on how to load 

these cans so this situation doesn’t 

happen, stating that if someone put one 

shelf in the bottom and stacked it to the 

ceiling with cans, they would never 

pass this test. Id. 

The CA IOUs urged DOE to amend the 

definition for ‘‘pull-down temperature 

application’’ to specify ‘‘a blast chiller 

or freezer’’ and exclude beverage 

merchandisers, which in practice are 

used in holding-temperature 

applications. (CA IOUs, No. 36, p. 6) 

The CA IOUs commented that in the 

CRE industry, pull-down refrigeration 

specifically means equipment capable of 

rapidly lowering food temperature in a 

food-safe manner and that only blast 

chillers/freezers are considered to have 

pull-down applications by industry 

while beverage merchandizers are rated 

as Vertical Closed Transparent Medium 

Temperature (‘‘VCT.M’’) CRE and 

designed for holding-temperature 

applications. Id. The CA IOUs pointed 

out that there will be no need to 

establish a ‘‘pull-down’’ refrigeration 

test method for VCT.M equipment if 

DOE updates the definition for ‘‘pulldown temperature application’’ in 

accordance with industry practice. Id. 

The CA IOUs added that if DOE retains 

the current definition for ‘‘pull-down 

temperature applications,’’ DOE should 

share data on what percentage of 

operating hours are spent in ‘‘pull 

down’’ versus ‘‘holding mode’’ 

operation compared to other CRE 

considered ‘‘holding temperature 

applications’’ and recommends that the 

daily energy usage for these ‘‘pull-down 

temperature applications’’ be weighted 

by the percentage of time spent in each 

mode. Id. 

To clarify, the provisions proposed in 

the June 2022 NOPR related to pulldown temperature applications are 

specific to the procedures DOE would 

follow for verifying claims of pull-down 

temperature applications as defined in 

EPCA and by DOE. DOE currently only 

specifies standards for pull-down 

temperature application equipment with 

self-contained condensing units and 

transparent doors. Manufacturers may 

claim their equipment is for pull-down 

temperature applications rather than 

holding temperature applications. The 

intent of the provisions proposed in the 

June 2022 NOPR for pull-down 

temperature applications is to ensure 

appropriate application of DOE’s 

definitions. Such testing would not be 

necessary to verify claims of equipment 

for holding temperature applications. 

Blast chiller and blast freezer testing is 

addressed separately in section III.C.3 of 

this document. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

proposed loading instructions 

consistent with ASHRAE 72–2018R. 

Additional instructions are not 

necessary because these provisions 

outline the process DOE will use to 

determine appropriate equipment 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66189 

21See appendix B to subpart Q of 10 CFR part 

431. 

22See www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/ 

standards-and-guidelines/project-committeeinterim-meetings. 

category (i.e., manufacturers are not 

required to conduct testing in 

accordance with these provisions, but 

may choose to do so to ensure 

appropriate application of DOE’s 

definitions). 

In response to AHRI’s comment 

regarding placement of bottles during a 

test procedure and certified volume 

versus volume measurement, this pulldown verification procedure would be 

separate from the DOE test procedure in 

appendix B and only represents the 

process DOE would follow to verify 

claims of pull-down temperature 

applications. 

Based on the definition of pull-down 

temperature applications specified in 

EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(D)) and 

replicated in 10 CFR 431.62, loading is 

for 12 ounce beverage cans only. The 

EPCA definition specifies 12 hours or 

less of pull-down time, so DOE is 

maintaining that requirement in the 

verification approach rather than 

harmonizing with any 16-hour periods 

used by manufacturers. 

DOE is not requiring propylene glycol 

to be used in the cans—such a solution 

is not necessary because the operating 

temperatures will not result in potential 

freezing for other can solutions, like 

water. DOE notes that DOE’s test 

procedure for BVMs 21 does not require 

propylene glycol solution either. 

DOE recognizes that these provisions 

do not follow NSF or standard industry 

terminology; however, DOE is 

maintaining the June 2022 NOPR 

verification provisions for pull-down 

temperature applications based on the 

EPCA definition. The other provisions 

regarding blast chillers and blast 

freezers established in this final rule 

clarify DOE consideration of equipment 

in that category. 

3. Blast Chillers and Blast Freezers 

As stated, CRE is equipment that, in 

part, is designed for holding 

temperature applications. (42 U.S.C. 

6311(9)(A)(vi)) EPCA defines ‘‘holding 

temperature application’’ as use of 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

other than a pull-down temperature 

application, except a blast chiller or 

freezer. (42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(B)) Per the 

definition, ‘‘holding temperature 

application’’ includes blast chillers and 

blast freezers, even if such equipment 

meets the criteria of ‘‘pull-down 

temperature application.’’ 

In general, blast chillers and blast 

freezers are CRE with solid doors 

intended for the rapid temperature pull 

down of hot-food products. 

Blast chiller and blast freezer 

operation is typically characterized by 

three cycles. The first cycle pulls the air 

temperature within the unit down until 

it reaches a target air temperature set by 

the manufacturer (e.g., 0 °F for blast 

chillers and ¥28 °F for blast freezers). 

This target air temperature within the 

unit is maintained until the food 

reaches a certain temperature, set by the 

manufacturer, as measured by the unit’s 

temperature probe. Once the food 

reaches a certain temperature, the 

second cycle begins by allowing the air 

temperature within the unit to drift up 

until it reaches the same temperature as 

the target food temperature (e.g., 38 °F 

for blast chillers and 0 °F for blast 

freezers). Once the food reaches the 

target food temperature, the last cycle 

begins by proceeding to a holding 

pattern during which the blast chiller or 

blast freezer behaves similarly to a 

typical CRE—i.e., cycling the 

refrigeration system to maintain a target 

temperature. 

Within the general sequence of 

operations, many blast chillers and blast 

freezers provide users with options to 

alter the specific pull-down profile 

based on the food load. For example, a 

‘‘soft chill’’ mode may provide a slower 

temperature pull down intended for 

more delicate food, as compared to a 

‘‘hard chill’’ mode that cools food as 

quickly as possible. 

ASHRAE has established a standard 

project committee (‘‘SPC’’) to consider 

the development of an industry test 

standard for this equipment: SPC 220P, 

Method of Testing for Rating Small 

Commercial Blast Chillers, ChillerFreezers, and Freezers (‘‘ASHRAE 

220’’).22 DOE is participating in this 

process and is aware of a draft test 

standard underway that contains certain 

definitions, requirements, and 

procedure. DOE will consider the final 

version of the SPC 220P standard if 

available during future test procedure 

rulemakings. 

a. Definitions 

DOE does not define blast chiller or 

blast freezer. The California Code of 

Regulations provides the following 

definition for a blast chiller: 

• Blast chiller—a refrigerator 

designed to cool food products from 

140 °F to 40 °F within four hours. (CCR, 

Title 20, section 1602) 

The SPC for ASHRAE 220 has 

provided the following tentative 

definitions for blast chiller and blast 

freezer, and a related term: 

• Blast chiller—a rapid pull-down 

cooler designed to cool food to a safe 

refrigerated temperature (typically 

between 32 °F and 41 °F), but not freeze 

it. 

• Blast chiller-freezer: a rapid pulldown cooler designed to function as 

both a blast chiller and blast freezer 

depending on user inputs. 

• Blast freezer—a rapid pull-down 

cooler designed to freeze food. 

• Rapid pull-down cooler— 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

intended for the rapid intermediate 

chilling or freezing of hot food products 

within a specified time period and 

holding the food at a safe temperature 

when not engaged in the chilling or 

freezing process. 

NSF 7–2019 provides the following 

performance specification for rapid 

pull-down refrigerators and freezers: 

• Rapid pull-down refrigerators and 

freezers—capable of reducing the 

internal temperature of their contents 

from 135 °F to 40 °F within a period of 

4 hours or in the time specified by the 

manufacturer, whichever is less. 

Based on the comments from 

interested parties and DOE’s review of 

existing State definitions, tentative and 

established industry definitions, and 

equipment available on the market, DOE 

tentatively determined in the June 2022 

NOPR that the characteristic of blast 

chillers and blast freezers that 

differentiate this equipment from other 

categories of CRE are the oversized 

refrigeration systems that allow for the 

rapid temperature pull-down of hot food 

products within a specified time period. 

87 FR 39164, 39192. Blast chillers and 

blast freezers specifically differ from 

other types of CRE intended for pulldown temperature applications because 

of the intended product (hot food 

product for blast chillers and blast 

freezers versus 12-ounce beverage cans 

for pull-down temperature 

applications), initial product 

temperature (minimum 135 °F for blast 

chillers and blast freezers versus 90 °F 

for pull-down temperature 

applications), and intended product 

storage duration (minimal storage 

duration for blast chillers and blast 

freezers versus long-term storage 

duration for pull-down temperature 

applications). 

As discussed, blast chillers and blast 

freezers provide rapid cooling to ensure 

hot food is quickly pulled down to safe 

refrigerated storage temperatures. In the 

June 2022 NOPR, DOE tentatively 

identified the capability to pull down 

hot food from 135 °F to 40 °F within 4 

hours as the primary operating 

characteristic of blast chillers and blast 

freezers. 87 FR 39164, 39192. This is 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66190 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

23See the Version 5.0 Specification and Test 

Method Discussion Guide, December 2020, at 

www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/ 

document/ENERGY%20STAR%20Commercial%20

Refrigerators%20and%20Freezers%20V5.0%20

Discussion%20Guide_0.pdf. 

consistent with the performance 

specification for rapid pull-down 

refrigerators and freezers specified in 

NSF 7–2019, the California definition, 

and tentative definitions provided by 

the SPC for ASHRAE 220. Although 

DOE did not propose to test blast 

chillers and blast freezers according to 

NSF 7–2019, as discussed in the 

following section, DOE expects that any 

blast chiller or blast freezer meeting the 

NSF 7–2019 performance specification 

would be capable of pulling down hot 

food from 135 °F to 40 °F within 4 hours 

when tested as proposed in the NOPR. 

87 FR 39164, 39192. As discussed in 

section III.C.1.b, DOE is proposing a 

lower ambient temperature condition 

than the ambient temperature condition 

specified in NSF 7–2019. 

To delineate blast chillers and blast 

freezers from other categories of CRE, 

including from CRE designed for pulldown temperature applications, DOE 

proposed in the NOPR to define the 

terms ‘‘blast chiller’’ and ‘‘blast freezer.’’ 

87 FR 39164, 39192. DOE proposed 

definitions for these terms that combine 

parts of existing definitions, add 

language for consistency with DOE’s 

existing CRE definitions, and include 

further specificity regarding the 

characteristics of this equipment. Id. 

Specifically, DOE proposed to add the 

following definitions to 10 CFR 431.62: 

‘‘Blast chiller’’ means commercial 

refrigeration equipment, other than a 

blast freezer, that is capable of the rapid 

temperature pull-down of hot food 

products from 135 °F to 40 °F within a 

period of 4 hours, when measured 

according to the DOE test procedure. Id. 

‘‘Blast freezer’’ means commercial 

refrigeration equipment that is capable 

of the rapid temperature pull down of 

hot food products from 135 °F to 40 °F 

within a period of 4 hours and capable 

of achieving a final product temperature 

of less than 32 °F when measured 

according to the DOE test procedure. Id. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE sought 

comment on the proposed definitions of 

‘‘blast chiller’’ and ‘‘blast freezer.’’ 87 

FR 39164, 39192. 

NEEA commented that it supports the 

new definitions DOE proposed for 

‘‘blast chiller’’ and ‘‘blast freezer,’’ 

stating that these equipment types have 

unique applications compared to other 

CRE, and these definitions allowed 

consideration (potential standards), 

categorization (equipment classes), and 

testing of this equipment separate from 

other CRE. (NEEA, No. 39, p. 2) 

AHRI commented to recommend that 

DOE align its definitions of ‘‘blast 

chiller’’ and ‘‘blast freezer’’ with the 

SPC language for ASHRAE 220 

(‘‘Method of Testing for Rating Small 

Commercial Blast Chillers, Chiller 

Freezers, and Freezers’’) for the 

proposed definitions of ‘‘blast chiller’’ 

and ‘‘blast freezer’’ (see bulleted 

language). (AHRI, No. 38, p. 9) 

• ‘‘Blast chiller—a rapid pull-down 

cooler designed to cool food to a safe 

refrigerated temperature (typically 

between 32 °F and 41 °F), but not freeze 

it. 

• Blast freezer—a rapid pull-down 

cooler designed to freeze food. 

• Rapid pull-down cooler— 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

intended for the rapid intermediate 

chilling or freezing of hot food products 

within a specified time period and 

holding the food at a safe temperature 

when not engaged in the chilling or 

freezing process.’’ Id. 

AHRI commented that alignment with 

ASTM, ASHRAE, or other established 

standards would also be acceptable. Id. 

AHRI further urged DOE to go through 

the standard review process and not 

attempt to address this through either an 

amendment to the DOE test procedure 

or development of a new standard. Id. 

DOE considered available industry 

definitions when developing the 

proposals in the June 2022 NOPR, 

including the definitions in the draft 

version of ASHRAE 220. ASHRAE 220 

has not published a public review draft 

and is still in draft form and DOE is not 

aware of any updates to the definitions 

considered in developing the proposal 

in the June 2022 NOPR. Therefore, DOE 

is adopting the definitions proposed in 

the June 2022 NOPR. DOE will consider 

any published standard when available 

during any future test procedure 

rulemakings. 

b. Test Methods 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

reviewed the ASHRAE 220 test method 

in development to determine the 

suitability of the test method for a DOE 

test procedure. The draft ASHRAE 220 

test method determines the pull-down 

energy consumption per pound of food 

product, hot food product temperature 

pull-down performance, and other 

performance factors for self-contained 

commercial blast chillers and blast 

freezers that have a refrigerated volume 

of up to 500 ft3. DOE acknowledges that 

the ASHRAE 220 test method has 

certain deviations from DOE’s current 

CRE test procedures and ASHRAE 72– 

2022 with Errata. 

DOE tentatively determined in the 

June 2022 NOPR that test procedures 

that account for the pull-down 

operation of blast chillers and blast 

freezers are appropriate. 87 FR 39164, 

39193. The primary function of blast 

chillers and blast freezers is the rapid 

cooling of hot food product and 

minimal storage duration rather than 

long-term storage duration. DOE has 

considered the draft ASHRAE 220 

standard as the basis for many of the test 

procedure proposals. 

DOE has also reviewed the ISO 

22042:2021 test standard. Many of the 

provisions in the ISO 22042:2021 

method are similar to those included in 

the draft ASHRAE 220 (e.g., ambient 

temperature, starting food load 

temperature, final blast freezer 

temperature). DOE tentatively 

determined in the June 2022 NOPR that 

the provisions in draft ASHRAE 220 

provide a more representative basis for 

testing (e.g., blast chiller target 

temperature of 38 °F rather than 50 °F) 

and would limit test variability as 

compared to ISO 22042:2021 (e.g., using 

a well-defined food simulator test load 

rather than actual food and defining 

door openings for pan loading). 87 FR 

39164, 39193. DOE also participated in 

ENERGY STAR’s specification review 

process to establish version 5.0 

Eligibility Criteria for commercial 

refrigerators and freezers. ENERGY 

STAR considered including blast 

chillers and blast freezers as part of the 

version 5.0 Eligibility Criteria,23 but did 

not include them in the specification 

due to the lack of a standardized test 

procedure. 

Consistent with the tentative scope of 

ASHRAE 220, DOE proposed in the June 

2022 NOPR test procedures for selfcontained commercial blast chillers and 

blast freezers that have a refrigerated 

volume of up to 500 ft3. 87 FR 39164, 

39193. DOE proposed to incorporate 

certain provisions from draft ASHRAE 

220 and certain deviations, as discussed 

in the following sections. Id. DOE 

acknowledged that, to the extent 

feasible, ASHRAE 220 will likely 

harmonize with requirements included 

in ASHRAE 72–2018R. Id. For this 

reason, DOE proposed in the June 2022 

NOPR to refer ASHRAE 72–2018R for 

certain test requirements rather than 

using the approach in the ongoing draft 

ASHRAE 220. Id. The intent of these 

proposals was to harmonize with the 

eventual ASHRAE 220 final test 

standard approach. 

To avoid confusion regarding testing 

of other CRE, DOE also proposed in the 

June 2022 NOPR to establish the test 

procedure for blast chillers and blast 

freezers as a new appendix D to subpart 

C of 10 CFR part 431. 87 FR 39164, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66191 

39193. DOE also proposed to refer to the 

proposed appendix D as the test 

procedure for blast chillers and blast 

freezers in 10 CFR 431.64. Id. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE sought 

comment on the proposal to establish 

test procedures for self-contained 

commercial blast chillers and blast 

freezers that have a refrigerated volume 

of up to 500 ft3. 

The Joint Commenters stated their 

support for establishing test procedures 

for blast chillers and freezers, noting 

that DOE had tentatively identified the 

capability to pull down hot food from 

135 °F to 40 °F within 4 hours as the 

primary operating characteristic of blast 

chillers and blast freezers. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 31, p. 3) 

NEEA stated its support for DOE’s 

proposal to establish test procedures for 

new and newly defined categories of 

CRE, and restated its recommendation 

from the 2021 CRE TP RFI that DOE 

establish test methods for new CRE 

product types, including blast chillers 

and blast freezers. (NEEA, No. 39, p. 2) 

Continental commented that it 

supports the NOPR proposal to add new 

test procedures for product categories 

such as blast chillers and blast freezers. 

(Continental, No. 29, p. 1) Continental 

noted, however, that attempting to 

develop test procedures that combine 

aspects of different existing industry 

standards and introduce significant 

modifications is not sufficient or 

appropriate for this type of rulemaking. 

Id. Continental recommended that DOE 

work with ASHRAE, AHRI, ASTM, and 

other stakeholders to develop suitable 

test procedures for any additional 

product categories so that new or 

modified industry standards are 

comprehensive, reliable, and repeatable 

for many equipment types, with 

minimal additional testing burden. Id. 

The Joint Commenters stated that 

DOE proposed to add test procedures 

only for self-contained commercial blast 

chillers and freezers with a refrigerated 

volume of up to 500 ft3, and that while 

the Joint Commenters understood that 

most of the blast chillers/freezers market 

consists of self-contained equipment, 

remote condensing blast chillers/ 

freezers are available on the market; 

thus, the Joint Commenters encouraged 

DOE to consider establishing test 

procedures for remote condensing blast 

chillers/freezers as part of a future 

rulemaking. (Joint Commenters, No. 31, 

p. 3) 

The CA IOUs also stated their support 

for DOE’s decision to limit scope to selfcontained blast chillers/freezers, which 

represents the vast majority of the 

market. (CA IOUs, No. 36, p. 6). In the 

August 2022 public meeting, the CA 

IOUs commented that ASHRAE 220 was 

developed for blast chillers up to 500 

ft3, but that self-contained blast chillers 

would be significantly smaller than that 

and most likely would have the volume 

to accommodate a single rolling rack. 

(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 41, p. 

48) 

Consistent with draft version of 

ASHRAE 220 and the June 2022 NOPR, 

DOE is establishing a test procedure for 

self-contained blast chillers and blast 

freezers only. In response to 

Continental’s comment, DOE has 

harmonized the June 2022 NOPR and 

the test procedure established in this 

final rule with the expected industry 

test method to the extent possible. DOE 

will consider harmonizing with any 

available industry test method, 

including regarding expanded scope, in 

future test procedure rulemakings. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE sought 

comment on the proposal to incorporate 

certain provisions from the draft 

ASHRAE 220 and certain deviations for 

the blast chillers and blast freezers test 

procedures. 87 FR 39164, 39193. 

The Joint Commenters commented 

that they support DOE’s proposed 

changes regarding the proposed test 

methods for additional equipment 

categories, including blast chillers and 

freezers. (Joint Commenters, No. 31, p. 

1) 

The Joint Commenters added that 

they support the proposed test methods 

that are consistent with ASHRAE 220 

and include pre-cooling the blast 

chiller’s or blast freezer’s cabinet to a 

pre-set or controlled operating 

temperature, loading of hot food pans 

into the blast chiller or blast freezer, and 

pull down of the hot food pans to the 

target temperature. (Joint Commenters, 

No. 31, p. 3) The Joint Commenters 

stated that this method captured energy 

usage during pull-down operation, as a 

representative method for estimating the 

energy usage of blast chillers/freezers. 

Id. 

True commented that DOE should not 

reinvent the wheel by referencing NSF 

or ASHRAE for blast chiller and freezer 

cabinets for professional use. (True, No. 

28, p. 7) True commented that the 

reference standard for blast chillers and 

blast freezers should be ISO 22042:2021 

since these products were developed in 

Europe and are being evaluated for the 

EU EcoDirective energy labeling 

program. Id. 

As discussed in the June 2022 NOPR, 

DOE has reviewed ISO 22042:2021. 

Many provisions are similar to those 

included in the draft version of 

ASHRAE 220 (e.g., ambient 

temperature, starting food load 

temperature, final blast freezer 

temperature). However, DOE has 

determined that other provisions 

included in the draft ASHRAE 220 and 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR are 

more representative of blast chiller and 

blast freezer operation (e.g., blast chiller 

target temperature of 38 °F rather than 

50 °F) and would limit test variability as 

compared to ISO 22042:2021 (e.g., using 

a well-defined food simulator test load 

rather than actual food and defining 

door openings for pan loading). 

Therefore, DOE is establishing the test 

procedure for blast chillers and blast 

freezers based on the draft of ASHRAE 

220, and as included in appendix D to 

subpart C of 10 CFR part 431. 

Instruments 

DOE reviewed the latest version of the 

draft ASHRAE 220 standard and 

compared it to ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Errata, as shown in Table III.2, to 

determine appropriate instrument 

requirements for blast chiller and blast 

freezer testing. 

TABLE III.2—INSTRUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS COMPARISON BETWEEN ASHRAE 220 AND ASHRAE 72–2022 WITH

ERRATA

ASHRAE 220 ASHRAE 72–2022 with errata 

Calibration ....................................... Instruments shall be calibrated traceable to National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (‘‘NIST’’) 

standards annually..

Measurements from the instruments shall be traceable to primary or secondary standards calibrated 

by NIST (or other rating standards). Instruments 

shall be recalibrated on regular intervals that do 

not exceed the intervals prescribed by the instrument manufacturer, and with an interval no longer 

than 1 year. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66192 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE III.2—INSTRUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS COMPARISON BETWEEN ASHRAE 220 AND ASHRAE 72–2022 WITH

ERRATA—Continued 

ASHRAE 220 ASHRAE 72–2022 with errata 

Temperature .................................... Accuracy of temperature measurements shall be 

within ±1.4 °F. Accuracy of temperature-difference 

measurements shall be within ±0.2 °F. Temperature measurements not specified shall be made 

per ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.1.2.

Required Accuracy: ±1.4 °F. Temperature measurement methods and instruments shall be applied 

and used in accordance with ASHRAE Standard 

41.1–2020. 

Time ................................................ Time measurements shall be made with an accuracy of ±0.5% of the time period being measured.Required Accuracy: ±0.5% of time period measured. 

Energy ............................................. Electrical energy measurements shall be made with 

instruments accurate to ±2% of the quantity 

measured..

Required Accuracy: must be measured with an integrating watt-hour meter with accuracy ±2.0% of 

the quantity measured and graduated to 0.01 

kWh. 

Electrical supply potential and supply frequency.None specified ........................................................... Required Accuracy: ±2.0% of the quantity measured. 

Generally, ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Errata has the same instrumentation 

requirements as draft ASHRAE 220. 

DOE acknowledges that ASHRAE 220 

intends to harmonize with ASHRAE 72– 

2022 with Errata to the extent possible 

to maintain consistent test requirements 

across similar equipment types. Because 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata provides 

greater detail on the instrumentation 

requirements, and DOE expects that the 

final ASHRAE 220 standard will likely 

adopt the ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata 

requirements, DOE proposed in the June 

2022 NOPR to reference section 4 and 

the relevant portions of appendix A of 

ASHRAE 72–2018R for blast chiller and 

blast freezer instrumentation 

requirements. ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Errata provides additional requirements 

for instruments that are not necessary 

for testing blast chillers and blast 

freezers (e.g., air velocity, radiant heat, 

dry-bulb temperature gradient, and test 

chamber illuminance). DOE proposed in 

the June 2022 NOPR to incorporate 

requirements only for instruments 

necessary to test blast chillers and blast 

freezers (i.e., those listed in Table III.2). 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE sought 

comment on the proposal to reference 

section 4 and the relevant portions of 

appendix A of ASHRAE 72–2018R for 

instrumentation requirements for the 

blast chiller and blast freezer test 

procedures. 87 FR 39164, 39194. 

AHRI commented cautioning DOE 

against referencing the ASHRAE 220 

standard with this test procedure, as it 

would create inconsistencies to 

reference ASHRAE 220 and ASHRAE 

72–2022 simultaneously. (AHRI, No. 38, 

p. 9) 

DOE is maintaining the approach 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR, based 

on the draft version of ASHRAE 220. As 

ASHRAE 220 is not yet available, DOE 

is not incorporating that standard by 

reference. DOE is adopting the test 

procedure for blast chillers and blast 

freezers in appendix D and 

incorporating by reference the relevant 

sections of ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Errata. DOE recognizes that certain 

additional requirements are pulled from 

other standards, but including multiple 

incorporations by reference as 

appropriate ensures consistent testing 

and clarifies where test requirements are 

harmonized across test procedures. 

Test Conditions 

Blast chillers and blast freezers are 

typically intended for use only in 

commercial kitchens, as compared to 

other categories of CRE, which are 

typically used in either commercial 

kitchens or in customer-facing 

environments. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies different test 

conditions for testing blast chillers and 

blast freezers compared to the current 

DOE CRE test procedures, as illustrated 

in Table III.3. 

TABLE III.3—AMBIENT TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY TEST CONDITIONS COMPARISON

ASHRAE 220 DOE’s current CRE test procedure 

Dry Bulb .................. Measured at point TA; ...........................................................

Average: 86.0 °F ±1.8°F ........................................................

Individual: 86.0 °F ±3.6°F .......................................................

Measured at point TA for open 

CRE and TB for closed CRE; 

Average: 75.2 °F ±1.8°F 

Individual: 75.2 °F ±3.6°F. 

Humidity .................. No test condition specified .................................................... Wet Bulb measured at point TA for open CRE and TB for 

closed CRE; 

Average: 64.4 °F ±1.8 °F 

Individual: 64.4 °F ±3.6 °F 

The dry bulb is required to be 

measured in ASHRAE 220 at the same 

point (TA) as specified in section 6.1 of 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata. ASHRAE 

220 does not specify the type of 

thermocouple to be used when taking 

dry-bulb measurements. ASHRAE 72– 

2022 with Errata specifies that the 

thermocouples used to measure drybulb temperatures shall be in thermal 

contact with the center of 1.6 oz. 

cylindrical brass slug with a diameter 

and height of 0.75 in. The brass slugs 

shall be placed at least 0.50 in. from any 

heat-conducting surface. 

DOE tentatively determined in the 

June 2022 NOPR that the test conditions 

specified in ASHRAE 220 are more 

representative of actual blast chiller and 

blast freezer operation as compared to 

the existing CRE test procedure 

conditions. 87 FR 39164, 39194. As 

stated, blast chillers are typically only 

used in commercial kitchens, whereas 

other conventional CRE are used in a 

range of environments. 

DOE recognizes that harmonizing test 

conditions across different CRE 

categories may provide users with 

measures of energy use that can be 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66193 

24ASHRAE RP–1469, ‘‘Thermal Comfort in 

Commercial Kitchens,’’ Final Report, January 6, 

2012, page 24. 

compared on a consistent basis. 

However, given the particular 

application of blast chillers and blast 

freezers in rapidly lowering the 

temperature of hot food products, it is 

not expected that other CRE would 

serve as a substitute for blast chillers 

and blast freezers (and vice versa). 

Moreover, as indicated by a 2012 

ASHRAE report,24 the test conditions in 

the draft ASHRAE 220 are more 

representative for blast chillers and blast 

freezers than the test conditions 

applicable to CRE generally. 

Because blast chillers and blast 

freezers experience different ambient 

conditions than other types of CRE, and 

because the proposed test procedures 

for blast chillers and blast freezers 

would use a different energy use and 

capacity metric, DOE proposed in the 

June 2022 NOPR to require the 

representative dry-bulb temperatures 

specified in the tentative ASHRAE 220 

draft. 87 FR 39164, 39194. DOE also 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR to 

incorporate section 6.1 and Figure 6 of 

ASHRAE 72–2018R to specify the point 

TA where the dry-bulb temperatures are 

to be measured and to specify the drybulb thermocouple setup. Id. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE sought 

comment on the proposal to require the 

dry-bulb temperatures specified in the 

tentative ASHRAE 220 draft and 

incorporate section 6.1 and Figure 6 of 

ASHRAE 72–2018R to specify the point 

TA where the dry-bulb temperatures are 

to be measured and the type of 

thermocouple to use when measuring 

dry bulb in the blast chillers and blast 

freezers test procedures. Id. 

AHRI commented that it would be 

appropriate to measure dry-bulb 

temperatures in blast chiller and blast 

freezer test procedures using ASHRAE 

Standard 220 where necessary. (AHRI, 

No. 38, p. 10) 

The CA IOUs stated their support for 

DOE’s proposal to test blast chillers/ 

freezers at an ambient temperature of 

86 °F where other CRE categories are 

tested at 75 °F because blast chillers and 

freezers are typically only used in 

commercial kitchens, and as such, 86 °F 

is more representative than 75 °F for 

blast chiller/freezer operation. (CA 

IOUs, No. 36, p. 6) 

DOE is maintaining the ambient test 

conditions of 86 °F based on the draft 

version of ASHRAE 220 and as 

supported in comments. DOE recognizes 

that this ambient condition is different 

from the condition used for testing other 

CRE categories, and that DOE has 

intended to harmonize conditions when 

possible to ensure consistent testing 

across CRE categories. However, the 

metrics for blast chiller and blast freezer 

testing are sufficiently different from 

other CRE testing (i.e., kWh/day) that 

comparisons of energy use cannot be 

made across these CRE categories, so 

there is little benefit in harmonizing the 

ambient test conditions for blast chillers 

and blast freezers. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies the same 

requirements for the power supply, 

voltage, and frequency as ASHRAE 72– 

2022 with Errata. Specifically, ASHRAE 

220 specifies that the rated voltage be 

maintained at an average of ±2.0 percent 

over the duration of the test and 

individual recorded voltages be within 

±4.0 percent of the rated voltage. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies that the rated 

frequency be maintained within ±1.0 

percent. Because ASHRAE 72–2022 

with Errata specifies the same 

requirements for voltage and frequency, 

DOE proposed in the June 2022 NOPR 

to incorporate the portions of appendix 

A in ASHRAE 72–2018R, which specify 

the requirements for voltage and 

frequency. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE sought 

comment on the proposal to incorporate 

the portions of appendix A in ASHRAE 

72–2018R that specify the requirements 

for voltage and frequency in the blast 

chillers and blast freezers test 

procedures. 87 FR 39164, 39194. 

AHRI recommended that the matter of 

adopting portions of ASHRAE 72–2018R 

concerning voltage and frequency 

requirements in blast chiller and blast 

freezer test procedures should be taken 

to the ASHRAE 220 committee for 

review and approval. (AHRI, No. 38, p. 

10) 

As stated in the June 2022 NOPR, the 

proposed conditions were consistent 

with those considered for the draft of 

ASHRAE 220. Therefore, DOE is 

maintaining the reference to ASHRAE 

72–2022 with Errata, consistent with the 

June 2022 NOPR. 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata 

specifies additional test conditions that 

ASHRAE 220 does not specify. These 

include requirements for air currents, 

radiant heat, dry-bulb temperature 

gradient, and test chamber illuminance. 

DOE expects that these requirements in 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata are 

primarily intended to limit variability of 

testing for CRE without doors or with 

transparent doors. DOE is only aware of 

blast chillers and blast freezers with 

solid doors, and therefore tentatively 

determined in the June 2022 NOPR that 

the additional test conditions in 

ASHRAE 72–2018R are not necessary 

for blast chiller and blast freezer testing, 

consistent with the draft of ASHRAE 

220. 87 FR 39164, 39194, 39195. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE sought 

comment on whether any additional test 

conditions are appropriate for blast 

chiller and blast freezer testing, 

including those specified in sections 6.2 

and 6.3 and appendix A in ASHRAE 

72–2018R. 87 FR 39164, 39195. 

DOE received no additional 

comments on this topic in response to 

the June 2022 NOPR, and therefore is 

establishing the test conditions as 

proposed. 

Test Setup 

The ASHRAE 220 draft specifies 

certain test unit setup instructions for 

components and accessories, electrical 

loads, condensate pan heaters and 

pumps, and crankcase heaters that are 

based on sections 5.3, 5.3.1, 5.3.5, and 

5.3.15 in ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata. 

DOE notes that sections 5.3 and 5.3.5 of 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata contain 

minor differences from the draft 

ASHRAE 220. Section 5.3 of ASHRAE 

72–2022 with Errata refers to installing 

all necessary components and 

accessories prior to loading the storage 

and display areas with test simulators 

and filler material, whereas ASHRAE 

220 does not use test simulators and 

filler material. Section 5.3.5 of ASHRAE 

72–2022 with Errata refers to a selfcontained refrigerator instead of a blast 

chiller or blast freezer and does not 

specify that the condensate pan shall be 

emptied before testing (this instruction 

is provided in section 7.2.3 of ASRHAE 

72–2022 with Errata) and that if a 

condensate heater is used during the 

test, it shall be recorded. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies that the 

manufacturer’s recommendation on 

clearances shall be followed on all sides 

with a minimum of 3 feet on the door(s) 

opening sides. The current DOE CRE 

test procedures do not specify any 

clearance requirements. Section 5.2 and 

appendix A of ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Errata specify that there must be greater 

than or equal to 59.1 in. ±1.0 in. of 

clearance from the front of the unit 

under test and a vertical partition or 

wall shall be located at the minimum 

clearance, ±0.5 in., as specified in the 

installation instructions. Section 5.2 

also provides that if the installation 

instructions do not provide a minimum 

clearance, the vertical partition or wall 

shall be located 4.0 ±0.5 in. from the 

sides or rear of the cabinet and extend 

at least 12.0 ±0.5 in. beyond each side 

of the cabinet from the floor to not less 

than 12.0 ±0.5 in. above the top of the 

cabinet. 

DOE tentatively determined in the 

June 2022 NOPR that because ASHRAE 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66194 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

25See ISO 22042:2021. 

72–2018R provides similar, equal, or 

greater detail on the installation and 

settings, clearance, and components and 

accessories requirements as compared to 

the draft of ASHRAE 220, the ASHRAE 

72–2018R instructions are appropriate 

for DOE testing. 87 FR 39164, 39195. 

DOE also acknowledges that, to the 

extent feasible, ASHRAE 220 intends to 

harmonize with ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Errata requirements, and therefore will 

likely adopt similar instructions in the 

final version of the standard. DOE 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR to 

incorporate sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 

(including sub-sections 5.3.1 to 5.3.17), 

and the relevant portions of appendix A 

of ASHRAE 72–2018R for testing blast 

chillers and blast freezers with the 

following deviations: 

• The term ‘‘refrigerator’’ shall 

instead refer to ‘‘blast chiller’’ or ‘‘blast 

freezer,’’ as applicable. 87 FR 39164, 

39195. 

• For section 5.3 of ASHRAE 72– 

2018R, replace ‘‘all necessary 

components and accessories shall be 

installed prior to loading the storage and 

display areas with test simulators and 

filler material’’ with ‘‘all necessary 

components and accessories shall be 

installed prior to precooling the unit 

under test.’’ Id. 

• Section 5.3.5 would be included 

with the additional requirement that the 

condensate pan be emptied before 

precooling the unit under test. Id. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE sought 

comment on the proposal to incorporate 

sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 (including 

subsections 5.3.1 to 5.3.17), and the 

relevant portions of appendix A of 

ASHRAE 72–2018R, with the proposed 

deviations, for the blast chillers and 

blast freezers test procedures. Id. 

AHRI commented that it 

recommended the matter of adopting 

portions of ASHRAE 72–2018R 

concerning blast chiller and blast freezer 

test procedures should be taken to the 

ASHRAE 220 committee for review and 

approval. (AHRI, No. 38, p. 10) 

As stated, DOE expects that ASHRAE 

220 will harmonize with the ASHRAE 

72–2022 with Errata requirements for 

test setup when appropriate, and is 

adopting the ASHRE 72–2022 with 

Errata requirements, with deviations, as 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR. 

Appendix A of ASHRAE 72–2022 

with Errata specifies electrical 

measurements at the equipment 

terminals. ASHRAE 220 specifies the 

following electrical measurement 

locations: at the plug-in location for 

units with a standard wall plug, or at 

the terminal box for units that are hard 

wired to the building electrical system. 

Because the electrical measurement 

location in appendix A of ASHRAE 72– 

2022 with Errata is similar to ASHRAE 

220, DOE expects that the ASHRAE 72– 

2022 with Errata approach is the likely 

final approach to be used in the 

eventual final ASHRAE 220 standard. 

For that reason, DOE proposed in the 

June 2022 NOPR to incorporate the 

relevant portions of appendix A of 

ASHRAE 72–2018R for the electrical 

measurement locations. 87 FR 39164, 

39195. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE sought 

comment on the proposal to incorporate 

the relevant portions of appendix A of 

ASHRAE 72–2018R for the electrical 

measurement locations for the blast 

chillers and blast freezers test 

procedures. Id. 

AHRI commented that it 

recommended the matter of adopting 

portions of ASHRAE 72–2018R 

concerning electrical measurement 

locations in blast chiller and blast 

freezer test procedures should be taken 

to the ASHRAE 220 committee for 

review and approval. (AHRI, No. 38, p. 

10) 

As stated, DOE expects that ASHRAE 

220 will harmonize with the ASHRAE 

72–2022 with Errata requirements for 

electrical measurement locations, and is 

therefore adopting the ASHRE 72–2022 

with Errata requirements, as proposed 

in the June 2022 NOPR. 

Capacity and Loading 

ASHRAE 220 provides instructions 

for measuring the gross refrigerated 

volume of blast chillers and blast 

freezers. The gross refrigerated volume 

is calculated by multiplying the internal 

length, width, and height of the cabinet 

excluding panels and space occupied by 

the evaporator or evaporator fan. 

Appendix C of AHRI 1200–2023 

specifies instructions for determining 

the refrigerated volume of display 

merchandisers and storage cabinets. 

DOE reviewed the instructions in AHRI 

1200–2023 for determining refrigerated 

volume and determined that the 

instructions can be applied to blast 

chillers and blast freezers because of the 

similar construction of these CRE. DOE 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR to 

refer to AHRI 1200–202X for measuring 

the refrigerated volume of blast chillers 

and blast freezers. 87 FR 39164, 39195. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE sought 

comment on the proposal to reference 

AHRI 1200–202X for measuring the 

refrigerated volume of blast chillers and 

blast freezers. Id. 

AHRI stated its support for the 

proposal to reference AHRI 1200–202X 

for measuring the refrigerated volume of 

blast chillers and freezers. (AHRI, No. 

38, p. 10) 

DOE is maintaining the measurement 

of volume per AHRI 1200–2023 

consistent with the June 2022 NOPR. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies that the 

standard product vessel shall be a 12 in. 

by 20 in. by 2.5 in. 22 gauge or heavier 

and 300 series stainless steel pan. 

ASHRAE 220 states that if the test unit 

is not capable of holding the standard 

product pan, the manufacturer’s 

recommended pan size is used, 

conforming as closely as possible to the 

standard product load. Based on a 

review of blast chillers and blast 

freezers available on the market, DOE 

observed that all units are intended for 

use with food pans, and nearly all units 

available can accommodate the 

specified standard pan sizes. DOE 

tentatively determined in the June 2022 

NOPR that the pans as specified in 

ASHRAE 220 are representative of 

typical use and DOE proposed to 

incorporate the standard product pan 

specifications included in the draft of 

ASHRAE 220. 87 FR 39164, 39195. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE sought 

comment on the proposal to incorporate 

the standard product pan specifications 

in ASHRAE 220 for the blast chillers 

and blast freezers test procedures. Id. 

AHRI stated its support for the 

proposal to incorporate the standard 

product pan specification in ASHRAE 

220 for the blast chillers and blast 

freezers test procedures. (AHRI, No. 38, 

p. 11) 

DOE is maintaining the standard 

product pan specifications as proposed 

in the June 2022 NOPR. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies that the 

manufacturer’s recommended maximum 

12 in. by 20 in. by 2.5 in. pan capacity 

should be used for testing. DOE has 

reviewed the ASHRAE 220 

specifications and equipment available 

on the market. Based on DOE’s review, 

it was determined in the NOPR that 

additional specifications may be needed 

to determine how many standard 

product pans are used in the test unit. 

87 FR 39164, 39195. The number of 

standard product pans that would be 

used for testing is dependent on the 

specified product capacity of the test 

unit based on food weight. The 

ASHRAE 220 committee tentatively 

determined that having a uniform food 

simulator thickness across all standard 

product pans is important for repeatable 

and comparable results, manufacturer 

design parameters, and consistency with 

European blast chiller and blast freezer 

testing requirements.25 The ASHRAE 

220 committee tentatively concluded 

that a uniform food simulator thickness 

of 2 in. in the standard product pan (i.e., 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66195 

filled to within 0.5 in. of the top of the 

pan) is appropriate. Based on this 

conclusion, the number of pans required 

for testing blast chillers and blast 

freezers would be determined by the 

number of standard product pans filled 

with the standard food simulator load to 

2 in. deep that can fit in the blast chiller 

or blast freezer without exceeding the 

manufacturer’s recommended capacity. 

Because this approach could potentially 

require the tested capacity to be smaller 

than the manufacturer’s stated capacity, 

if the stated capacity is not evenly 

divisible by the number of pans, the 

ASHRAE 220 committee considered 

allowing for one additional pan that has 

a thickness less than 2 in., which would 

make up the difference to meet the 

manufacturer’s rated capacity, but that 

this additional pan would not require 

temperature measurement. Based on the 

ASHRAE 220 committee approach, DOE 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR that 

the number of pans required for testing 

blast chillers and blast freezers be 

determined by the number of standard 

product pans filled to 2 in. deep with 

food simulator product that can be 

loaded into the blast chiller or blast 

freezer without exceeding the 

manufacturer’s stated food load capacity 

by weight, plus one additional standard 

product pan, if needed, to meet the 

manufacturer’s stated food load 

capacity. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE sought 

comment on the proposed method to 

determine the number of pans required 

for testing blast chillers and blast 

freezers. 87 FR 39164, 39196. 

AHRI recommended that the matter of 

using ASHRAE 72–2018R to determine 

the number of pans required for testing 

blast chillers and blast freezers should 

be taken to the ASHRAE 220 committee 

for review and approval. (AHRI, No. 38, 

p. 11) 

DOE notes that ASHRAE 72–2022 

with Errata is not used to determine the 

number of pans required for testing blast 

chillers and blast freezers. DOE is 

adopting the approach proposed in the 

June 2022 NOPR, which is consistent 

with the expected ASHRAE 220 

approach. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies that the tested 

product capacity is determined based on 

loading the test unit with the maximum 

number of pans with food product up to 

the manufacturer’s recommended 

maximum food product weight capacity. 

The food product weight does not 

include the weight of the pans. 

The ASHRAE 220 committee 

determined that blast chiller and blast 

freezer capacity based on food product 

weight is relevant in addition to 

refrigerated volume because the 

throughput of food product by weight is 

the primary function provided to users, 

as compared to long-term refrigerated 

storage volume for typical CRE. Blast 

chillers and blast freezers with the same 

volume may have different pull-down 

capacities by weight depending on the 

design of the cooling system. 

DOE expects that manufacturers 

specify capacity by food weight based 

on the maximum food load that can be 

loaded into the blast chiller or blast 

freezer while meeting the performance 

requirement of NSF 7–2019. DOE 

reviewed the ASHRAE 220 

specifications and equipment available 

on the market and tentatively 

determined in the June 2022 NOPR that 

additional specifications may be needed 

to determine the product capacity used 

during the test. DOE proposed in the 

June 2022 NOPR that when determining 

the product capacity, all manufacturer 

literature that is included with the unit 

would be reviewed, and the largest 

product capacity stated in the literature 

would be used. 87 FR 39164, 39196. If 

the unit is able to operate as both a blast 

chiller and a blast freezer in different 

operating modes and the literature 

specifies different product capacities for 

blast chilling and blast freezing, the 

largest capacity stated for the respective 

operating mode during the test would be 

used. 

If no product capacity is stated in the 

manufacturer literature, DOE proposed 

in the June 2022 NOPR that the product 

capacity be represented by the 

maximum number of standard pans that 

can fit in the test unit with each pan 

filled 2 in. deep with product, 

consistent with the ASHRAE 220 

approach, with capacity determined as 

the sum of the food weights within the 

individual pans loaded for testing. 87 

FR 39164, 39196. As discussed further 

in a subsequent section, DOE proposed 

use of a food simulator. Id. The tested 

capacity would not include the weight 

of the pans, temperature sensors, or 

wires. If, upon testing, a blast chiller or 

blast freezer with no stated product 

capacity is not capable of pulling down 

temperatures from 135 °F to 40 °F within 

a period of 4 hours with the load 

specified in the proposed test 

procedure, DOE proposed in the June 

2022 NOPR that one pan be removed 

until the unit achieves the specified 

pull-down operation. 87 FR 39164, 

39196. 

To ensure repeatability of testing, 

DOE proposed in the June 2022 NOPR 

that the tested capacity (determined as 

the sum of the food weights for 

individual pans loaded for testing) be 

within ±5 percent or ±2 lb of the rated 

capacity, whichever is less. 87 FR 

39164, 39196. DOE acknowledged that 

the actual weight of food simulator may 

be slightly different in each pan because 

each pan may not be loaded with food 

simulator to the exact same specified 

thickness. Specifying a tolerance on the 

overall tested capacity would ensure 

that the total food load by weight is 

consistent from test to test. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE sought 

comment on the proposal to determine 

the tested product capacity for the blast 

chillers and blast freezers test 

procedures. 87 FR 39164, 39196. 

AHRI recommended that any 

proposed changes be brought to the 

ASHRAE 220 committee for review and 

approval. (AHRI, No. 38, p. 11) 

As stated, a final version of ASHRAE 

220 has not been published. DOE has 

harmonized with the expected ASHRAE 

220 requirements to the extent feasible. 

Therefore, DOE has adopted the 

provisions as proposed in the June 2022 

NOPR regarding determining blast 

chiller and blast freezer capacity. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies where to place 

the standard product pans in the blast 

chiller or blast freezer if a full load of 

pans is not needed to meet the 

manufacturer’s stated capacity. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies that if there are 

fewer pans than there are rack spaces in 

the unit, the pans shall be placed evenly 

in the unit with top and bottom shelves 

occupied. If not all shelves are occupied 

by pans, the pan locations shall be 

recorded. The ASHRAE 220 committee 

has also discussed specifying that pans 

would be loaded without pans nesting 

on each other and without touching the 

top and the bottom of the cabinet. 

DOE reviewed the ASHRAE 220 

specifications and equipment available 

on the market. Based on DOE’s review, 

DOE tentatively determined that 

additional specifications may be needed 

to determine where to place the 

standard product pans. DOE proposed 

in the June 2022 NOPR that once the 

number of standard product pans 

needed for the test has been determined, 

the pans should be spaced evenly 

throughout each vertical column of rack 

positions in the test unit without the 

pans touching any other pans and 

without the pans touching the top and 

the bottom of the cabinet. 87 FR 39164, 

39196. For test units that have an 

additional pan with a product thickness 

of less than 2 in., DOE proposed in the 

June 2022 NOPR to require placing the 

additional pan as close to the middle 

rack position as possible while 

maintaining an even distribution of all 

pans. Id. DOE also proposed in the June 

2022 NOPR that if not all rack positions 

are occupied by pans, the pan locations 

shall be recorded. Id. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66196 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE sought 

comment on the proposed method for 

distributing the pans within the test 

unit’s cabinet for testing blast chillers 

and blast freezers. Id. 

AHRI commented advising DOE to 

reference ASTM 26 testing standards as 

a method for distributing pans within 

the test unit’s cabinet. (AHRI, No. 38, p. 

11) 

DOE expects that the requirements in 

the ASTM standard will be harmonized 

with those in the ASHRAE 220 

standard. DOE understands that the 

ASTM standard is intended to assess 

blast chiller and blast freezer operating 

performance whereas the ASHRAE 220 

standard is intended to measure energy 

consumption. Therefore, DOE has 

determined that ASHRAE 220 is the 

appropriate basis for the DOE test 

procedure. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies that if multiple 

pans are used per level (i.e., pans can be 

loaded side-by-side at the same level), 

only one pan needs to be measured with 

product temperature sensors per level. 

ASHRAE 220 provides a figure 

illustrating an example for test units 

with multiple pans per level, indicating 

which pans would include 

thermocouples. In the figure, each level 

includes two side-by-side pans, and the 

thermocouple location is staggered such 

that it alternates between the left and 

right pan at each level, and such that 

each vertical column does not have two 

measured pans in sequential levels. 

DOE reviewed the draft ASHRAE 220 

pan loading approach and tentatively 

determined in the June 2022 NOPR that 

it provides a representative measure of 

food load temperature within the blast 

chiller or blast freezer while limiting 

test burden. 87 FR 39164, 39197. DOE 

acknowledged that food temperatures 

within the cabinet may vary depending 

on proximity to the evaporator or 

airflow pathway through the cabinet but 

expects that measuring one pan per 

level and staggering the measured pans 

would ensure a representative food 

temperature average would be measured 

during testing. Id. DOE also determined 

that this approach would limit test 

burden by avoiding the need for every 

pan to include a thermocouple, thereby 

avoiding the setup of the thermocouple 

within the pan and the routing of 

additional thermocouple wires from 

inside the cabinet. Id. 

Based on the review of ASHRAE 220, 

DOE proposed in the June 2022 NOPR 

to incorporate the ASHRAE 220 

approach with additional instructions. 

Id. DOE proposed that if multiple 

standard product pans are used per 

level, only one pan per level be 

measured with a temperature sensor. Id. 

DOE proposed to specify that the pan 

measured should alternate vertical 

columns so that each vertical column 

does not have two measured pans in 

sequential levels and that if a test unit 

uses an additional pan that has a 

thickness less than 2 in., this additional 

pan would not be measured for product 

temperature. Id. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE sought 

comment on the proposed method to 

determine which standard product pans 

would include temperature 

measurement sensors for the blast 

chillers and blast freezers test 

procedures. Id. 

AHRI commented that the ASHRAE 

220 committee is in the process of 

adding a requirement to determine 

which standard product pans would 

include temperature measurement 

sensors for blast chillers and blast 

freezers test procedures; consequently, 

AHRI added, for DOE to create a similar 

requirement would be redundant and 

unnecessary. (AHRI, No. 38, p. 11) 

As stated, ASHRAE 220 has not had 

a public review period and is still in 

draft form. DOE developed the proposal 

in the June 2022 NOPR to be consistent 

with the ASHRAE 220 approach, with 

additional specificity where needed. 

Therefore, DOE is adopting the 

provisions as proposed in the June 2022 

NOPR regarding pan temperature 

measurements. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies measuring the 

product temperature in the geometric 

center of any measured pans and 

provides an example figure illustrating 

the temperature sensor location in a 

measured pan and, in particular, 

showing the unweighted thermocouple 

as being placed 5⁄8 in. above the bottom 

of the pan. ASHRAE 220 provides that 

temperature sensor leads must allow for 

the transfer of pans from the heating 

compartment to the test unit cabinet. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to incorporate this approach 

with additional instruction to specify 

explicitly details that are shown 

visually in the example figure in 

ASHRAE 220. 87 FR 39164, 39197. DOE 

proposed that product temperature shall 

be measured in the geometric center of 

the product pan, 5⁄8 in. above the bottom 

of the pan, that the temperature sensor 

shall be unweighted, and that the 

temperature sensor leads shall be 

secured to the bottom of the pan while 

also allowing for the transfer of the pan 

from the heating source into the test 

unit’s cabinet. Id. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE sought 

comment on the proposed method of 

measuring the product temperature in 

the measured pans for the blast chillers 

and blast freezers test procedures. Id. 

AHRI commented recommending that 

any proposed changes to measurement 

of the product temperature in the 

measured pans for the blast chillers and 

blast freezers test procedures be taken to 

the ASHRAE 220 committee for review 

and approval. (AHRI, No. 38, p. 11) 

As stated, DOE developed the 

proposal in the June 2022 NOPR to be 

consistent with the ASHRAE 220 

approach, with additional specificity 

where needed. A public review draft of 

ASHRAE 220 has not yet been 

published; therefore, DOE is adopting 

the provisions as proposed in the June 

2022 NOPR regarding temperature 

measurements within individual pans. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies instructions to 

prepare the product medium mixture to 

be placed in the standard product pans 

as follows: 

(a) Determine the manufacturer’s 

recommended maximum food product 

weight capacity. 

(b) Prepare a 20-percent-by-volume 

propylene glycol (1,2-Propanediol) 

mixture in water. 

(c) In each pan, pour the propylene 

glycol mixture over #20 mesh southern 

yellow pine sawdust to create a 22- 

percent-to-78-percent-by-mass slurry. 

Mixture must be pre-portioned for each 

individual pan to avoid large batch 

component separation. 

(d) Mix until the sawdust becomes 

completely saturated and leave 

uncovered in the pan. The weight of the 

mixture shall correspond with the 

determined weight. Record the weight 

of each pan, weight of the mixture, and 

number of pans to be loaded. Weight of 

the thermocouples shall be omitted. 

Note: Acceptable Sawdust Specification 

Example: American Wood Fibers brand, #20 

Mesh Pine Sawdust (50 lb bags), Item # 

30020205018. 

(e) Verify that the pan thermocouple 

is fully submerged in the mixture, 

reposition the thermocouple in the 

geometric center of the mixture if it is 

not. 

The ASHRAE 220 committee 

developed the food simulator 

specifications based on the food load 

specified in NSF 7–2019 for rapid pulldown refrigerators and freezers. Because 

this test load is already in use for this 

equipment, and because its heat transfer 

characteristics are similar to actual food 

loads, DOE tentatively determined in 

the June 2022 NOPR that the food 

simulator load specified in the ASHRAE 

220 draft is representative for testing 

blast chillers and blast freezers. 87 FR 

39164, 39197. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to incorporate the ASHRAE 

220 approach with additional 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66197 

specifications to ensure repeatability. Id. 

As stated, each pan would be loaded to 

2 in. of food load thickness (i.e., depth) 

within the pan and an additional pan 

would be loaded as needed to meet the 

manufacturer’s stated capacity. Id. DOE 

proposed that each pan shall be 

weighed prior to heating, before and 

after the food product simulator is 

added. Id. A cumulative total of the 

product weight shall be calculated and 

the pans shall continue to be loaded 

with the product mixture until the 

cumulative total reaches the 

manufacturer’s stated capacity (the total 

product weight shall be within ±5 

percent or ±2 lbs of the manufacturer’s 

stated capacity, whichever is less). Id. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE sought 

comment on the proposed method for 

preparing the product medium mixture 

to be placed in the standard product 

pans for the blast chillers and blast 

freezers test procedures. Id. 

AHRI commented recommending that 

any proposed changes to the method for 

preparing the product medium mixture 

to be placed in the standard product 

pans for the blast chillers and blast 

freezers test procedures be taken to the 

ASHRAE 220 committee for review and 

approval. (AHRI, No. 38, p. 11) 

As stated, DOE developed the 

proposal in the June 2022 NOPR to be 

consistent with the ASHRAE 220 

approach, with additional specificity 

where needed. A public review draft of 

ASHRAE 220 has not yet been 

published; therefore, DOE is adopting 

the provisions as proposed in the June 

2022 NOPR regarding test medium 

preparation. 

Test Conduct 

The overall test approach in the 

ASHRAE 220 draft includes pre-cooling 

the blast chiller’s or blast freezer’s 

cabinet to a pre-set or controlled 

operating temperature, loading of hot 

food pans into the blast chiller or blast 

freezer, and pull down of the hot food 

pans to the target temperature. The 

ASHRAE 220 committee also 

considered including an operating 

period in which the blast chiller or blast 

freezer would maintain the food load at 

the target temperature (i.e., a ‘‘holding 

period’’). However the ASHRAE 220 

committee determined that the primary 

function of the blast chiller or blast 

freezer is to pull down hot food 

temperatures and that the prioritization 

of throughput through the blast chiller 

or blast freezer would result in less 

operation in holding periods. DOE 

tentatively determined in the June 2022 

NOPR that the ASHRAE 220 approach 

is appropriate for blast chiller and blast 

freezer testing and proposed in the June 

2022 NOPR to only include pre-cooling 

and pull-down operation within the 

test. 87 FR 39164, 39197. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE sought 

comment on the proposal to include 

pre-cooling and pull-down operation in 

the blast chiller and blast freezer test 

procedure and to not include any 

holding periods during testing. Id. 

The CA IOUs recommended that the 

blast chiller and blast freezer test 

procedure include equipment pre-cool 

energy as well as a triplicate testing to 

ensure repeatability. (CA IOUs, No. 36, 

p. 5) The CA IOUs noted that different 

blast chiller and blast freezer models 

may pre-cool to different cabinet and 

evaporator temperatures prior to the 

start of the test, affecting blast cooling 

energy consumption. Id. The CA IOUs 

stated support for DOE’s proposal to 

record pre-cool energy along with pulldown energy and requested that DOE 

require reporting of the recorded precool energy. Id. The CA IOUs also stated 

support for DOE’s proposal to exclude 

‘‘holding energy’’ needed to maintain 

the food load at a target temperature 

after completion of the blast chilling 

cycle. Id. The CA IOUs further 

recommended normalizing energy usage 

by initial measured weight of the 

product to be cooled down (excluding 

pan weight) instead of by blast chiller 

and blast freezer volume or the 

manufacturer’s rating and suggested 

reporting blast chiller and blast freezer 

energy by either kWh/cycle/lb or kWh/ 

day/lb. Id. 

See the following Calculations subsection for discussion regarding 

triplicate testing. DOE is not adopting 

reporting requirements as part of this 

final rule, but is requiring that both precool and blast chilling or blast freezing 

cycle energy be recorded during testing. 

DOE is not requiring any measurement 

of holding energy. As recommended by 

the CA IOUs and proposed in the June 

2022 NOPR, DOE is adopting a 

calculation of energy consumption 

normalized by the total weight of 

product loaded into the blast chiller or 

blast freezer for testing. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies that all 

measurements shall be continuously 

recorded during the test in intervals no 

greater than 10 seconds. The current 

DOE CRE test procedures require that 

measurement intervals do not exceed 3 

minutes and ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Errata requires certain measurements at 

1-minute intervals. Because the blast 

chiller and blast freezer test procedure 

is not conducted at stable cabinet 

temperature conditions, as is the case 

for other CRE testing, DOE tentatively 

determined in the June 2022 NOPR that 

a shorter measurement interval is 

appropriate to accurately identify unit 

performance (e.g., determining when all 

pans reach the target temperatures). 87 

FR 39164, 39198. Therefore, in the June 

2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to 

incorporate the ASHRAE 220 approach 

requiring data acquisition at 10-second 

intervals. Id. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies that data 

would be recorded once a steady-state 

condition is established. ASHRAE 220 

specifies that the test unit stabilize at 

ambient temperatures for at least 24 

hours before pre-cooling and that the 

prepared product be heated for a 

minimum of 8 hours in the standard 

product pans at the required 

temperature prior to loading into the 

blast chiller or blast freezer. Consistent 

with these requirements, DOE proposed 

in the June 2022 NOPR that the test unit 

stabilize at ambient temperatures for at 

least 24 hours, and then data acquisition 

would be recorded prior to the pre-cool 

period. 87 FR 39164, 39198. For the 

prepared product in the standard 

product pans, DOE proposed that data 

acquisition begin prior to the minimum 

8-hour heating period. Id. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies a procedure 

for pre-cooling the test unit from 

ambient conditions prior to pull-down 

operation. The test unit is to remain in 

the required ambient conditions for at 

least 24 hours before pre-cooling. The 

test unit’s pre-cooling cycle is used, if 

available. For test units with more than 

one pre-cool cycle, the cycle used is 

recorded. For units without a precooling cycle, an empty blast cycle 

should be run in its entirety. During the 

pre-cool cycle, the test unit’s sensing 

probe will remain in its default or 

holstered position. Pre-cool is deemed 

complete when the test unit’s pre-cool 

notification reports. If the test unit does 

not have a pre-cool cycle or pre-cool 

completion notification, the pre-cool is 

deemed complete when the compressor 

first cycles off. The pre-cool data to be 

recorded is the selected cycle name, precool duration, temperature, and energy 

consumed. 

Because the main function of a blast 

chiller or blast freezer is to pull down 

the product temperature of hot food, 

DOE tentatively determined in the June 

2022 NOPR that measuring performance 

during the pre-cool period is not 

necessary, other than to determine when 

pre-cooling is complete. 87 FR 39164, 

39198. However, because pull-down 

testing is initiated after the completion 

of pre-cooling, operation during precooling may impact pull-down 

performance. Based on DOE’s review of 

ASHRAE 220, additional specifications 

regarding pre-cooling may be needed. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66198 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

DOE proposed in the June 2022 NOPR 

that the pre-cool cycle may be initiated 

on blast chillers and blast freezers once 

the test unit has been maintained at 

ambient temperatures without operating 

for at least 24 hours. 87 FR 39164, 

39198. Rather than selecting and 

recording any pre-cooling cycle, DOE 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR that 

the fastest pre-cooling cycle be selected. 

DOE proposed to specify that the precool cycle is complete when the test 

unit notifies the user that the pre-cool 

is complete, consistent with ASHRAE 

220, but that if the test unit does not 

notify the user that the pre-cool cycle is 

complete, the pre-cool will be deemed 

complete when the test unit reaches 

40 °F or 2 °F based on the test unit’s 

sensing probe for blast chillers and blast 

freezers, respectively. DOE tentatively 

determined in the June 2022 NOPR that 

this approach would ensure a consistent 

starting point for pull-down testing from 

unit to unit rather than the first 

compressor off cycle. 87 FR 39164, 

39198. 

For test units without any defined 

pre-cooling cycles, DOE proposed in the 

June 2022 NOPR that the fastest blast 

chilling or blast freezing cycle shall be 

run with an empty cabinet until the test 

unit reaches 40 °F ±2 °F based on the test 

unit’s sensing probe. Consistent with 

ASHRAE 220, during the pre-cool cycle, 

the test unit’s sensing probe will remain 

in its default or holstered position. The 

pre-cool test data to be recorded are the 

ambient conditions, pre-cool cycle 

selected, pre-cool duration, and final 

pre-cool cabinet temperature based on 

the test unit’s sensing probe. 

As stated, DOE proposed in the June 

2022 NOPR that test procedures for blast 

chillers and blast freezers are to measure 

the energy consumed by the product 

temperature pull-down operation. 87 FR 

39164, 39198. Additionally, blast 

chillers and blast freezers may run 

multiple pull-down cycles 

consecutively without the need for 

individual pre-cooling cycles. However, 

DOE acknowledges that the energy 

consumed during the pre-cool period 

may be relevant to the overall energy 

consumption of blast chillers and blast 

freezers and requests comment on 

whether pre-cooling energy use should 

be measured and considered in the 

overall energy consumption metric for 

blast chillers and blast freezers. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies instructions 

for loading the prepared standard 

product pans into the test unit. 

Measured standard product pans are 

maintained at an average temperature of 

160.0 °F ±1.8 °F and an individual pan 

temperature tolerance of 160 °F ±10 °F 

for a minimum of 8 hours prior to being 

loaded into the test unit. Non-measured 

pans are also required to be heated for 

a minimum of 8 hours. The test unit 

door is opened for loading at 4.0 ±1.0 

minutes after the test unit completes its 

pre-cool cycle. ASHRAE 220 specifies 

that the door remain open to load all of 

the standard product pans for the 

entirety of the loading procedure. 

ASHRAE 220 further specifies that the 

door is open for 20 seconds per roll-in 

rack and 15 seconds per pan for roll-in 

and standard test units, respectively. 

The test unit’s sensing probe is inserted 

into the geometric center of a standard 

product pan in the center level of the 

cabinet. If the center level has capacity 

for multiple pans, the probed pan 

should be furthest away from the 

evaporator. The probe must not touch 

the bottom of the pan or be exposed to 

the air. The location of the pan with the 

probe is recorded. The factory probe is 

placed so that it does not interfere with 

the test thermocouple measurement. 

The door remains closed for the 

remainder of the test. 

DOE proposed in the June 2022 NOPR 

to adopt ASHRAE 220’s approach with 

additional specifications and certain 

deviations to ensure consistent testing. 

87 FR 39164, 39198. DOE proposed that 

while maintaining the temperature of 

the measured standard product pans 

prior to loading into the blast chiller or 

blast freezer, the non-measured standard 

product pans shall be placed in 

alternating positions with the measured 

standard product pans in the heating 

device for a minimum of 8 hours prior 

to being loaded into the test unit to 

ensure consistent product temperatures. 

Id. The test unit door would be opened 

for loading at the specified time in 

ASHRAE 220, but DOE proposed to 

specify more precise values (i.e., 4.0 

±1.0 minutes). Id. DOE proposed in the 

June 2022 NOPR that the total dooropen period for loading pans would 

have a tolerance of ±5 seconds to 

account for different test lab operation. 

Id. DOE proposed in the June 2022 

NOPR that the door would be fully 

open, based on the definition of ‘‘fully 

open’’ in ASHRAE 72–2018R, for the 

duration specified in ASHRAE 220, to 

ensure test repeatability. 87 FR 39164, 

39199. DOE proposed in the June 2022 

NOPR that the test unit’s sensing probe 

would be inserted into the geometric 

center of the standard product pan 

approximately 1-in. deep in the product 

mixture at the median pan level in the 

test unit, which adds greater specificity 

for test repeatability. Id. If the standard 

product pan at the median level is the 

additional pan with less than 2 in. of 

product thickness, DOE proposed in the 

June 2022 NOPR to specify that the 

closest pan or pan level that is farthest 

away from the evaporator fan would be 

used to insert the test unit’s sensing 

probe, consistent with the ASHRAE 220 

approach. Id. DOE proposed in the June 

2022 NOPR to add that the product 

temperature sensor wiring not affect 

energy performance, consistent with 

section 5.4.9 of ASHRAE 72–2018R. Id. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies instructions to 

operate the blast chilling or blast 

freezing cycle. A blast chilling or blast 

freezing cycle is selected for blast 

chilling and blast freezing tests, 

respectively. ASHRAE 220 specifies that 

the cycle selected should provide the 

most rapid product cool down designed 

for the densest food product as stated in 

manufacturer literature. ASHRAE 220 

provides that a manufacturer may 

provide additional clarification on cycle 

selection. ASHRAE 220 specifies that 

the selected cycle name and settings are 

recorded. 

ASHRAE 220 further specifies the 

following: Temperature and energy 

measurement starts once the first pan is 

loaded in the unit; the selected cycle 

continues until all individual measured 

pan temperatures are below the final 

temperatures of 40 °F and 2 °F for blast 

chilling and blast freezing tests, 

respectively; if the selected cycle 

program terminates prior to all product 

temperatures reaching below the test’s 

prescribed final temperature, the 

standard product pans remain in the 

unit until it does so; if the temperature 

does not reach below the test’s 

prescribed temperature after two 

additional hours, unit temperature 

settings are adjusted to achieve the 

desired final temperature; temperature 

and energy measurements end once the 

door is opened to remove the standard 

product pans; and energy consumption, 

temperature, and time is reported 

starting with the first pan loaded in the 

unit and ending with the final pan 

reaching the prescribed final 

temperature. 

Based on DOE’s review of ASHRAE 

220, DOE determined in the June 2022 

NOPR that additional specifications and 

certain deviations may be needed to 

improve test repeatability and 

reproducibility. 87 FR 39164, 39199. 

Consistent with the integrated average 

temperature requirements from the 

current DOE CRE test procedures, DOE 

proposed that a blast chilling cycle with 

a target temperature of 38 °F and a blast 

freezing cycle with a target temperature 

of 0 °F be selected for blast chilling and 

blast freezing tests, respectively. Id. 

Consistent with ASHRAE 220, the cycle 

selected would be the cycle with the 

most rapid product temperature pull 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66199 

down that is designed for the densest 

food product, as stated in the test unit’s 

manufacturer literature. Ambient 

conditions and time measurements 

would be recorded from the pre-cool 

cycle. Product temperature 

measurements from the measured 

standard product pans would be 

recorded from the 8-hour period of 

heating prior to being loaded into the 

test unit to ensure that pull-down 

performance data is recorded. Voltage, 

frequency, and energy consumed would 

start to be recorded as soon as the test 

unit door is opened to load the standard 

product pans so that blast chiller and 

blast freezer tests are started at a 

consistent point across all tests. Once 

the test unit door is closed, the blast 

chilling or blast freezing cycle would be 

selected and initiated as soon as is 

practicable. The blast chilling or blast 

freezing cycle selected would be 

recorded. The blast chilling or blast 

freezing test period would continue 

from the door opening until all 

individual measured pan temperatures 

are at or below 40.0 °F or 2.0 °F for blast 

chiller and blast freezer tests, 

respectively, regardless of whether the 

selected cycle program has terminated. 

If all individual measured pan 

temperatures do not reach 40.0 °F or 

2.0 °F for blast chiller and blast freezer 

tests, respectively, 2 hours after the 

selected cycle program has terminated, 

the test would be repeated and the target 

temperature would be lowered by 1.0 °F 

until all individual measured pan 

temperatures are at or below 40.0 °F or 

2.0 °F for blast chiller and blast freezer 

tests, respectively, at the conclusion of 

the test. The duration of the blast chiller 

or blast freezer test would be recorded. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE sought 

comment on the proposed method to 

conduct the blast chilling or blast 

freezing test, including data recording 

rates, data collection periods, precooling cycles, product loading, and 

selecting and running the test cycle. 87 

FR 39164, 39198–39199. 

AHRI commented that the method to 

conduct testing for blast chillers and 

blast freezers is reflected in ASTM 26 

testing standards and advised DOE to 

reference this standard. Specifically, 

AHRI recommended referencing ASTM 

26 for data recording rates, data 

collection periods, pre-cooling cycles, 

pan loading, and test conduct. (AHRI, 

No. 38, p. 12) 

The CA IOUs suggested that in the 

case where the blast chiller/freezer 

cannot pull down the initial load to the 

specified temperature, the unit should 

be retested with one less pan instead of 

the NOPR’s proposal to retest with the 

temperature lowered by 1 °F, because 

requiring a retest with a lower 

temperature setpoint may not be feasible 

for some equipment and will likely 

result in excessive test burden. (CA 

IOUs, No. 36, p. 5) 

As discussed in the previous subsection, DOE expects that the 

requirements in the ASTM 26 standard 

will be harmonized with those in the 

ASHRAE 220 standard. Because the 

ASHRAE 220 standard is intended for 

measuring blast chiller and blast freezer 

energy use, DOE has determined that 

ASHRAE 220 is the appropriate basis for 

the DOE test procedure and is 

maintaining the test conduct provisions 

as proposed in the June 2022 NOPR. 

DOE recognizes that the approach of 

lowering the set point temperature if the 

final temperatures are not met may 

require multiple test runs, but DOE 

expects that end users will operate the 

blast chiller fully loaded and would 

adjust temperature to meet their needs. 

DOE maintains the proposed approach 

in the June 2022 NOPR of decreasing the 

temperature setting if all individual pan 

temperatures do not reach the specified 

temperatures. DOE is not adopting the 

provision of removing test pans until 

the unit can achieve temperatures 

except for units that have no specified 

product capacity (in weight). The 

definition of blast chiller is based on the 

unit pulling down product temperature 

within the specified time. If a unit is not 

capable of that operation at the specified 

loading, it would not meet the 

definition of blast chiller or blast 

freezer. 

Calculations 

ASHRAE 220 specifies calculations 

used to report the energy consumed 

during the test. The measured energy 

consumption is divided by the test 

product capacity in pounds, averaged 

for three repeated tests. DOE proposed 

in the June 2022 NOPR to incorporate 

the ASHRAE 220 approach (and to 

specify that the measured energy 

consumption is reported in kilowatthours) except that only one test would 

be needed in order to limit test burden. 

87 FR 39164, 39199. ASHRAE test 

standards do not generally provide 

requirements for multiple tests, as 

sampling plans are typically established 

by the rating programs that reference the 

ASHRAE test standard. However, DOE 

already provides sampling plans for the 

determination of CRE represented 

energy or efficiency values at 10 CFR 

429.42(a). Accordingly, DOE determined 

that the three tests considered for the 

ASHRAE 220 standard are not necessary 

for representations, and DOE is not 

planning to incorporate ASHRAE’s 

method of averaging over three tests. 87 

FR 39164, 39199. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE sought 

comment on the proposed method for 

calculating the reported energy use 

metric for blast chillers and blast 

freezers. Id. 

The CA IOUs commented that they 

were concerned with the proposal in the 

NOPR to use ASHRAE 220 with a single 

test for blast chillers/freezers instead of 

the three repeated tests specified by 

ASHRAE 220, stating that the need for 

accuracy outweighs DOE’s goal of 

limiting test burden. (CA IOUs, No. 36, 

p. 5) The CA IOUs commented that the 

blast chiller/freezer test method is 

complex and there is room for user or 

test product consistency error. Id. The 

CA IOUs requested that DOE share 

further data illustrating the reduction in 

accuracy of energy consumption and 

product weight calculation of using a 

single test compared with triplicate 

tests. Id. 

DOE recognizes the need for accurate 

and repeatable results. However, DOE’s 

test procedures themselves typically do 

not include repeat runs; DOE addresses 

the need for a data sample in making 

representations of energy use or energy 

efficiency by establishing sampling 

plans in 10 CFR part 429. DOE is 

adopting the requirement as proposed in 

the June 2022 NOPR that the test only 

be conducted once. For any 

representations, manufacturers would 

be required to apply the sampling 

provisions in 10 CFR 429.42, which 

require multiple test units. 

For these reasons, DOE is maintaining 

the approach as proposed in the June 

2022 NOPR, which includes a single 

calculation of measured energy use 

divided by test product capacity in 

pounds. 

4. Chef Bases and Griddle Stands 

DOE defines ‘‘chef base or griddle 

stand’’ as CRE that is designed and 

marketed for the express purpose of 

having a griddle or other cooking 

appliance placed on top of it that is 

capable of reaching temperatures hot 

enough to cook food. 10 CFR 431.62. 

As discussed in the April 2014 Final 

Rule, the explicit categorization of 

griddle stands covers equipment that 

experiences temperatures exceeding 

200 °F. 79 FR 22277, 22282. As 

explained, this was to distinguish 

between equipment that experiences 

cooking temperatures and equipment 

that experiences temperatures at which 

food is kept warm. Id. However, DOE 

notes that the current definition for chef 

bases and griddle stands does not 

specify a quantitative temperature and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66200 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

26For information on the Version 5.0 

specification development, see www.energystar.gov/ 

sites/default/files/asset/document/ 

ENERGY%20STAR%20Version%205.0%20

Commercial%20Refrigerators

%20and%20Freezers%20Final%20Draft%

20Specification_0.pdf. 

27Undercounter: A vertical closed commercial 

refrigerator or freezer that has no surface intended 

for food preparation. The equipment is intended for 

installation under a separate counter or workspace. 

This equipment may have doors or drawers and 

shall have a minimum height of 32 in., including 

legs or casters. Worktop: A vertical closed 

commercial refrigerator or freezer that has a surface 

intended for food preparation that is incapable of 

supporting cooking equipment. This equipment 

may have doors or drawers and shall have a 

minimum height of 32 in., including legs or casters. 

instead states ‘‘hot enough to cook 

food.’’ 

DOE stated in the April 2014 Final 

Rule that chef bases and griddle stands 

are able to be tested according to the 

DOE test procedure, but that their 

refrigeration systems require larger 

compressors to provide more cooling 

capacity per storage volume than 

equipment with compressors that are 

appropriately sized for conventional 

CRE and more typical room temperature 

conditions. 79 FR 22277, 22281–22282. 

However, the definition does not 

include specifications for the 

refrigeration systems to differentiate this 

equipment from typical CRE. 

ENERGY STAR has published a Final 

Draft Version 5.0 Eligibility Criteria for 

the ENERGY STAR program for 

commercial refrigerators and freezers.26

This final draft specification includes a 

definition for ‘‘chef base or griddle 

stand’’ consistent with DOE’s current 

definition and would require testing 

according to the existing DOE test 

procedure in place for CRE. 

DOE has considered whether 

additional detail regarding the 

characteristics of chef bases or griddle 

stands would better differentiate it from 

other CRE. As discussed, chef bases or 

griddle stands are designed for use with 

cooking equipment placed on top of the 

unit. Typical chef bases or griddle 

stands may include oversized 

refrigeration systems and additional 

cabinet insulation to ensure the unit can 

maintain cold storage temperatures with 

the additional heat load from the 

cooking equipment. However, these 

characteristics may not be readily 

identifiable in a given chef base or 

griddle stand. For example, 

manufacturers may not offer CRE in a 

different CRE equipment class with 

similar designs to any chef base or 

griddle stand, in which case there 

would not be a point of comparison 

available to determine whether the chef 

base or griddle stand includes more 

insulation or an oversized refrigeration 

system. 

While ENERGY STAR’s Final Draft 

Version 5.0 Eligibility Criteria includes 

a definition of ‘‘chef base or griddle 

stand’’ consistent with DOE’s definition, 

it also includes definitions for similar 

equipment types (i.e., worktop and 

undercounter 27 CRE). Both of these 

definitions include a minimum height 

requirement of 32 in. Chef bases or 

griddle stands have similar construction 

to worktop and undercounter 

equipment but are typically shorter to 

allow for installing cooking equipment 

above the refrigerated cabinet at a 

normal working height. Consistent with 

the ENERGY STAR definitions for 

worktop and undercounter, DOE 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR to 

amend the definition for chef base or 

griddle stand to specify that the 

equipment has a maximum height of 32 

in., including any legs or casters. 87 FR 

39164, 39201. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on the proposed 

amendment to the definition for a chef 

base or griddle stand, which specifies a 

maximum height of 32 in. for this 

equipment. DOE requested information 

on any other identifiable equipment 

characteristics that may differentiate 

chef bases and griddle stands from other 

similar CRE. Id. 

Hoshizaki commented agreeing with 

the proposal to add a maximum height 

of 32 in. for chef bases or griddle stands. 

(Hoshizaki, No. 30, p. 5) 

AHRI commenting stating that it has 

no objection to the proposed height 

characteristic and recommended that 

DOE examine ENERGY STAR Version 

5.0 for griddle stands. (AHRI, No. 38, p. 

12) AHRI commented that in light of 

ENERGY STAR’s target where ∼20 

percent of the market is listed with 

ENERGY STAR, DOE should examine 

having a higher kWh allowance than 

ENERGY STAR, taking into 

consideration mandatory versus 

optional compliance. Id. 

Hillphoenix stated agreement with the 

proposed definition for chef bases and 

griddle stands, but found it unclear why 

the 32-in. limit would be added. 

(Hillphoenix, No. 35, p. 6) Hillphoenix 

recommended clearly defining these 

products to not include CRE or hybrid 

CRE in which a food warmer or such 

can be placed on a section of the CRE 

unit. Id. 

Continental commented a belief that 

DOE’s current definition of ‘‘chef bases 

or griddle stands’’ was sufficient, and 

the proposed additional specification of 

equipment having a maximum height of 

32 in., including any legs or casters, is 

unnecessary and could cause confusion 

as some specialized, low-profile, 

undercounter models of CRE are 

available with an overall height less 

than 32 in., but they are not designed or 

intended to be used with cooking 

equipment on the top. (Continental, No. 

29, p. 8) Continental disagreed with 

DOE’s statement that chef bases or 

griddle stands have similar construction 

to worktop and undercounter 

equipment, but are typically shorter to 

allow for installing cooking equipment 

above the refrigerated cabinet at a 

normal working height. Id. Continental 

pointed out that commenters noted, and 

DOE acknowledged, that chef bases or 

griddle stands include oversized 

refrigeration systems and additional 

cabinet insulation to ensure the unit can 

maintain cold storage temperatures with 

the additional heat load from the 

cooking equipment. Id. Continental 

added that this type of equipment is 

also provided with heavy-duty cabinet 

construction to support excessive 

weight loads, and may have specialized 

insulation to protect against damage 

from exposure to very high 

temperatures. Id. Continental concluded 

by stating that characteristics such as 

larger evaporator coils, fans, and 

upsized compressors may not be readily 

identifiable in a given chef base or 

griddle stand, yet still represent distinct 

features that impact energy 

consumption and separate these 

products from other types of CRE. Id. 

True commented that chef bases and 

griddle stands are intended to be used 

in conjunction with cooking equipment 

installed on top (of the counter) of the 

refrigerated unit, with temperatures 

easily exceeding 500 °F, and the 

refrigeration systems are usually larger 

than a standard storage refrigeration 

system due to the very high ambient 

temperature and conditions they are 

subjected to. (True, No. 28, p. 3) True 

commented that the 32-in. height may 

be excessive as the top of the griddle (or 

other cooking equipment) should be at 

about a 36-in. height, making a 28-in. 

height or less recommended as more 

appropriate. Id. True added that the 

ADA requires a working height of 34-in. 

or less, that the smallest griddles are 

more than 6 in. high, and that most 

grills are more than 15 in. high. Id. 

The definition proposed in the June 

2022 NOPR is largely consistent with 

the existing definition, with the 

additional height requirement. DOE has 

determined this height limit is 

appropriate as it harmonizes with 

ENERGY STAR definitions and because 

any units taller than 32′′ would not have 

cooking equipment at appropriate 

working height. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66201 

28See www.caetrm.com/media/referencedocuments/ET15SCE1010_Chef_Bases_Report_

final2.pdf. 

29See ‘‘Chef Bases for Foodservice Applications,’’ 

p. 9. www.caetrm.com/media/referencedocuments/ 

ET15SCE1010_Chef_Bases_Report_final2.pdf. 

The current definition of chef bases or 

griddle stands specifically refers to 

cooking equipment capable of reaching 

temperatures hot enough to cook food. 

Therefore, no exclusions of other types 

of equipment that can be placed on top 

of the equipment are necessary. 

DOE recognizes that chef bases may 

be shorter to allow for taller cooking 

equipment, as indicated in True’s 

comment, but DOE set the height limit 

at a level that would be inclusive of all 

chef bases or griddle stands, not an 

average or typical height. 

DOE recognizes that there are other 

CRE that are not chef bases or griddle 

stands with heights under 32’’ (e.g., 

undercounter models). These CRE 

would not be included in the definition 

despite their height because the 

definition would maintain that the 

equipment is designed to have cooking 

equipment placed on top of the unit. 

DOE agrees with the characteristics 

identified for chef bases (i.e., oversized 

refrigeration, insulation, cabinets 

capable of supporting weight) but has 

not determined identifiable aspects of 

these characteristics for inclusion in the 

definition. To the extent that these 

characteristics impact energy 

consumption, DOE will consider these 

impacts when evaluating potential 

energy conservation standards for this 

equipment. 

For these reasons and those discussed 

in the June 2022 NOPR, DOE is 

maintaining the definition of chef bases 

and griddle stands as proposed in the 

June 2022 NOPR. 

Regarding testing for chef bases or 

griddle stands, DOE determined in the 

June 2022 NOPR that the existing DOE 

test procedure provides an appropriate 

basis for measuring the energy 

consumption of this equipment. 87 FR 

39164, 39201. DOE recognized that chef 

bases or griddle stands can be installed 

and used in ambient environments that 

are different from other CRE, but DOE 

proposed to test this equipment in the 

same conditions because DOE 

tentatively determined that the 

additional heat loads of cooking 

equipment do not affect measured 

energy use. Id. 

Additionally, DOE conducted testing 

similar to the PG&E and SCE testing 28

to investigate whether cooking 

equipment operation would impact chef 

base or griddle stand energy use during 

typical operation, as illustrated in Table 

III.4. DOE tested chef base or griddle 

stand refrigerators and freezers to the 

current DOE CRE test procedure with 

and without an active griddle installed 

on top of the test unit. During the tests 

with an active griddle installed, the 

griddle was turned on 3 hours after the 

start of the defrost period and 

maintained a target griddle surface 

temperature of 185 °F for 8 hours, 

concurrent with the door opening 

period. After the 8-hour period of 

griddle operation, the griddle was 

turned off for the remainder of the test. 

TABLE III.4—CHEF BASE OR GRIDDLE STAND ENERGY CONSUMPTION COMPARISON WITH AND WITHOUT AN ACTIVE

GRIDDLE

Test unit 

Refrigerated 

volume 

(ft3) 

Energy 

consumption 

with griddle 

installed 

(kWh/day) 

Energy 

consumption 

without 

griddle 

installed 

(kWh/day) 

Energy 

consumption 

difference 

(percent) 

Refrigerator #1 ................................................................................................. 5.21 0.97 0.96 ¥0.5 

Refrigerator #2 ................................................................................................. 9.17 1.04 1.03 ¥0.5 

Refrigerator #3 ................................................................................................. 9.72 1.59 1.58 ¥0.1 

Freezer #1 ....................................................................................................... 6.56 7.28 7.29 +0.2 

Freezer #2 ....................................................................................................... 11.31 8.58 8.70 +1.4 

* DOE tested an additional freezer that is not shown in the table due to inconsistent issues with the evaporator icing during testing. 

Consistent with the findings in the 

PG&E and SCE report, DOE observed 

that chef bases or griddle stands 

consumed similar amounts of energy 

with and without cooking equipment 

operating above the unit. DOE has been 

unable to determine why Freezer #2 

consumed slightly more energy without 

a griddle installed. For these reasons, 

DOE proposed in the June 2022 NOPR 

to maintain the existing CRE test 

procedure for testing chef bases or 

griddle stands (with the additional 

proposals as discussed in this NOPR). 

87 FR 39164, 39202. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on its proposal to 

test chef bases and griddle stands 

according to the test procedure used for 

other CRE. Id. 

The CA IOUs recommended 

standardizing chef base internal volume 

measurements by defining standardized 

pans as full-size, 4-in.-deep hotel pans 

(12 by 20 by 4 in.) since this is a 

standard pan size that all units can 

accommodate. (CA IOUs, No. 36, p. 7) 

The CA IOUs added that for chef bases 

able to hold 6-in.-deep pans, the volume 

calculation should account for the extra 

2 in. of depth. Id. The CA IOUs pointed 

out that some 36-in.-wide chef bases 

only accommodate one pan per drawer, 

but have extra room to accommodate a 

4- or 6-in.-deep, 1⁄6-size pan measuring 

6 by 6 in.; for such bases that cannot fit 

12-by-20-in. hotel pans, the CA IOUs 

recommended adding 1⁄6-size pans to its 

volume and suggested that any 

refrigerated volume that cannot 

accommodate a 1⁄6 pan should not be 

counted as usable volume. Id. 

The Joint Commenters supported 

DOE’s proposed changes regarding the 

test methods for additional equipment 

categories, including chef bases and 

griddle stands. (Joint Commenters, No. 

31, p. 1) 

The Joint Commenters stated their 

support for establishing test procedures 

for chef bases and griddle stands, citing 

a 2016 report that found significant 

variation in energy performance of chef 

bases,29 suggesting there is opportunity 

for efficiency improvements. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 31, p. 3). The Joint 

Commenters expressed a belief that it 

was reasonable to test chef bases or 

griddle stands according to the same test 

procedure as other CRE, which would 

allow end users to compare energy 

consumption with other currently 

covered equipment. Id. 

NEEA stated its support for DOE’s 

proposal to establish test procedures for 

new and/or newly defined categories of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66202 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

CRE, and restated its recommendation 

from the 2021 CRE TP RFI that DOE 

establish test methods for new CRE 

product types, including chef bases or 

griddle stands. (NEEA, No. 39, p. 2) 

Hillphoenix commented that it agreed 

with using the test conditions and test 

setup as required for CRE equipment, 

but disagreed with utilizing the 

standard door opening procedure as 

documented in ASHRAE 72, as the door 

openings of this equipment would be 

better represented by a reduced opening 

procedure. (Hillphoenix, No. 35, p. 7) 

Hillphoenix commented that the doors 

on this type of equipment are normally 

operated by store personnel and are not 

customer facing, which excludes the 

intent of the opening procedures in 

ASHRAE 72. Id. 

Continental commented that it 

supports DOE’s proposal in the NOPR to 

add new test procedures for product 

categories such as griddle stands and 

chef bases. (Continental, No. 29, p. 1) 

Continental agreed with DOE’s desire to 

develop test procedures for additional 

product types, including chef bases and 

griddle stands, but added that new test 

methods should only be introduced 

after suitable industry-accepted 

standards have been adequately vetted 

with stakeholder feedback and approved 

for publication. (Continental, No. 29, p. 

8) Continental commented that DOE 

should clarify that any test procedure 

proposed for chef bases or griddle 

stands would only apply to selfcontained equipment. Id. Continental 

stated disagreement with DOE’s 

recommendation to test chef bases and 

griddle stands in the same manner as 

other CRE—using ASHRAE Standard 

72—because, as DOE recognizes, this 

equipment is designed to operate with 

higher heat loads than other types of 

CRE and that as stated in the NOPR, an 

ASHRAE research project found that 

average temperatures in commercial 

kitchen preparation areas are typically 

72 °F to 79 °F, while cooking areas are 

typically 79 °F to 93 °F. Id. Continental 

commented that testing at an ambient 

temperature of 75 °F would not 

represent how chef bases and griddle 

stands are used in real-world conditions 

and that higher ambient conditions 

should be used to even come close to 

simulating representative conditions for 

chef bases and griddle stands located in 

the midst of commercial kitchen 

cooking areas, with high-temperature 

cooking equipment on the top, as well 

as adjacent to them in most situations. 

Id. Continental commented that energy 

consumption at the elevated ambient 

temperature conditions would need to 

be evaluated thoroughly as part of any 

future rulemaking regarding potential 

energy standards for this equipment. Id. 

Continental pointed out that DOE 

provided a summary of some limited 

energy testing performed on five chef 

base models as justification that energy 

consumption does not vary significantly 

when tested with a griddle placed on 

the top and operated for a limited time, 

and yet little information about this 

testing was offered and the procedure 

and results had not been widely vetted 

by stakeholders. Id. Continental 

requested that DOE share details and 

data from this testing, while 

maintaining any needed confidentiality, 

for thorough assessment and feedback. 

Id. Continental cited an analysis by 

Southern California Edison 

(ET15SCE1010) from August 2016, 

which evaluated chef bases for energy 

consumption of six different units using 

ASHRAE Standard 72–2014 test 

conditions. Id. Continental pointed out 

that an additional heat load was not 

included because when an electric 

griddle was placed on top of a chef base, 

there was reportedly insignificant 

variation in energy test results. Id. 

Continental believed this conclusion 

was based on insufficient data and lack 

of a thorough understanding of the 

application, as refrigerated chef bases 

are subject to extreme heat loads from 

high-temperature cooking equipment 

adjacent to and on top of the unit, and 

a variety of heavy-duty gas and electric 

cooking equipment is typically used in 

this application. Id. Continental 

commented that as a result, 

standardizing to one piece of equipment 

could lead to varied results in the field, 

and the Southern California Edison 

study also found an extremely wide 

variation in energy consumption of the 

six units tested. Id. Continental urged a 

thorough review and evaluation of prior 

studies used by DOE to evaluate the 

appropriateness of the proposed test 

method to ensure reliability and 

confidence, and it repeated its statement 

that DOE should continue to work with 

ASHRAE and allow time for completion 

of an industry-accepted procedure 

before incorporating a test procedure for 

chef bases and griddle stands. Id. 

AHRI recommended that DOE provide 

more information on the size of chef 

bases and griddle stands that are tested, 

as well as more information about the 

size and heat load for griddles, noting 

there is no current test standard specific 

to chef bases. (AHRI, No. 38, p. 12) 

AHRI commented that if DOE 

incorporates standard ASHRAE 72, 

AHRI would like to work with the 

committee to craft an energy test for 

chef bases. Id. AHRI stated concerns 

with DOE’s proposal to test chef bases 

and griddle stands, and with how DOE 

proposed testing be conducted in the 

NOPR. Id. AHRI stated that chef bases 

and griddle stands are primarily drawer 

units designed for higher ambient 

conditions, which renders the 

temperature standard for CRE 

inapplicable and is the reason chef 

bases are currently exempt. Id. 

Hoshizaki stated that it would need 

additional information to comment on 

this proposal. (Hoshizaki, No. 30, p. 5) 

In particular, Hoshizaki stated that it 

would need to know the size of the 

equipment used in DOE’s testing 

method (i.e., the condensing unit size 

for the refrigerators and freezers; the 

griddle size). Id. Also, Hoshizaki stated 

that it would be helpful to know 

whether the griddle was at a stable 

temperature or actively recreating a 

cooking environment during the testing 

period. Id. Hoshizaki recommended that 

this matter be proposed to the ASHRAE 

72 standards committee for input 

regarding changes needed to test chef 

bases along with specifying the test 

criteria with heat loads. Id. 

Regarding capacity measurements, 

DOE is maintaining the proposal in the 

June 2022 NOPR to measure the 

refrigerated volume according to AHRI 

1200–2023. Most chef bases or griddle 

stands use drawers for storing pans. The 

definition does not require drawers or 

pans, so other configurations are 

possible. This is also true of other CRE 

categories (e.g., undercounter units may 

be configured with drawers for storing 

pans). To allow for consistent 

comparisons across such equipment, 

DOE is maintaining the same volume 

metric as the relevant capacity metric 

for chef bases or griddle stands. 

Regarding the test data presented in 

the June 2022 NOPR, during the tests 

with an active griddle installed, the 

griddle was turned on three hours after 

the start of the defrost period and 

maintained a target griddle surface 

temperature of 185 °F for 8 hours, 

concurrent with the door opening 

period, and after the 8-hour period of 

griddle operation, the griddle was 

turned off for the remainder of the test. 

87 FR 39164, 39201. The griddles for 

testing were appropriately sized to meet 

the dimensions of the various chef bases 

or griddle stands, which ranged in 

volume from 5.2 to 11.3 cubic feet. 

DOE expects the specific installation 

conditions and door openings to vary 

among CRE depending on actual end 

use. DOE has determined that ASHRAE 

72–2022 with Errata door openings are 

representative of CRE intended to be 

used in commercial kitchens. However, 

DOE agrees that chef bases or griddle 

stands would be used in cooking areas 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66203 

with ambient temperatures higher than 

those specified in ASHRAE 72–2022 

with Errata. DOE stated in the April 

2014 Final Rule that chef bases and 

griddle stands are able to be tested 

according to the DOE test procedure, but 

that their refrigeration systems require 

larger compressors to provide more 

cooling capacity per storage volume 

than conventional CRE used in more 

typical room temperature conditions. 79 

FR 22277, 22281–22282. In the June 

2022 NOPR, DOE recognized that chef 

bases or griddle stands can be installed 

and used in ambient environments that 

are different from other CRE, but DOE 

proposed to test this equipment in the 

same conditions because DOE 

tentatively determined that the 

additional heat loads of cooking 

equipment do not affect measured 

energy use. 87 FR 39164, 39201. Based 

on DOE’s testing in support of this 

rulemaking, as presented in Table III.4, 

DOE has determined that chef bases or 

griddle stands consume similar amounts 

of energy with and without cooking 

equipment operating above the unit and 

is therefore not adopting any test 

provisions to directly account for 

operation of cooking equipment. 

However, based on the comments 

received in response to the June 2022 

NOPR as well as previous comments 

received in response to the June 2021 

RFI, as summarized in the following 

paragraphs, DOE recognizes that the 

cooking areas of commercial kitchens 

would typically have higher ambient 

temperatures than those specified in 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata, and is 

adopting amended test conditions for 

chef bases or griddle stands. 

Ambient Conditions 

DOE initially requested comment in 

the June 2021 RFI on whether 

modifications to the current CRE test 

procedure would be appropriate for 

testing chef bases and griddle stands to 

better represent real-world use 

conditions. 86 FR 31182, 31189. DOE 

received limited feedback regarding 

ambient conditions in response to the 

June 2021 RFI. The CA IOUs and Joint 

Commenters commented that DOE 

should establish higher ambient 

temperature and relative humidity 

conditions for evaluating the 

performance of chef bases. (CA IOUs, 

No. 10, p. 2–3; Joint Commenters, No. 8, 

p. 2) The CA IOUs recommended 

adopting conditions from ASTM F2143– 

16 or the emerging ASHRAE Standard 

220, which have an ambient 

temperature of 86 °F ±2 °F and relative 

humidity of 35 percent ±5 percent. (CA 

IOUs, No. 10, p. 2–3) The CA IOUs 

commented that these elevated kitchen 

temperatures are supported by a 2012 

ASHRAE research project benchmarking 

the thermal conditions in 100 

commercial kitchens in the United 

States, which found that the average 

temperature in preparation areas ranged 

from 72 °F to 79 °F, while the average 

temperature in cooking areas ranged 

from 79 °F to 93 °F. (Id.) AHRI did not 

provide detailed information on 

ambient temperature, but noted that the 

current test procedure does not account 

for the high ambient conditions for chef 

bases or griddle stands. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 

10) 

Although not specific to ambient 

conditions, DOE received comments in 

response to the June 2021 RFI from ITW, 

True, Hoshizaki, NEEA, and the CA 

IOUs stating that the test procedure 

should not change to limit burden. 

(ITW, No. 2, p. 8; True, No. 4, p. 15–16; 

Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 3; NEEA, No. 5, p. 

2; CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 1–2) 

As discussed earlier in this section, 

DOE tentatively determined in the June 

2022 NOPR that the existing test 

procedure provides an appropriate basis 

for measuring the energy consumption 

of chef bases or griddle stands. 87 FR 

39164, 39201. 

In response to the June 2022 NOPR, 

Continental referred to the same 

ASHRAE research project as the CA 

IOUs referenced in response to the June 

2021 RFI, noting that average 

temperatures in commercial kitchen 

preparation areas are typically 72 °F to 

79 °F, while cooking areas are typically 

79 °F to 93 °F. (Continental, No. 29, p. 8) 

Continental commented that testing at 

an ambient temperature of 75 °F would 

not represent how chef bases and 

griddle stands are used in real-world 

conditions and that higher ambient 

conditions should be used. (Id.) In 

response to the June 2022 NOPR, AHRI 

stated that chef bases and griddle stands 

are primarily drawer units designed for 

higher ambient conditions, which 

renders the temperature standard for 

CRE inapplicable. (AHRI, No. 38, p. 12) 

Both AHRI and Hoshizaki 

recommended that the industry test 

standard committee should evaluate 

appropriate testing for chef bases or 

griddle stands. (AHRI, No. 38, p. 12; 

Hoshizaki, No. 30, p. 5) 

Hillphoenix commented that it agreed 

with using the test conditions and test 

setup as required for CRE equipment. 

(Hillphoenix, No. 35, p. 7) The Joint 

Commenters and NEEA supported 

DOE’s approach from the June 2022 

NOPR, but did not specifically refer to 

ambient conditions. (Joint Commenters, 

No. 31, p. 3) (NEEA, No. 39, p. 2) 

After evaluating these comments 

received regarding chef base or griddle 

stand ambient test conditions, DOE 

acknowledges that multiple interested 

parties representing a range of 

viewpoints (i.e., efficiency advocates, 

utilities, and industry) have supported 

the use of higher ambient temperatures 

for testing chef bases or griddle stands. 

DOE also recognizes that chef bases or 

griddle stands are uniquely used only in 

the cooking areas of commercial 

kitchens, as compared to other 

conventional CRE that may be installed 

in a range of locations. Based on the 

referenced ASHRAE study, DOE has 

determined that 86 °F is the ambient 

condition most representative of chef 

base or griddle stand operation, as that 

is the mid-point of the 79 °F to 93 °F 

range identified for cooking areas. This 

ambient condition is also consistent 

with the 86.0 °F ambient condition 

established in this final rule for blast 

chillers and blast freezers, equipment 

that is also used in the cooking areas of 

commercial kitchens. Consistent with 

this higher ambient dry-bulb 

temperature, DOE is also amending test 

conditions for wet-bulb temperature to 

require testing at 73.7 °F (i.e., 

maintaining the same ambient relative 

humidity at the higher ambient dry-bulb 

temperature), and radiant heat 

temperature to require testing at greater 

than or equal to 81.0 °F. For both drybulb and wet-bulb temperature, DOE is 

maintaining the tolerances for ambient 

temperature measurements: tolerance 

for the average over the test period of 

±1.8 °F, and a tolerance for the 

individual measurements of ±3.6 °F. 

For the reasons discussed in this 

section, the June 2022 NOPR, and the 

April 2014 Final Rule, DOE is 

maintaining that chef bases or griddle 

stands do not require separate test 

provisions, except that the dry-bulb 

temperature, wet-bulb temperature, and 

radiant heat temperature will require 

higher temperatures during the test. 

Therefore, the test procedure in 

appendix B, as established in this final 

rule, is the test procedure applicable to 

chef bases or griddle stands. 

5. Mobile Refrigerated Cabinets 

DOE does not currently define or 

specify test procedure provisions 

specific to other categories of 

refrigerated holding and serving 

equipment, such as certain mobile 

refrigerated cabinets. Specifically, 

mobile refrigerated cabinets chill the 

refrigerated compartment before being 

unplugged from power and taken to a 

remote location to hold food products 

while maintaining cooling. Such 

equipment meets the definition of CRE 

as defined at 10 CFR 431.62; however, 

unlike typical CRE, mobile refrigerated 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66204 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

cabinets are not continuously connected 

to a power supply. As discussed in the 

April 2014 Final Rule, DOE determined 

that such other categories of refrigerated 

holding and serving equipment meet the 

definition of CRE and could be subject 

to future test procedures and energy 

conservation standards. 79 FR 22277, 

22281. To better distinguish mobile 

refrigerated cabinets from other defined 

categories of CRE, DOE considered 

developing a definition for this 

equipment in the June 2022 NOPR. 87 

FR 39164, 39202. 

Based on a review of mobile 

refrigerated cabinets available on the 

market, the operation and use of this 

equipment is subject to varied end-use 

applications, which may be specific to 

individual models. DOE did not identify 

data or information that would inform 

development of representative test 

conditions for such equipment. As such, 

DOE did not propose to establish test 

procedures for mobile refrigerated 

cabinets in the June 2022 NOPR. 87 FR 

39164, 39202. 

To better distinguish mobile 

refrigerated cabinets from other defined 

categories of CRE, DOE proposed in the 

NOPR to add the following definition to 

10 CFR 431.62 for mobile refrigerated 

cabinets: 

A ‘‘mobile refrigerated cabinet’’ 

means commercial refrigeration 

equipment that is designed and 

marketed to operate only without a 

continuous power supply. Id. 

CRE that allow the user to choose 

whether to operate with or without a 

continuous power supply do not meet 

the definition of a mobile refrigerated 

cabinet. 

Although DOE did not propose in the 

June 2022 NOPR to establish test 

procedure provisions specific to mobile 

refrigerated cabinets, CRE that do not 

meet the definition of mobile 

refrigerated cabinets are subject to 

DOE’s test procedure at appendix B and 

energy conservation standards under the 

applicable CRE equipment class. 87 FR 

39164, 39202. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on the proposed 

definition for ‘‘mobile refrigerated 

cabinet.’’ DOE also requested comment 

on the proposal not to establish test 

procedures for mobile refrigerated 

cabinets. 87 FR 39164, 39202–39203. 

Hillphoenix agreed with DOE’s 

proposed definition of ‘‘mobile 

refrigerated cabinet’’ and also agreed 

with not establishing test procedures 

since the unit’s operation and use were 

subject to varied end-use applications 

and did not represent a significant 

portion of the CRE market. (Hillphoenix, 

No. 35, p. 7) Hillphoenix assumed no 

energy conservation category would be 

developed since no test procedure is 

being developed. Id. 

True commented that the proposed 

definition for ‘‘mobile refrigerated 

cabinet’’ needs to be more specific, as 

mobile refrigeration normally refers to 

DC voltage (12V DC) for applications in 

vehicles. (True, No. 28, p. 5) True 

requested the following information 

from DOE: Since some units require a 

power converter (12V DC to 120V AC) 

does ‘‘mobile refrigerated cabinet’’ refer 

to both AC and DC power supplies? Id. 

AHRI stated its assumption that if no 

test procedure is developed for mobile 

refrigerated cabinets, no energy 

conservation standard will be developed 

either. (AHRI, No. 38, p. 13) 

The CA IOUs urged that the product 

definition for ‘‘mobile refrigerated 

cabinets’’ proposed in the NOPR be 

based on technical specifications rather 

than on end use, and recommended 

refining the proposed definition to 

explicitly exclude vertical selfcontained CRE. (CA IOUs, No. 36, p. 9) 

The CA IOUs commented that the 

following options should be added to 

distinguish mobile refrigerated cabinets 

from other types of CRE: solid doors, 

minimum insulation thickness (1-in. 

diameter minimum, presence of handles 

designed to move the equipment, a 

bumper guard around the bottom 

perimeter, heavy-duty wheels or casters 

(5 percent diameter minimum), a power 

switch and analog or digital external 

temperature display, a door latch, and 

the presence of a cord wrap. Id. The CA 

IOUs recommended adding ‘‘for 

temporary storage and transport of 

prepared food products and not for 

retail sale of merchandise’’ to the 

definition if DOE decides to retain 

language based on end use. Id. The CA 

IOUs stated that because this category 

represents limited sales volume and 

consumer utility is dependent on 

minimizing thermal losses, the test 

method should be excluded. Id. 

DOE agrees that definitions should be 

based on technical specifications and 

characteristics where possible, however, 

for mobile refrigerated cabinets, DOE 

cannot identify a single characteristic 

for this equipment at issue other than its 

use without the ability to use a 

continuous power supply. DOE notes 

that none of characteristics identified by 

the CA IOUs are specific to mobile 

refrigerated cabinets. DOE has 

determined that the operation of the 

equipment without a continuous power 

supply is sufficiently different than 

other CRE intended for holding 

temperature applications or pull-down 

temperature applications, which are 

used with continuous power supplies, 

that equipment meeting the mobile 

refrigerated cabinet definition will be 

identifiable. 

In response to True’s comments, the 

term mobile in this context does not 

mean for use in vehicles; rather it is 

intended to address equipment that is 

used without a continuous connection 

to a power supply (i.e., can be moved 

away from the power supply location). 

The definition as proposed reflects this 

and so DOE is maintaining it as 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR. 

In response to comments regarding 

test procedures and applicability of 

energy conservation standards, 

equipment without a test procedure 

would not be subject to energy 

conservation standards as DOE would 

have no basis on which to evaluate 

potential standards. As DOE is not 

establishing a test procedure for this 

equipment category, other CRE energy 

conservation standards would not 

apply. DOE may consider test 

procedures and corresponding energy 

conservation standards for mobile 

refrigerated cabinets as part of future 

rulemakings. 

6. Additional Covered Equipment 

DOE provided examples of potential 

CRE that may require additional test 

procedure provisions in the June 2021 

RFI. 86 FR 31182, 31190. DOE 

determined in the June 2022 NOPR that 

additional test procedure provisions to 

account for what is likely unique 

equipment operation or usage are not 

needed at this time. 87 FR 39164, 39203. 

The existing DOE test procedure is 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results which reflect energy efficiency 

and energy use of the CRE subject to the 

test procedure during a representative 

average use cycle, and is not unduly 

burdensome to conduct. Because the 

test procedure provides a representative 

average use cycle, DOE is unable to 

account for every combination of 

operating conditions and usage without 

the resulting test procedures being 

unduly burdensome. If the test 

procedure cannot be conducted for 

certain equipment, or if the test 

procedure results in measures of energy 

consumption so unrepresentative of the 

equipment’s true energy consumption 

characteristics as to provide materially 

inaccurate comparative data, 

manufacturers may petition DOE for a 

test procedure waiver under the 

provisions of 10 CFR 431.401. 

DOE did not receive any comments 

and is therefore maintaining the June 

2022 NOPR approach and not adopting 

additional provisions for other 

categories of CRE. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66205 

30Type I equipment is designed to operate in 

75 °F ambient conditions and Type II equipment is 

designed to operate in 80 °F ambient conditions. 

31ASHRAE 72–2005 and ASHRAE 72–2018 

define ‘‘steady state’’ as the condition in which the 

average temperature of all test simulators changes 

less than 0.4 °F from one 24-hour period or 

refrigeration cycle to the next. 

D. Harmonization of Efficiency 

Standards and Testing With NSF 7– 

2019 Food Safety 

NSF 7–2019 establishes minimum 

food protection and sanitation 

specifications for the materials, design, 

manufacture, and performance of 

commercial refrigerators and freezers 

and their related components. Section 

2.3 of appendix B in the CRE test 

procedure states that for CRE that is also 

tested in accordance with NSF test 

procedures (Type I and Type II),30

integrated average temperatures and 

ambient conditions used for NSF testing 

may be used in place of the DOEprescribed integrated average 

temperatures and ambient conditions 

provided they result in a more stringent 

test. To that end, the ambient 

temperature may be higher, but not 

lower than the DOE test condition, and 

the IAT may be lower, but not higher, 

than that measured at the DOE ambient 

test condition. Id. The test conditions 

and possible different thermostat 

settings under NSF 7–2019 may result 

in measured energy use that is more 

representative of average use in 

applications for which users prioritize 

food safety over energy efficiency. 

Permitting the use of NSF 7–2019 test 

conditions may also reduce testing 

burden for manufacturers. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE did not 

propose any additional amendments to 

the test procedures to further reference 

or harmonize with NSF 7–2019 testing. 

87 FR 39164, 39203. 

DOE did not receive any additional 

comments on this topic in response to 

the June 2022 NOPR. Therefore, DOE is 

not adopting any additional 

amendments regarding harmonizing 

with NSF 7 testing. The existing test 

procedure instructions in section 2.3 of 

appendix B allow for the use of NSF 7– 

2019 test data to be used for DOE testing 

subject to certain requirements. DOE 

recognizes that NSF 7–2019 testing is 

not applicable or appropriate for all 

equipment types. For those equipment 

types, the DOE test procedure provides 

the required test instructions— 

including additional IAT rating 

temperatures—and reference to NSF 7– 

2019 is not needed. DOE maintains that 

the amended DOE test procedure, by 

reference to AHRI 1200–2023 and 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata for 

conventional CRE, provides a measure 

of energy use of CRE during a 

representative average use cycle and is 

not unduly burdensome to conduct. The 

optional NSF 7–2019 test provides a 

means to further reduce test burden in 

certain instances, but it is not required 

for DOE testing. 

E. Dedicated Remote Condensing Units 

DOE is aware of remote condensing 

CRE models for which specific 

dedicated condensing units are 

intended for use with specific 

refrigerated cases. For some of these 

models, the remote condensing units are 

intended to be installed on or near the 

refrigerated case within the same 

conditioned space. For other models, 

the remote condensing units are 

intended to be installed outdoors, but 

the refrigerated case is intended to be 

used specifically with the designated 

remote condensing unit. 

For this equipment, the combined 

refrigerated case and condensing unit 

refrigeration system would effectively 

operate as if it were CRE with a selfcontained condensing unit. Under the 

current DOE test procedure, remote CRE 

energy consumption is determined from 

the energy use of components in the 

refrigerated case plus a calculated 

compressor energy consumption based 

on the enthalpy change of refrigerant 

supplied to the case at specified 

conditions. The compressor energy use 

calculation is based on typical 

reciprocating compressor energy 

efficiency ratios (‘‘EERs’’) at a range of 

operating conditions. See Table 1 in 

AHRI 1200–2010. For CRE used with 

dedicated condensing units, the actual 

compressor used during normal 

operation is known (i.e., the compressor 

in the dedicated condensing unit). 

Accordingly, testing the whole system 

using the same approach as required for 

a self-contained CRE unit may produce 

energy use results that are more 

representative of how this equipment 

actually operates in the field. 

Additionally, testing such a system as a 

complete system rather than using the 

test procedures for remote condensing 

units may be less burdensome, because 

it would not require the use of a test 

facility capable of maintaining the 

required liquid and suction line 

refrigerant conditions as currently 

required for testing remote CRE (i.e., the 

refrigerant conditions consistent with 

ASHRAE 72–2005 requirements and at 

the conditions necessary to maintain the 

appropriate case temperature for 

testing). 

DOE understands that remote CRE are 

most commonly installed with rack 

condensing systems, and that 

installations with dedicated condensing 

units represent a very small portion of 

the remote CRE market. Additionally, 

DOE has not identified a method to 

determine whether a remote CRE unit 

would be installed with a dedicated 

condensing unit rather than a rack 

condensing system. DOE is not aware of 

any remote CRE that are capable of 

installations only with a dedicated 

remote condensing unit (i.e., DOE 

expects that all remote CRE may be 

installed with rack condensing systems). 

DOE tentatively determined in the 

June 2022 NOPR that an amended test 

procedure to account for remote CRE 

installed with dedicated remote 

condensing units is not appropriate. 87 

FR 39164, 39205. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on its tentative 

determination not to propose amended 

test procedures for dedicated remote 

condensing units. Id. 

AHRI stated its support for DOE’s 

tentative determination to not propose 

amended test procedures for dedicated 

remote condensing units and thanked 

DOE for this determination. (AHRI, No. 

38, p. 13) 

Hillphoenix commented that it agreed 

with not proposing a test procedure for 

dedicated remote condensing units, as 

the customization of each unit would 

create an unreasonable burden on 

manufacturers while not resulting in 

reasonable energy savings. (Hillphoenix, 

No. 35, p. 7) 

DOE is maintaining the June 2022 

NOPR approach and not adopting test 

provisions for dedicated remote 

condensing units at this time. 

F. Test Procedure Clarifications and 

Modifications 

1. Defrost Cycles 

The test period requirements in 

ASHRAE 72–2005, incorporated by 

reference in the current CRE test 

procedure, and in ASHRAE 72–2018 

require a 24-hour test period, which 

begins with a defrost after steady-state 

conditions are achieved.31 Use of a fixed 

24-hour test period can provide for a 

degree of variability in the measured 

energy consumption, depending on 

when additional defrost cycles occur 

after the initial defrost cycle (e.g., the 

test period may capture only a portion 

of a defrost cycle at the end of the test 

period rather than a complete number of 

defrost cycles). Typically, if multiple 

complete defrost cycles occur within the 

24-hour period, the impact of capturing 

partial defrost cycles would be small. 

Similarly, if the defrost cycle duration is 

slightly greater than 24 hours, the 

impact of capturing a partial defrost 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66206 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

32On June 2, 2021, AHT sent a letter to DOE 

requesting that this interim waiver be withdrawn. 

See www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BTWAV-0027-0015. 

cycle would be small. However, the 

impact may be more substantial if the 

defrost cycle duration is very long (i.e., 

multiple days between defrost) or if the 

defrost cycle is slightly less than 24 

hours (i.e., the test period would capture 

two defrost occurrences but only one 

period of ‘‘normal’’ operation between 

defrosts). DOE also notes that ASHRAE 

72–2005 does not have any specific 

provisions for CRE with variable defrost 

control schemes (i.e., defrosts that may 

be triggered based on conditions or 

other parameters rather than only a 

timer) and does not account for CRE 

with no automatic defrost (i.e., manual 

defrost). 

DOE has addressed similar issues in 

the test procedures for consumer 

refrigeration products. The test 

procedures for those products apply a 

two-part test period (one period for 

steady-state operation and one period to 

capture events related to the defrost 

cycle) to account for defrost energy 

consumption for products with long 

defrost cycle durations or with variable 

defrost control. The energy use 

calculations then weigh the 

performance from each test period based 

on the known compressor runtime 

between defrosts or on a calculated 

average time between defrosts in field 

operation that is based on the control 

parameters for variable defrosts. See 

appendices A and B to subpart B of 10 

CFR part 430. 

Additionally, DOE has addressed 

testing of certain CRE models that do 

not have automatic defrost in a waiver 

granted to AHT published on October 

30, 2018. 83 FR 54581 (‘‘October 2018 

Waiver’’). For the basic models subject 

to the waiver, the test period begins 

after steady-state conditions occur 

(instead of beginning with a defrost 

cycle) and the door-opening period 

begins 3 hours after the start of the test 

(instead of 3 hours after a defrost cycle). 

83 FR 54581, 54583. DOE also granted 

AHT an interim waiver for testing 

certain models with defrost cycles 

longer than 24 hours. 82 FR 24330 (May 

26, 2017; ‘‘May 2017 Interim 

Waiver’’).32 The interim waiver required 

that AHT test the specified models 

using a two-part test method similar to 

the method for consumer refrigerators, 

with the first part capturing normal 

compressor operation between defrosts, 

including an 8-hour period of door 

openings, and the second part capturing 

all operation associated with a defrost, 

including any pre-cooling or 

temperature recovery following the 

defrost. 82 FR 24330, 24332–24333. 

For testing CRE with no automatic 

defrost, ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata 

incorporates instructions for starting the 

test period and door openings that are 

consistent with those provided in the 

October 2018 Waiver (i.e., the 

instructions do not require a defrost 

occurrence). Therefore, DOE 

incorporating by reference ASHRAE 72– 

2022 with Errata addresses this test 

issue. 

For testing CRE with variable defrost, 

DOE tentatively determined in the June 

2022 NOPR that the existing 24-hour 

test period represents typical operation 

during a day, including a period of door 

openings and a period of closed-door 

operation, and did not propose any 

additional test requirements. 87 FR 

39164, 39206. Units with variable 

defrost controls may initiate more 

frequent defrosts in response to door 

openings, which is captured by the 

current test procedure. 

The 24-hour test period specified in 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata provides 

a representative basis for measuring 

energy consumption of most CRE, 

capturing the defrost occurrences and 

door opening periods expected for a 24- 

hour period. Most CRE include multiple 

defrosts during a 24-hour test period, 

and any incomplete defrost cycle 

captured in the test period does not 

significantly impact measured energy 

consumption. DOE is not proposing to 

amend the 24-hour test to require that 

the test procedure capture complete 

defrost cycles in situations where the 

defrost interval is less than 24 hours. 

DOE tentatively determined in the 

June 2022 NOPR that for CRE with 

defrost cycles longer than 24 hours, the 

24-hour test period would overestimate 

the actual average defrost energy 

contribution during a day. 87 FR 39164, 

39206. Therefore, DOE proposed in the 

June 2022 NOPR to allow the use of a 

two-part test for CRE with defrost cycles 

longer than 24 hours. Id. DOE proposed 

the two-part test approach, consistent 

with the approach in the May 2017 

Interim Waiver, for such equipment— 

rather than extending the existing test 

period in 24-hour increments—in order 

to limit test burden. Id. For the basic 

models addressed in the May 2017 

Interim Waiver, testing in 24-hour 

increments would require three 24-hour 

periods (e.g., the duration between 

defrosts is 3.5 days, and introducing a 

fourth 24-hour period would result in 

the test period capturing two defrosts). 

Additionally, the 24-hour increment 

approach would continue to 

overestimate energy consumption 

associated with defrosts, albeit to a 

lesser extent, for defrost intervals that 

are not exact multiples of 24 hours (as 

is the case with the basic models 

covered by the May 2017 Interim 

Waiver). The two-part test approach 

eliminates the need for multiple door 

opening periods and may allow for 

much shorter overall test durations 

while accounting for defrost 

occurrences based on actual defrost 

interval durations. 

Also consistent with the May 2017 

Interim Waiver, DOE proposed in the 

June 2022 NOPR that the two-part test 

would be optional because it would 

increase test duration compared to the 

existing approach (by requiring both a 

24-hour test plus a defrost test), and 

manufacturers may determine that the 

existing test procedure may be more 

appropriate their models, even if the 

models incorporate defrost intervals 

longer than 24 hours. 87 FR 39164, 

39206. Specifically, DOE proposed to 

allow for testing equipment with defrost 

intervals greater than 24 hours using a 

two-part test in which the first part is a 

24-hour period of stable operation, 

including door openings as specified in 

ASHRAE 72–2018R, but without any 

defrost operation. Id. Stability for the 

first part of the test would be 

determined according to section 7.5 in 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata, by 

comparing temperatures determined 

during Test A and Test B. A defrost may 

occur during the test alignment period, 

as defined in section 7.4 of ASHRAE 

72–2022 with Errata, between Test A 

and Test B. The second part of the test 

would capture a defrost cycle, including 

any pre-cooling and temperature 

recovery associated with a defrost. 

Rather than referencing the consumer 

refrigeration product test procedures (as 

done in the May 2017 Interim Waiver 

approach), DOE proposed to require that 

the start and end of the test period be 

determined as, respectively, the last 

time before and first time after a defrost 

occurrence, when the measured average 

simulator temperature (i.e., the 

instantaneous average of all test 

simulator temperature measurements) is 

within 0.5 °F of the IAT as measured 

during the first part of the test. 87 FR 

39164, 39206, 39207. This would ensure 

that the defrost part of the test captures 

any pre-cooling operation and 

temperature recovery following a defrost 

while limiting the overall duration of 

the second part of the test. 

The May 2017 Interim Waiver 

includes certain parameters specific to 

the models covered by the waiver, 

namely the duration between defrosts. 

DOE granted the interim waiver based 

on the minimum defrost interval 

possible for the equipment (i.e., 3.5 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66207 

days). To generalize the May 2017 

Interim Waiver approach for other CRE 

models, DOE proposed in the June 2022 

NOPR that the two-part calculation be 

applied based on the minimum duration 

between defrosts permitted by the unit’s 

controls as shown in the following 

equation. 87 FR 39164, 39207. 

Where DEC is the daily energy 

consumption in kWh/day; ET1 is the 

energy consumed during the first part of 

the test, in kWh/day; ET2 is the energy 

consumed during the second part of the 

test, in kWh; tNDI is the normalized 

length of defrosting time per day, in 

minutes; tDI is the length of time of the 

defrosting test period, in minutes; tDC is 

the minimum time between defrost 

occurrences, in days; and 1,440 is a 

conversion factor, in minutes per day. 

DOE recognizes that the two-part test 

approach could result in slightly less 

door-opening energy contribution as the 

first part of the test, with no defrost and 

8 hours of door openings, would be 

combined with the defrost portion of the 

test by a calculation. To investigate this 

impact, DOE conducted testing on 

equipment with defrost intervals longer 

than 24 hours and compared results of 

the existing test procedure (24-hour test 

period, starting with a defrost), the May 

2017 Interim Waiver approach (two-part 

test, as proposed in the June 2022 

NOPR), and a full-duration approach 

(multiple 24-hour periods, each with 

door opening periods, through a 

complete defrost cycle) as illustrated in 

Table III.5. 

TABLE III.5—MAY 2017 INTERIM WAIVER APPROACH INVESTIGATIVE TESTING

HCT.SC.I 

Total display 

area 

(ft2) 

Current DOE 

CRE test 

procedure 

(kWh/day) 

May 2017 

interim waiver 

approach 

(kWh/day) 

Full defrost 

cycle duration 

approach 

(kWh/day) 

Unit #1 ............................................................................................................. 12.72 7.12 6.66 6.66 

Unit #2 ............................................................................................................. 14.84 6.12 5.61 5.62 

DOE’s testing showed that the twopart waiver test approach provides an 

accurate representation of energy 

consumption when measured over a full 

defrost cycle (and is therefore 

representative of average use). 

Additionally, the testing showed that 

the existing test procedure approach can 

overestimate measured energy use for 

CRE with defrost cycles longer than 24 

hours. 

Based on DOE’s investigative testing, 

DOE tentatively determined in the June 

2022 NOPR that the May 2017 Interim 

Waiver approach, and the approach 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR, is 

representative of a full defrost cycle 

duration approach for equipment with 

defrost intervals greater than 24 hours. 

87 FR 39164, 39207. 

With regard to CRE models with 

multiple evaporators (and, therefore, 

potentially multiple defrosts) connected 

to a single- or multi-stage condensing 

unit, ASHRAE 72–2005 does not specify 

which evaporator should be used to 

determine the defrost cycle that initiates 

the test. Additionally, if the defrost 

cycles for multiple evaporators do not 

activate at the same time during the test, 

ASHRAE 72–2005 does not specify 

which defrost cycle should be used to 

determine the start of the 24-hour test 

period. ASHRAE 72–2005 also does not 

explicitly address the treatment of 

defrost cycles for multi-compartment 

CRE models (i.e., hybrid CRE) with 

different evaporator temperatures and 

defrost sequences. 

As discussed earlier in this section, 

CRE with automatic defrost typically 

include multiple defrost occurrences 

per day. DOE expects that any multievaporator CRE with multiple unique 

defrost cycle durations would similarly 

defrost multiple times per day, and 

therefore no change to the existing test 

procedure is necessary. However, to 

ensure that the 24-hour test period 

captures a representative number of 

defrosts for each evaporator’s defrost, 

DOE proposed in the June 2022 NOPR 

to specify that for CRE with multiple 

unique defrost intervals for multiple 

evaporators, the test period as specified 

in ASHRAE 72–2018R would start with 

a defrost occurrence for the evaporator 

defrost having the longest interval 

between defrosts. 87 FR 39164, 39208. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on the proposed 

approach to account for long-duration 

defrost cycles using an optional twopart test procedure consistent with the 

existing waiver approach granted for 

such models. Id. DOE also requested 

comment on whether any additional 

provisions are necessary to account for 

different defrost operation or controls, 

and on DOE’s proposed approach in 

which the test period would start with 

the defrost occurrence having the 

longest interval between defrosts. Id. 

AHRI stated its support for DOE’s 

proposed approach to account for longduration defrost cycles using an 

optional two-part test procedure, and 

further recommended that DOE bring 

this approach to the ASHRAE 72 

committee for review. (AHRI, No. 38, p. 

13) 

The Joint Commenters commented 

that they support DOE’s proposals 

regarding testing equipment with long 

defrost cycles. (Joint Commenters, No. 

31, p. 1) 

AHT stated its support for the 

proposed approach to account for longduration defrost cycles using the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER26SE23.005</GPH>
66208 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

optional two-part test procedure 

consistent with the existing waiver. 

(AHT, No. 38, p. 1) 

Hillphoenix agreed with the proposed 

long defrost duration approach for 

determining energy on CRE equipment 

that incorporate a defrost interval longer 

than 24 hours. (Hillphoenix, No. 35, p. 

7) Hillphoenix recommended that DOE 

approach ASHRAE and request this 

approach be evaluated for inclusion in 

ASHRAE 72. Id. 

The Joint Commenters supported 

DOE’s proposal for testing equipment 

with defrost cycles greater than 24 

hours. (Joint Commenters, No. 31, p. 4) 

The Joint Commenters stated that as 

DOE discussed in the NOPR, use of a 

fixed 24-hour test period might provide 

a degree of variability in measured 

energy consumption based on 

additional defrost cycles, which DOE 

proposed to address through an optional 

two-part test procedure, based on an 

existing test waiver, wherein the first 

part captured energy usage during a 24- 

hour operating period and the second 

part captured a single defrost cycle. Id. 

The Joint Commenters stated that this 

approach mirrored that used to address 

a similar issue for consumer 

refrigeration equipment, and they 

supported this approach because it 

provides a more representative estimate 

of energy usage for CRE with defrost 

periods lasting longer than 24 hours. Id. 

As discussed, the current industry test 

procedures do not include provisions to 

specifically account for defrost cycles 

longer than 24 hours. DOE has 

determined such test provisions are 

appropriate to ensure representative 

testing of such equipment. To the extent 

that future industry standards 

incorporate updated provisions to 

address defrosts, DOE would consider 

those standards as part of a future test 

procedure rulemaking. 

For these reasons and consistent with 

the comments received, DOE is adopting 

the approach for accounting for defrosts 

as proposed in the June 2022 NOPR. 

2. Total Display Area 

Section 3.2 of appendix B provides 

instructions regarding the measurement 

of TDA, specifying that TDA is the sum 

of the projected area(s) of visible 

product, expressed in square feet (‘‘ft2’’) 

(i.e., portions through which product 

can be viewed from an angle normal, or 

perpendicular, to the transparent area). 

For certain CRE configurations, 

merchandise is not necessarily located 

at an angle directly normal, or 

perpendicular, to the transparent area 

despite this area being intended for 

customer viewing. For example, for 

service over counter ice-cream freezers, 

the ice-cream containers may be placed 

within the chest portion of the 

refrigerated case, with a glass display 

panel on the front and glass rear doors 

located above the merchandise storage 

area. If the glass display areas are nearly 

vertical, the ice-cream containers may 

be positioned low enough in the case 

that they are not at a viewing angle 

perpendicular to the glass. However, 

during typical use, customers would 

stand close enough to the display glass 

that the ice-cream would be visible from 

other angles not perpendicular to the 

glass. 

AHRI 1200–2023 maintains the 

existing definition and approach for 

TDA, which is based on the visibility of 

merchandise at a location normal to the 

display surface, but includes additional 

diagrams to clarify the determination of 

TDA. See appendix D to AHRI 1200– 

2023. Figure 10 in AHRI 1200–2023 

appendix D shows a service over 

counter unit similar to the example 

described earlier in this section. The 

food load is included only in the lowest 

portion of the refrigerated cabinet, and 

as a result, only portions of the 

transparent areas are considered for the 

TDA (i.e., the portions through which 

the food load is visible at an angle 

normal to the transparent area). 

Consistent with the updated version 

of AHRI 1200–202X, DOE did not 

propose revisions to the current TDA in 

the June 2022 NOPR. 87 FR 39164, 

39208. As discussed, DOE proposed in 

the June 2022 NOPR to incorporate by 

reference AHRI 1200–202X, which 

includes the new appendix D to provide 

clarification on how to apply the current 

TDA approach to different CRE 

configurations. 87 FR 39164, 39208. 

DOE is aware that the current DOE 

test procedure includes conflicting 

instructions regarding the calculation of 

TDA for CRE with transparent and nontransparent areas over the length of the 

case. The instructions in section 3.1 of 

appendix B specify determining the 

length of the display area as the interior 

length of the CRE model, provided no 

more than 5 in. of that length consists 

of non-transparent material; or, for those 

cases with greater than 5 in. of nontransparent area, the length shall be 

determined as the projected linear 

dimension(s) of visible product plus 5 

in. Figures A3.4 and A3.5 of appendix 

B show a similar approach, but instead 

reference 10 percent of the total length 

as the threshold of non-transparent area 

rather than 5 in. The captions for these 

figures reference 5 in., consistent with 

section 3.1. The April 2014 Final Rule 

established these TDA provisions in 

appendix B. 79 FR 22277, 22300–22301. 

In the April 2014 Final Rule, DOE stated 

that the 10-percent approach rather than 

the 5-in. approach would allow for more 

consistent application of the TDA 

requirements across CRE models. Id. 

In addition, DOE incorrectly applied 

the 10-percent threshold approach as 

shown in Figures A3.4 and A3.5 of 

appendix B. As discussed, DOE 

intended to provide a consistent TDA 

approach for cases with transparent and 

non-transparent areas. The equation for 

length shown in Figure A3.5 shows that 

length equals the total transparent 

dimension, multiplied by 1.10. As a 

result, the non-transparent area would 

represent 10 percent of the transparent 

dimension, not 10 percent of the total 

length. The correct application would 

have length equal to the transparent 

dimension divided by 0.9—resulting in 

a non-transparent area representing 10 

percent of the total length. 

Section D.1.1.1 of AHRI 1200–202X 

appendix D includes correct equations 

regarding TDA and case length as 

intended in the April 2014 Final Rule. 

Specifically, AHRI 1200–202X applies 

the 10-percent threshold approach for 

non-transparent area and correctly 

calculates the length of the CRE for 

cases with non-transparent areas greater 

than 10 percent of the length of the case. 

As discussed, DOE proposed in the 

NOPR to incorporate by reference AHRI 

1200–202X, which would correct the 

errors regarding TDA calculations 

currently included in appendix B. 

DOE did not receive any comments in 

response to the June 2022 NOPR 

regarding the TDA instructions, and is 

adopting the provisions as proposed by 

referencing AHRI 1200–2023. 

G. Alternative Refrigerants 

DOE’s current test procedure for 

remote condensing CRE requires the 

estimation of compressor EER from 

Table 1 of AHRI 1200–2010. The EER 

ratings in the table are based on 

performance of reciprocating 

compressors and were developed based 

on refrigerants that historically have 

been commonly used for CRE (i.e., R– 

404A). 

Certain remote CRE installations can 

use R–744; however, the existing remote 

CRE test procedure does not address the 

unique operation for these systems. For 

example, the current DOE test 

procedure requires an inlet refrigerant 

liquid temperature of 80 °F with a 

saturated liquid pressure corresponding 

to a condensing temperature of 89.6 °F 

to 120.2 °F. See ASHRAE 72–2005, 

sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3. R–744 has a 

critical point of 87.8 °F and 1,070 

pounds per square inch (‘‘psi’’), above 

which it is a supercritical fluid. 

Accordingly, R–744 cannot be a liquid 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66209 

33 87 FR 39209, 39210. 

at the specified condensing temperature 

conditions (i.e., it would either be a gas 

or supercritical fluid, depending on 

pressure). Additionally, R–744 systems 

typically include multiple stages of 

compression and cooling, resulting in 

liquid supplied to the refrigerant cases 

at conditions not necessarily defined by 

the typical condensing unit conditions. 

DOE has recently granted a waiver for 

specific models of CRE to address R–744 

operating conditions for testing walk-in 

cooler and walk-in freezer unit coolers. 

86 FR 14887 (March 19, 2021; ‘‘March 

2021 Waiver’’). For testing of the 

specified basic models, the March 2021 

Waiver requires liquid inlet saturation 

temperature and liquid inlet subcooling 

of 38 °F and 5 °F, respectively. 86 FR 

14887, 14889. The March 2021 Waiver 

also maintains the existing compressor 

energy consumption determination 

based on an approach consistent with 

the CRE remote calculations using AHRI 

1200–2010 (the walk-in requirements 

instead refer to the walk-ins rating 

standard, AHRI 1250–2009, which 

includes the same EER table as AHRI 

1200–2010). Id. 

For all remote CRE, the DOE test 

procedure requires measuring energy 

consumption of the refrigerated case 

and the heat gain of the refrigerant 

providing cooling to the remote case. 

AHRI 1200–2010 specifies a calculation 

of compressor energy consumption 

based on the heat gain measured for the 

test refrigerant. DOE is aware that 

manufacturers may specify the use of 

multiple refrigerants for a single remote 

CRE cabinet and that the current test 

procedure allows for consistent testing 

of such equipment regardless of 

refrigerant used for testing. 

Manufacturers are already testing and 

rating systems that can use R–744, likely 

by testing with non- R–744 refrigerants 

under the existing test conditions, 

according to the existing approach, 

which references AHRI 1200–2010. DOE 

expects that any ratings for current R– 

744 systems are based on testing with 

another refrigerant capable of 

maintaining the conditions specified in 

ASHRAE 72–2005. 

Based on a review of CRE that are 

capable of using R–744, DOE observed 

that many of these models also may be 

installed for use with other refrigerants 

that can be tested under the existing 

approach. However, any remote CRE 

that are intended for use only with R– 

744 would not be able to be tested 

according to the current DOE test 

procedure due to the specified liquid 

conditions specified in ASHRAE 72– 

2005. To allow for testing remote CRE 

with R–744, DOE proposed in the June 

2022 NOPR to adopt alternate 

refrigerant conditions consistent with 

those granted in the March 2021 Waiver 

for walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer 

unit coolers with CO2 refrigerant. 87 FR 

39164, 39209. DOE proposed that for 

remote CRE tested with direct 

expansion CO2, the liquid inlet 

saturation temperature be 38 °F with 

liquid inlet subcooling of 5 °F. 87 FR 

39164, 39209, 39210. 

DOE research into the performance of 

different configurations of R–744 

booster systems indicates that enhanced 

R–744 cycles can match conventional 

refrigerants in average efficiency. Even 

though the EER values included in 

AHRI 1200–202X for remote 

compressors were initially established 

for conventional refrigerants, DOE 

tentatively determined in the June 2022 

NOPR that they are also appropriate for 

determining compressor energy 

consumption of CO2 remote systems. 87 

FR 39164, 39210. DOE recognizes that 

the actual compressor energy 

consumption of a specific remote 

system will vary based on a number of 

parameters (e.g., ambient conditions, 

refrigerant conditions necessary for the 

remote cases), but tentatively 

determined in the June 2022 NOPR that 

the values included in AHRI 1200–202X 

are appropriate for determining the 

energy consumption of an average use 

cycle for all remote CRE as tested under 

the proposed test procedure. Id. 

In addition to R–744, in this final 

rule, DOE has determined that the EER 

table in AHRI 1200–2023 is appropriate 

for other alternative refrigerants. DOE 

similarly researched compressor EERs at 

a range of operating conditions for 

refrigerants other than R–404A, 

including R–407A, R–407F, and R– 

507A, and found the existing EERs to be 

representative based on expected 

operating conditions. Additionally, 

AHRI 1200–2023 further improves the 

consistency of the EER approach by 

including additional instructions 

regarding the use of high-glide 

refrigerants. DOE did not propose 

additional amendments to address 

alternative refrigerants other than CO2

in the June 2022 NOPR. 87 FR 39164, 

39210. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on the proposed 

alternate refrigerant conditions to be 

used for testing remote CRE with CO2

refrigerant. Id. DOE requested comment 

on whether any other aspects of the 

current test procedure require 

amendment to allow for testing with 

CO2 or any other alternative refrigerants. 

Id. 

AHRI commented that regarding 

testing with CO2 (i.e., R–744) or any 

other alternate refrigerants, it is not 

aware of any alternative refrigerants, nor 

is it aware of any aspects of the current 

test procedure that would require 

amendments to the test procedure. 

(AHRI, No. 38, p. 13) AHRI stated that 

manufacturers are still working to 

determine which refrigerants they will 

use to comply with the AIM Act, and 

advised DOE to consider that there may 

be additional refrigerants and properties 

to those refrigerants that are currently 

unknown and will need to be taken 

under consideration. Id. AHRI 

tentatively agreed with the proposed 

alternate condition for testing CRE with 

CO2 refrigerant as specified by DOE, that 

‘‘the liquid inlet saturation temperature 

be 38 °F with liquid inlet subcooling of 

5 °F.’’ Id. AHRI stipulated that it would 

be necessary to add tolerances to both 

liquid temperature and subcooling 

values and recommended DOE wait for 

the ASHRAE 72 committee to address 

typical conditions for CO2 remote CRE 

in its ASHRAE 72 update. Id. 

The Joint Commenters commented 

that they support DOE’s proposals 

regarding the use of a CO2 refrigerant 

(i.e., R–744). (Joint Commenters, No. 31, 

p. 1) The Joint Commenters also stated 

their support for DOE’s proposed 

specifications regarding CO2 refrigerant 

in remote condensing CRE. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 31, p. 4) The Joint 

Commenters noted that DOE’s current 

test procedure did not account for the 

unique operating conditions of CO2- 

charged systems and that DOE proposed 

in the NOPR to adopt alternate 

refrigerant conditions consistent with 

those granted in a March 2021 waiver 

for walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer 

unit coolers using CO2 refrigerant.33 Id. 

The Joint Commenters expressed 

support for this change, stating it would 

result in more representative energy 

usage for CRE utilizing CO2 refrigerant. 

Id. 

Hillphoenix tentatively agreed with 

the proposed alternate condition for 

testing CRE with CO2 refrigerant (i.e., R– 

744) as specified by DOE: ‘‘the liquid 

inlet saturation temperature be 38 °F 

with liquid inlet subcooling of 5 °F’’; 

however, Hillphoenix stated that it 

would be necessary to add tolerances to 

both liquid temperature and subcooling 

values. (Hillphoenix, No. 35, p. 7) 

Hillphoenix recommended that DOE 

should wait for an update to ASHRAE 

72 because the committee is addressing 

typical conditions for CO2 remote CRE 

testing. Id. 

In the August 2022 public meeting, 

Arneg commented that if regarding the 

proposal for the liquid inlet saturation 

temperature to be 38 °F and a 5 °F subVerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Sep 25, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26SER2.SGM 26SER2

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66210 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

34Unit coolers are the walk-in component most 

comparable to remote refrigerated cabinets, in that 

they operate with high-pressure subcooled liquid 

entering the component and low-pressure 

superheated vapor leaving it. 

cooling, or bottom-line 33 °F liquid, 

there would be an operational problem 

at the medium-temperature CO2 (i.e., R– 

744) application. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 41, p. 48) Arneg stated 

that it is not sure what that 38 °F and 

5 °F are representing. Id. Arneg 

commented that at this rate, for 33 °F 

liquid inlet temperature, there is an 

issue with medium-temperature 

application. Id. When prompted as to 

whether there was any temperature it 

considers more appropriate or 

representative, Arneg stated that 36 °F to 

38 °F seems to be a reasonable 

temperature range. Id. 

Zero Zone commented that the 

proposed temperatures for testing CO2

(i.e., R–744) are appropriate but 

recommended that DOE utilize 

tolerances similar to those stated for 

liquid refrigerant temperature in the 

current draft of ASHRAE 72. (Zero 

Zone, No. 37, p. 9) Zero Zone 

commented that CO2 systems have a 

certain degree of operational instability 

and recommended that there should be 

a tolerance for the average and a 

tolerance for individual measurement. 

Id. Zero Zone recommended these 

tolerances should be applied to the 

refrigerant temperature and the 

saturated refrigerant temperature of CO2. 

Id. Zero Zone further urged that this 

issue should be addressed by the 

ASHRAE 72 working group. Id. 

DOE agrees with commenters that 

revisions to certain liquid refrigerant 

test conditions and tolerances are 

appropriate for the liquid refrigerant test 

conditions. DOE recognizes that remote 

CRE using R–744 are currently available 

and that a future version of ASHRAE 72 

may include liquid refrigerant test 

conditions for CRE connected to a direct 

expansion remote condensing unit with 

R–744, however an updated version of 

ASHRAE 72 with such conditions is not 

yet available. 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata 

specifies liquid refrigerant temperature, 

liquid refrigerant pressure, and liquid 

refrigerant subcooling for liquid 

refrigerant test conditions for directexpansion remote units. In the June 

2022 NOPR, DOE proposed a liquid 

inlet saturation temperature of 38 °F 

with a liquid inlet subcooling of 5 °F for 

R–744, which together would require a 

liquid refrigerant temperature of 33 °F, 

which is consistent with Arneg’s 

comment in the August 2022 public 

meeting. 

As stated, Arneg also suggested a 

different liquid refrigerant temperature 

of between 36 °F to 38 °F (mid-point 

temperature is 37 °F). 

Commenters agreed with the liquid 

inlet saturation temperature (specified 

as the liquid refrigerant pressure or the 

saturated liquid pressure corresponding 

to a condensing temperature in 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata) of 38 °F 

and, consistent with feedback from 

commenters, DOE is maintaining that 

test condition in this final rule. 

However, as suggested by comments 

received in response to the June 2022 

NOPR, DOE considered tolerances for 

the liquid refrigerant temperature, 

saturation temperature, and subcooling 

requirements. 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata 

specifies the liquid refrigerant 

temperature to be 80.0 °F with a 

tolerance for the average over the test 

period of ±5.0 °F and a tolerance for the 

individual measurements of ±10.0 °F. 

Also, ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata 

specifies the saturated liquid pressure 

corresponding to a condensing 

temperature in the range of 89.6 °F to 

120.2 °F (e.g., roughly a ±15 °F range) for 

the average over test period. These 

liquid conditions and tolerances are 

based on operation in a singlecompressor-stage system rejecting heat 

to outdoor ambient conditions. Because 

the liquid entering display cases in CO2

booster systems is at an intermediate 

temperature and pressure (i.e., at a level 

between the high-side outdoor heat 

rejection conditions and the low-side 

display case evaporating conditions), it 

is not expected that the potential range 

of its temperature or pressure could be 

as large. In order to maintain test 

condition flexibility while addressing 

these differences for CO2, DOE is 

selecting reduced allowable ranges for 

the saturated temperature and 

temperature conditions, specifically 

±6 °F for the average saturation 

temperature, and ±3 °F for the average 

liquid temperature. Therefore, for 

commercial refrigerators, freezers, and 

refrigerator-freezers connected to a 

direct expansion remote condensing 

unit with R–744, DOE is requiring in 

this final rule that, instead of the 

saturated liquid pressure corresponding 

to a condensing temperature range 

specified in appendix A to ASHRAE 72– 

2022 with Errata, the saturated liquid 

pressure corresponding to a condensing 

temperature range shall be 38.0 °F 

±6.0 °F or 32.0 °F to 44.0 °F for the 

average over test period. 

DOE notes that, during operation, 

liquid temperature must remain below 

saturation temperature to prevent 

formation of bubbles in the liquid line, 

which can cause flow instability 

through the refrigerant expansion 

device. Hence, DOE is reducing the 

specified liquid temperature from the 

33 °F level adopted in the Hussmann 

waiver to 30 °F. This would not 

completely eliminate crossover of these 

temperature with the selected 

tolerances, but would limit the potential 

for such crossover (i.e., maximum liquid 

temperature would be 33 °F, while 

minimum saturation temperature would 

be 32 °F). 

To ensure that no such crossover 

could occur, DOE is requiring that 

subcooling (the difference between 

saturation temperature and liquid 

temperature) be at least 2 °F. While 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata specifies 

subcooling >0 °R, the specified accuracy 

for the temperature measurement is 

±1.4 °F. Therefore, to ensure subcooling 

occurs, DOE has determined to use the 

test condition tolerance for liquid 

refrigerant subcooling of >2 °R for 

average over test period, which with the 

given accuracy requirement would 

ensure at least 0.6 °F subcooling. 

DOE recognizes that fluctuations 

could occur during testing, e.g., the 

refrigerant liquid temperature could 

fluctuate. As mentioned above, DOE is 

requiring that the average refrigerant 

temperature vary no more than 3 °F from 

the specified 30 °F target. To limit 

fluctuations, DOE is additionally 

requiring that the maximum range of 

individual liquid temperature 

measurements be ±5 °F. This is 

consistent with the operating tolerance 

ranges for refrigerant liquid saturation 

temperature and subcooling allowed for 

testing of WICF unit coolers 34 in AHRI 

1250–2020 (i.e., the latest version of the 

test standard specified in the March 

2021 Hussmann waiver). Therefore, for 

commercial refrigerators, freezers, and 

refrigerator-freezers connected to a 

direct expansion remote condensing 

unit with R–744, DOE is requiring in 

this final rule that, instead of the liquid 

refrigerant test conditions specified in 

appendix A to ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Errata, the liquid refrigerant temperature 

shall be 30.0 °F with a tolerance for the 

average over test period of ±3.0 °F and 

a tolerance for the individual 

measurements of ±5.0 °F. 

DOE has determined that these liquid 

refrigerant test conditions for CRE 

connected to a direct expansion remote 

condensing unit with R–744 are 

representative, repeatable, and 

reproducible. 

In summary, for commercial 

refrigerators, freezers, and refrigeratorfreezers connected to a direct expansion 

remote condensing unit with R–744, 

DOE is requiring in this final rule that, 

instead of the liquid refrigerant 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66211 

measurements for direct-expansion 

remote units specified in appendix A to 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata, the 

liquid refrigerant measurements for 

direct-expansion remote units shall be: 

liquid refrigerant temperature shall be 

30.0 °F with a tolerance for the average 

over test period of ±3.0 °F and a 

tolerance for the individual 

measurements of ±5.0 °F; liquid 

refrigerant pressure shall be the 

saturated liquid pressure corresponding 

to a condensing temperature in the 

range of 32.0 °F to 44.0 °F for the average 

over test period; and liquid refrigerant 

subcooling shall be greater than 2.0 °R 

for the average over test period. 

If manufacturers adopt additional 

refrigerant types that cannot be tested 

according to the test procedure as 

established in this final rule, 

manufacturers may petition for a waiver 

to ensure that equipment using such 

refrigerants can be tested and certified 

to DOE. 

H. Certification of Compartment 

Volume 

DOE’s current test procedure 

incorporates by reference AHAM HRF– 

1–2008 to measure compartment 

volume. DOE acknowledges that 

manufacturers often use CAD in 

designing their equipment. However, 

the current test procedure and 

certification provisions for CRE do not 

provide for using CAD drawings to 

determine compartment volume. Using 

CAD drawings as the basis for 

determining compartment volumes may 

be particularly helpful when the 

geometric designs of the CRE make 

physical measurements in accordance 

with AHAM HRF–1–2008 difficult. 

Currently, DOE’s certification 

requirements in 10 CFR part 429 

include provisions for certifying volume 

for basic models of consumer 

refrigeration products, commercial gasfired and oil-fired instantaneous water 

heaters, and hot water supply boilers 

using CAD drawings. 10 CFR 429.72(c), 

(d), and (e). 

DOE tentatively determined in the 

June 2022 NOPR that calculating 

volume according to CAD drawings 

would reduce manufacturer test burden 

and may allow for more accurate 

measurements of volume for 

complicated cabinet designs. 87 FR 

39164, 39210. DOE proposed in the June 

2022 NOPR to adopt provisions in 10 

CFR part 429 to allow for certifying 

volume for basic models of CRE using 

CAD drawings. To ensure that volumes 

determined based on CAD drawings are 

consistent with testing actual 

production models, DOE also proposed 

certain enforcement provisions as 

discussed in section III.J of this final 

rule. 

DOE did not receive any comments in 

response to the proposal for using CAD 

drawings for volume measurements, and 

is adopting those provisions as 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR. 

I. Test Procedure Waivers 

A person may seek a waiver from the 

test procedure requirements for a 

particular basic model of a type of 

covered equipment when the basic 

model for which the petition for waiver 

is submitted contains one or more 

design characteristics that (1) prevent 

testing according to the prescribed test 

procedure or (2) cause the prescribed 

test procedures to evaluate the basic 

model in a manner so unrepresentative 

of its true energy consumption 

characteristics as to provide materially 

inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 

431.401(a)(1). 

In addition to the test procedure 

waivers discussed, DOE granted test 

procedure waivers to address certain 

CRE designed for specialized 

applications. Specifically, on September 

12, 2018, DOE published a test 

procedure waiver for ITW for testing 

specified basic models of grocery and 

general merchandise system equipment 

(i.e., refrigerated storage allowing for 

order storage and customer pickup). 83 

FR 46148 (‘‘September 2018 Waiver’’). 

The specified basic models have 

characteristics that include floating 

suction temperatures for individual 

compartments, different typical dooropening cycles, and a high-temperature 

‘‘ambient’’ compartment. 83 FR 46148, 

46149. DOE similarly granted 

Hussmann an interim waiver for testing 

CRE intended for short-term storage and 

designed for loading and retrieving 

product a limited number of times per 

day. 86 FR 40548 (July 28, 2021; ‘‘July 

2021 Interim Waiver’’). 

DOE proposed in the June 2022 NOPR 

to adopt test procedure provisions to 

address the equipment characteristics at 

issue in the September 2018 Waiver and 

the July 2021 Interim Waiver. 87 FR 

39164, 39211. For both waiver cases, the 

subject basic models are intended for 

short-term storage of refrigerated 

merchandise and limited door opening 

cycles per day (e.g., holding customer 

orders and maintaining refrigerated 

temperatures until customer pickup). 

DOE acknowledges that this equipment 

includes individual-secured 

compartments that are accessible only to 

the customer for order retrieval (e.g., by 

providing the customer with a unique 

unlocking function to access the 

compartment). DOE also conducted a 

review of the market of this type of 

equipment and found similar 

characteristics and features in currently 

available models (e.g., contactless 

pickup of customer orders using digital 

locks). Therefore, DOE proposed in the 

NOPR to name this equipment 

‘‘customer order storage cabinets’’ to 

differentiate it from other CRE. DOE is 

proposing to define ‘‘customer order 

storage cabinets’’ as CRE that store 

customer orders and include individual, 

secured compartments with doors that 

are accessible to customers for order 

retrieval. 87 FR 39164, 39211. 

Consistent with the waiver and 

interim waiver, DOE proposed in the 

June 2022 NOPR that customer order 

storage cabinets be tested according to 

the conventional CRE test procedure, 

except that the door openings be 

conducted by opening each door to the 

fully open position for 8 seconds, once 

every 2 hours, for 6 door-opening 

cycles. Id. DOE tentatively determined 

in the June 2022 NOPR that this 

proposed approach, consistent with the 

September 2018 Waiver and the July 

2021 Interim Waiver, was representative 

of typical use of this equipment. Id. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on the proposed 

term ‘‘customer order storage cabinet’’ 

and its definition to describe the 

equipment currently addressed in the 

September 2018 Waiver and the July 

2021 Interim Waiver. Id. DOE requested 

comment on the proposal to test such 

equipment with reduced door openings, 

consistent with the waiver and interim 

waiver approach. Id. 

AHRI supported the proposed 

definition of ‘‘customer order storage 

cabinet,’’ and recommended that DOE 

consult with the ASHRAE 72 committee 

on this approach. (AHRI, No. 38, p. 14) 

Hillphoenix agreed with the term 

‘‘customer order storage cabinet’’ and 

definitions as proposed in the NOPR. 

(Hillphoenix, No. 35, p. 8) Hillphoenix 

recommended that DOE provide 

research for the opening characteristics 

used to determine the door-opening 

procedure. Id. Hillphoenix 

recommended that DOE approach 

industry and request updated testing 

standards that better reflect actual 

product intent, which would drive 

consistency within the industry and be 

less burdensome on manufacturers. Id. 

In the August 2022 public meeting, 

True stated that regardless of whether 

the equipment is limited-opening or 

limited-application, it still has to 

comply with the food safety temperature 

requirements of NSF 7. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 41, p. 24) True 

commented that providing the option 

for a different procedure on this 

application would be giving somebody 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66212 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

a pass for something that should not be 

considered. Id. True commented that 

the proposed term ‘‘customer order 

storage cabinet’’ and definition should 

not exist, as equipment intended to be 

used for order retrieval applications is 

designed to operate around the clock 

and not only at certain times, nor is it 

unplugged at night. (True, No. 28, p. 5) 

True commented that such units would 

therefore logically fall under the same 

category as a storage refrigerator or a 

storage freezer and should meet the 

same energy and temperature 

performance requirements (i.e., ¥15 °F, 

0 °F, and 38 °F) since these units are 

used to store perishable food items and 

therefore need to follow NSF/ANSI 7– 

2021. Id. 

In the August 2022 public meeting, 

the CA IOUs commented that they 

wanted DOE to be aware that there are 

also heated and non-cooled storage 

cabinets, and there are products on the 

market that can do all three for the same 

compartments. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 41, p. 24) As a result, the 

CA IOUs recommended that DOE add 

the word ‘‘refrigerated’’ to clarify things. 

Id. 

DOE has reviewed operating 

characteristics for this equipment 

through the waivers received. DOE has 

based the reduced number of door 

openings on the customer usage data 

presented in those petitions for waiver 

and has determined that the number of 

openings is representative of an average 

use cycle for this equipment based on 

the available data. DOE notes that the 

available data indicate that the door 

openings for this equipment are 

significantly less frequent than for other 

types of CRE. 

In response to True’s comments, the 

purpose of DOE’s test procedure 

measures the energy consumption of 

equipment during a representative 

average use cycle as compared to the 

purpose of NSF 7, which is ensuring 

food safety. DOE has identified unique 

equipment characteristics for this 

equipment and is establishing the 

definition of customer order storage 

cabinet as proposed in the June 2022 

NOPR. DOE recognizes that the reduced 

number of door openings would result 

in lower energy use for this equipment 

as compared to the test procedure with 

door openings as specified in ASHRAE 

72–2022 with Errata. 

Because DOE has determined that this 

equipment can be defined by unique 

characteristics (i.e., storing customer 

orders and including individual, 

secured compartments with doors that 

are accessible to customers for order 

retrieval) and it has significantly 

different operating characteristics as 

compared to other CRE (i.e., 6 dooropening cycles in 24 hours as compared 

to 48 door-opening cycles for other 

CRE), DOE is adopting the definition 

and test method for this equipment as 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR. 

Regarding heated or non-cooled 

storage cabinets, such storage cabinets 

without cooling functionality would not 

meet the definition of CRE. The 

definition of customer order storage 

cabinet specifies that this equipment is 

a commercial refrigerator, freezer, or 

refrigerator-freezer; therefore, DOE has 

determined that specifying customer 

order storage cabinets are refrigerated is 

not necessary. 

In addition to door-opening cycles, 

the September 2018 Waiver specifies 

testing provisions for other 

characteristics of the specified basic 

models, including floating suction 

temperatures for individual 

compartments and the presence of a 

high-temperature ‘‘ambient’’ 

compartment. 83 FR 46148, 46149– 

46152. 

To address the floating suction 

temperature aspect of the basic models 

subject to the September 2018 Waiver, 

DOE requires the use of an alternate test 

approach for testing and rating the 

equipment in a manner similar to the 

remote CRE test procedure. 83 FR 

46148, 46151. Specifically, DOE 

requires that this equipment be tested 

using an inverse refrigeration load test 

(i.e., a reverse heat leak method). Id. 

This test allows for determining the 

thermal load of the cabinet at the 

specified storage temperatures without 

requiring refrigerant to be supplied to 

the unit (as refrigerant is supplied from 

an integral condensing unit). The 

September 2018 Waiver specifies 

calculating energy consumption 

associated with the thermal load based 

on assumed EERs, consistent with those 

specified in AHRI 1200–2010. 83 FR 

46148, 46151–46152. The calculations 

also account for component energy 

consumption and heat loads. Id. DOE 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR to 

adopt this alternate test procedure for 

any customer order storage cabinets that 

supply refrigerant to multiple 

individual-secured compartments and 

that allow the suction pressure from the 

evaporator in each individual-secured 

compartment to float based on the 

temperature required to store the 

customer order in that individualsecured compartment. 87 FR 39164, 

39211. 

For the high-temperature ‘‘ambient’’ 

compartments in the basic models 

specified in the September 2018 Waiver, 

DOE requires that testing be based on a 

75 °F storage temperature for these 

compartments and that the ambient 

compartment be treated as a mediumtemperature compartment at 75 °F. 83 

FR 46148, 46150. The September 2018 

Waiver also requires that all volume and 

energy consumption calculations be 

included within the mediumtemperature category and summed with 

other medium-temperature 

compartment calculations. Id. The 

September 2018 Waiver further requires 

that compartments that are convertible 

between ambient and refrigerator 

temperature ranges be tested at the 

refrigerator temperature (38 °F) and that 

compartments that are convertible 

between refrigerator and freezer (0 °F) 

temperature ranges be tested at both 

temperatures. Id. DOE proposed in the 

June 2022 NOPR to adopt the existing 

waiver instructions for customer order 

storage cabinets that have at least one 

individual-secured compartment that is 

not capable of maintaining an IAT 

below the ambient dry-bulb temperature 

(i.e., the individual-secured 

compartment(s) may include 

refrigeration systems to ensure proper 

storage temperatures but are only 

intended to operate at an IAT of 75 °F 

±2 °F and not at a LAPT or the specified 

refrigerator or freezer temperatures). 87 

FR 39164, 39211. Additionally, with the 

proposed introduction of hightemperature refrigerators, as discussed 

in sections III.A.1 and III.B.1.b of this 

final rule, DOE proposed that such 

compartments would be treated as hightemperature refrigerators rather than 

refrigerators upon the compliance date 

of any new energy conservation 

standards for high-temperature 

refrigerators. Id. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on the additional 

proposed test procedure amendments 

that would allow for reverse heat leak 

testing of customer order storage 

cabinets with floating suction pressures 

for multiple different temperature 

compartments. Id. 

AHRI requested more information 

from DOE regarding the additional 

proposed test procedure amendments 

that would allow for reverse heat leak 

testing of customer order storage 

cabinets with floating suction pressures 

for multiple temperature compartments. 

(AHRI, No. 38, p. 14) 

Hillphoenix stated tentative 

disagreement with the additional 

proposed test procedure amendments 

and recommended clarification of the 

proposed process. (Hillphoenix, No. 35, 

p. 8) Hillphoenix commented that DOE 

should not adopt the amendments until 

industry reviews, tests, and approvals 

are given by industry standards 

committees. Id. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66213 

As discussed in the petition leading to 

the September 2018 Waiver, the 

condensing unit control functionality is 

similar to that found on a parallel rack 

in a supermarket, with refrigeration 

capacity managed with a floating or 

moving saturated suction temperature. 

See 82 FR 33081, 33092. DOE received 

no comments in response to the notice 

announcing the petition for waiver and 

interim waiver approach, and granted 

the September 2018 Waiver. DOE has 

determined that this equipment has a 

different usage profile as compared to 

other CRE, and is establishing the 

alternate test procedure as proposed in 

the June 2022 NOPR, and consistent 

with the approach granted in the 

September 2018 Waiver. 

J. Enforcement Provisions 

Subpart C of 10 CFR part 429 

establishes enforcement provisions 

applicable to covered products and 

covered equipment, including CRE. 

Product-specific enforcement provisions 

are established in 10 CFR 429.134. 

Various provisions in 10 CFR 429.134 

specify which ratings or measurements 

DOE will use to determine compliance 

with applicable energy or water 

conservation standards. Generally, DOE 

provides that the certified metric is used 

for enforcement purposes (e.g., 

calculation of the applicable energy 

conservation standard) if the average 

value measured during assessment and 

enforcement testing is within a specified 

percent of the rated value. Otherwise, 

the average measured value would be 

used. 

Section 429.134 currently does not 

contain product-specific enforcement 

provisions for CRE. However, DOE does 

currently provide product-specific 

enforcement provisions for refrigerated 

bottled or canned beverage vending 

machines, specifying that the certified 

refrigerated volume will be considered 

valid only if the measurement(s) (either 

the measured refrigerated volume for a 

single-unit sample or the average of the 

measured refrigerated volumes for a 

multiple-unit sample) is within 5 

percent of the certified refrigerated 

volume. 10 CFR 429.134(j)(1). The test 

procedure for measuring volume of 

beverage vending machines is consistent 

with the procedure required for CRE, 

and vending machines typically have 

volumes similar to those for CRE. 

Because of the same test methods and 

similar equipment sizes, in the June 

2022 NOPR, DOE proposed consistent 

product-specific enforcement provisions 

for CRE. 87 FR 39164, 39211. 

Specifically, DOE proposed in the June 

2022 NOPR to add a new productspecific enforcement provision section 

stating that the certified volume for CRE 

will be considered valid only if the 

measurement(s) (either the measured 

volume for a single-unit sample or the 

average of the measured volumes for a 

multiple-unit sample) is within 5 

percent of the certified volume; 

otherwise, the measured volume would 

be used as the basis for determining the 

applicable energy conservation 

standard. Id. 

DOE has also established productspecific enforcement provisions for 

transparent areas of beverage vending 

machines. 10 CFR 429.134(j)(2). 

However, display area is only used to 

determine equipment class for beverage 

vending machines and TDA is not a 

metric used to determine applicable 

energy conservation standards. For 

consistency with the volume approach, 

DOE proposed in the June 2022 NOPR 

that the certified TDA for CRE will be 

considered valid only if the 

measurement(s) (either the measured 

TDA for a single-unit sample or the 

average of the measured TDAs for a 

multiple-unit sample) is within 5 

percent of the certified TDA. 87 FR 

39164, 39212. If the certified TDA is 

found not to be valid, the measured 

TDA would be used to determine the 

applicable energy conservation 

standard. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on the proposed 

product-specific enforcement provisions 

for CRE. 87 FR 39164, 39212. 

AHRI commented expressing concern 

that the proposed product-specific 

enforcement provisions for CRE are not 

open-ended, but it offered tentative 

support for the proposed provisions and 

requested that DOE provide more 

information through a public meeting to 

clarify intent. (AHRI, No. 38, p. 14) 

Hillphoenix recommended that DOE 

clarify how enforcement would be 

applied if the sampling plan were to be 

adopted and how implementing such 

provisions would benefit end users and/ 

or manufacturers. (Hillphoenix, No. 35, 

p. 8) 

NAMA commented that it understood 

the desire to develop common language 

on certified volume measurements; 

however, a beverage vending machine 

and a bottle cooler are not necessarily 

the same product since in a BVM, 

bottles or cans have specific placement 

and the volume could be constructed 

based on the uniform measurement of 

the refrigerated space available for the 

beverage containers, while a bottle 

cooler’s refrigerated space depends on 

how a customer decides on placement. 

(NAMA, No. 33, p. 3) NAMA urged DOE 

to study this issue more closely and to 

use examples of how DOE intended to 

measure the volume in this case and 

why it believed certified volume should 

be stated in the same way as BVM 

because manufacturers might file Test 

Procedure Waivers for individual cases. 

Id. 

The relevant capacity metrics for CRE 

will continue to be tested in accordance 

with the DOE test procedure for CRE, 

not BVMs. DOE referred to BVMs only 

as an example of another equipment 

type with product-specific enforcement 

provisions and a similar capacity metric 

(i.e., volume). 

Product-specific enforcement 

provisions are included to clarify how 

DOE would determine compliance in 

the case of any enforcement actions. For 

equipment such as CRE, the applicable 

energy conservation standard is 

calculated based on the capacity metric. 

Product-specific enforcement provisions 

provide manufacturers certainty that 

DOE will determine compliance based 

on the same capacity metrics as the 

manufacturer, so long as the capacity 

metrics are rated correctly (i.e., these 

provisions provide certainty regarding 

the maximum daily energy consumption 

for a given CRE basic model, if volume 

or TDA are rated correctly). DOE has 

these provisions for many similar 

products and equipment. If the tested 

volume or TDA from DOE enforcement 

testing is near the certified value, DOE 

will use the certified value as the basis 

for calculating the appliable standard 

for compliance determinations. For the 

reasons discussed, DOE is adopting the 

product-specific enforcement provisions 

as proposed in the June 2022 NOPR. 

The product-specific enforcement 

provisions are intended to provide 

clarity on the energy conservation 

standard applicable to a specific basic 

model of CRE. Determinations of 

compliance based on tested energy 

consumption will continue to be based 

on the enforcement provisions in 10 

CFR 429.110. 

K. Lowest Application Product 

Temperature 

Section 2.2 of appendix B specifies 

that if a unit is not able to be operated 

at the specified IAT, the unit is tested 

at the LAPT, defined in 10 CFR 431.62 

as the lowest IAT at which a given basic 

model is capable of consistently 

operating (i.e., maintaining so as to 

comply with the steady-state 

stabilization requirements specified in 

ASHRAE 72–2005 for the purposes of 

testing under the DOE test procedure). 

Section 2.2 of appendix B specifies that 

for units equipped with a thermostat, 

LAPT is the lowest thermostat setting; 

for remote condensing equipment 

without a thermostat or other means of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66214 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

35U.S. Department of Energy Compliance 

Certification Database, available at 

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data. 

controlling temperature at the case, the 

LAPT is the temperature achieved with 

the dew point temperature (as defined 

in AHRI Standard 1200–2010) set to 5 

degrees colder than that required to 

maintain the manufacturer’s lowest 

specified application temperature. 

DOE’s Compliance Certification 

Database 35 lists all CRE models certified 

to DOE, including the LAPT used for 

rating each model, if applicable. Of the 

28,478 single-compartment individual 

models included in the Compliance 

Certification Database at the time of the 

June 2022 NOPR analysis, 460 

individual models are rated at LAPTs. 

Of these individual models, 77 are rated 

at LAPTs below the required test IAT. 

For example, multiple refrigerator 

models are rated at an IAT of 34 °F 

(instead of 38 °F ±2 °F), and multiple 

freezer models are rated at an IAT of 

¥7 °F (instead of 0 °F ±2 °F). 

DOE proposed in the June 2022 NOPR 

to maintain the current LAPT provisions 

and add an additional provision for 

testing CRE that are only capable of 

maintaining temperatures below the 

specified IAT range (or for buffet tables 

or preparation tables, the average pan 

temperature of all measurements taken 

during the test). 87 FR 39164, 39212. 

For these units, DOE proposed in the 

June 2022 NOPR to test at the highest 

thermostat setting, which would allow 

testing the CRE under the setting closest 

to the required IAT (or for buffet tables 

or preparation tables, the average pan 

temperature of all measurements taken 

during the test). Id. Also in the NOPR, 

DOE proposed to amend the definition 

of LAPT in 10 CFR 431.62 to the 

following: 

‘‘Lowest application product 

temperature’’ means the integrated 

average temperature (or for buffet tables 

or preparation tables, the average pan 

temperature of all measurements taken 

during the test) at which a given basic 

model is capable of consistently 

operating that is closest to the integrated 

average temperature (or for buffet tables 

or preparation tables, the average pan 

temperature of all measurements taken 

during the test) specified for testing 

under the DOE test procedure. 87 FR 

39164, 39212. 

For testing, DOE proposed in the June 

2022 NOPR to specify that if a unit is 

not able to operate at the integrated 

average temperature specified for testing 

(or average pan temperature, as 

applicable), test the unit at the LAPT, as 

defined in 10 CFR 431.62. Id. DOE 

proposed that for units equipped with a 

thermostat, LAPT is the lowest 

thermostat setting (for units that are 

only able to operate at temperatures 

above the specified integrated average 

temperature or average pan temperature) 

or the highest thermostat setting (for 

units that are only able to operate at 

temperatures below the specified 

integrated average temperature or 

average pan temperature). Id. DOE 

proposed that for remote condensing 

equipment without a thermostat or other 

means of controlling temperature at the 

case, the LAPT is the temperature 

achieved with the dew point 

temperature, or mid-point evaporator 

temperature for high-glide refrigerants 

(as defined in AHRI Standard 1200– 

202X), set to 5 degrees colder than that 

required to maintain the manufacturer’s 

specified application temperature 

closest to the specified integrated 

average temperature or average pan 

temperature. Id. 

DOE tentatively determined in the 

June 2022 NOPR that this proposal 

would not affect current CRE ratings or 

testing costs, because the models 

currently available on the market that 

would be tested under the newly 

proposed provision are already testing 

and rating in accordance with the 

proposed approach. Id. 

In response to the June 2022 NOPR, 

The CA IOUs commented that they 

support the proposal to shift to testing 

CRE product classes at consistent 

temperatures versus testing at the LAPT 

within each category, such as: lowtemperature freezer (to be tested at 0 °F 

±2 °F); medium-temperature refrigerator 

(to be tested at 38 °F ±2 °F); and hightemperature refrigerator (operates above 

38 °F ±2 °F, to be tested at 55 °F). (CA 

IOUs, No. 36, p. 10) The CA IOUs added 

that testing at consistent product 

temperatures would improve 

comparability of energy consumption 

between products within each category. 

Id. 

The updated provisions for ice cream 

freezers, low temp freezers, medium 

temp refrigerators, and high-temp 

refrigerators will limit the need to apply 

LAPT testing in the future. Equipment 

will be categorized and rated based on 

operating temperatures, consistent with 

the CA IOUs recommendations. To the 

extent that equipment in these 

categories cannot maintain the specified 

IAT, the equipment would either be 

classified in a different category or 

would be tested under the LAPT 

provisions. 

Even with the updated operating 

temperature categories, basic models 

may still only be capable of maintaining 

temperatures below the specified IAT 

range for testing. DOE is adopting the 

LAPT rating provisions as proposed in 

the June 2022 NOPR to allow for testing 

and rating such basic models. 

L. Removal of Obsolete Provisions 

The DOE test procedure in appendix 

B is required for testing CRE 

manufactured on or after March 28, 

2017, and appendix A applies to CRE 

manufactured prior to that date. As 

such, appendix A is now obsolete for 

new units being manufactured. 

Therefore, DOE proposed in the NOPR 

to remove appendix A. 87 FR 39164, 

39212. DOE did not propose to 

redesignate appendix B as appendix A 

to avoid confusion regarding the 

appropriate version of the test 

procedure required for use. Id. 

Additionally, the title to appendix B 

is currently ‘‘Amended Uniform Test 

Method for the Measurement of Energy 

Consumption of Commercial 

Refrigerators, Freezers, and RefrigeratorFreezers.’’ To avoid confusion with the 

other test procedure amendments 

proposed in this final rule, DOE 

proposed in the NOPR to amend the 

title to appendix B to remove the word 

‘‘amended.’’ 87 FR 39164, 39212. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE also 

proposed to remove outdated standards 

incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 

431.63 that would no longer be 

referenced under the proposed test 

procedure. Id. Specifically, DOE 

proposed to remove reference to ANSI/ 

AHAM HRF–1–2004, AHAM HRF–1– 

2008, and ASHRAE 72–2005. Id. DOE 

would maintain the listing of standards 

referenced in 10 CFR 431.66 (‘‘Energy 

conservation standards and their 

effective dates’’) and would consider 

removing those referenced standards 

when proposing any amendments to 

that section of the CFR as part of any 

future amended energy conservation 

standards. Id. 

DOE received no comments in 

response to the amendments proposed 

in the June 2022 NOPR and is adopting 

the changes as proposed. 

M. Sampling Plan 

DOE’s current certification 

requirements mandate reporting of the 

chilled or frozen compartment volume 

in cubic feet, the adjusted volume in 

cubic feet, or the TDA (as appropriate 

for the equipment class). 10 CFR 

429.42(b)(2)(iii). However, the sampling 

plan requirements in 10 CFR 429.42(a) 

do not specify how to determine the 

represented value of volume or TDA for 

each basic model based on the test 

results from the sample of individual 

models tested. Similar to the 

requirements for other covered products 

and commercial equipment, DOE 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66215 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR that 

any represented value of volume or TDA 

for the basic model be determined as the 

mean of the measured volumes or TDAs 

for the units in the test sample, based on 

the same tests used to determine the 

reported energy consumption. 87 FR 

39164, 39213. Although not currently 

specified in 10 CFR 429.42, DOE 

expects manufacturers are currently 

certifying CRE performance based on 

the tested volume and TDA. Id. 

Therefore, the amendment proposed in 

the June 2022 NOPR would clarify the 

certification requirements but not 

impose any additional burden on 

manufacturers. Id. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE sought 

comment on the proposed sampling 

plan for CRE volume and TDA. Id. 

AHRI commented that the proposed 

sampling plan for CRE volume and TDA 

required modification and that DOE 

should certify the volume and TDA, 

stating that these are important values 

and critical to determining the 

allowable energy consumption of a 

product. AHRI recommended that DOE 

work with AHRI to modify standard 

AHRI 1200–202X and develop 

appropriate tolerances and also raise 

this issue with the appropriate 

standards committee for review and 

approval. (AHRI, No. 38, p. 14) 

NAMA commented that it agreed with 

AHRI and advised DOE that the 

proposed sampling plan for CRE volume 

and TDA needed modification. (NAMA, 

No. 33, p. 4) NAMA commented that the 

current plan included no tolerances, 

and if DOE intended to measure and 

enforce standards for CRE volume and 

TDA, DOE must provide tolerances. Id. 

NAMA stated that DOE should also 

bring this issue to the appropriate 

standards committee for review and 

approval. Id. 

Hussmann commented that the 

proposed sampling plan for CRE volume 

and TDA needed modification because 

it included no tolerances. (Hussmann, 

No. 32, p. 6) Hussmann commented that 

if DOE intended to measure and enforce 

standards for CRE volume and TDA, 

DOE must provide tolerances, and that 

DOE should take this issue to the 

appropriate standards committee for 

review and approval. Id. 

Zero Zone stated agreement that DOE 

should certify the volume and TDA, as 

these are important values and critical 

to determining the allowable energy 

consumption of a product. (Zero Zone, 

No. 37, p. 10) Zero Zone commented 

that DOE’s proposal of a 5-percent 

tolerance is too large, and that if the 

TDA measurements are different, 

equipment that passes when tested by a 

manufacturer could fail when tested by 

DOE. Id. Zero Zone recommended that 

DOE work with AHRI to modify 

standard 1200 to develop appropriate 

tolerances. Id. 

Hillphoenix commented that if DOE 

intended to measure and enforce 

standards for CRE volume and TDA, 

then the process should be evaluated by 

the appropriate standards committee for 

approval. (Hillphoenix, No. 35, p. 8) 

DOE’s certification requirements in 10 

CFR 429.42(b)(2) currently require 

manufacturers to certify volume or TDA 

for basic models. The sampling plan 

requirements established in this final 

rule, and consistent with those 

proposed in the June 2022 NOPR, clarify 

that the certified volume or TDA must 

be based on the mean of the measured 

values for the tested units of the basic 

model, based on the same tests used to 

determine the reported energy 

consumption. 

In response to the comments 

regarding tolerance associated with the 

sampling plan to determine compliance 

and enforce standards, DOE interprets 

the comments as referring to DOE 

applying a tolerance around certified 

volumes or TDAs to determine the 

applicable maximum daily energy 

consumption standard level for a basic 

model. Such tolerances are applied in 

product-specific enforcement provisions 

as specified in 10 CFR 429.134. DOE is 

adopting product-specific enforcement 

provisions for CRE, as discussed in 

section III.J of this document. 

N. Test Procedure Costs and 

Harmonization 

1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to amend the existing test 

procedure for CRE to: 

(1) Establish new definitions for hightemperature refrigerator, mediumtemperature refrigerator, lowtemperature freezer, and mobile 

refrigerated cabinet, and amend the 

definition for ice-cream freezer; 

(2) Incorporate by reference the most 

current versions of industry standards 

AHRI 1200, ASHRAE 72, and AHRI 

1320–2011; 

(3) Establish definitions and test 

procedures for buffet tables and 

preparation tables; 

(4) Establish definitions and test 

procedures for blast chillers and blast 

freezers; 

(5) Amend the definition for chef base 

or griddle stand; 

(6) Specify alternate conditions for 

alternative refrigerants; 

(7) Allow for certification of 

compartment volumes based on CAD 

drawings; 

(8) Incorporate provisions for defrosts 

and customer order storage cabinets 

currently specified in waivers and 

interim waivers; 

(9) Adopt product-specific 

enforcement provisions; 

(10) Clarify use of the LAPT 

provisions; 

(11) Remove the obsolete test 

procedure in appendix A; and 

(12) Specify a sampling plan for 

volume and TDA. 

87 FR 39164, 39213–39214. 

DOE tentatively determined in the 

June 2022 NOPR that the proposed 

amendments to the test procedure for 

CRE currently subject to testing would 

not impact testing costs, and 

manufacturers would be able to rely on 

data generated under the current test 

procedure should any of these 

additional proposed amendments be 

finalized. Id. 

DOE proposed in the June 2022 NOPR 

to establish test procedures for 

additional categories of CRE not 

currently subject to the DOE test 

procedure: buffet tables or preparation 

tables, and blast chillers and blast 

freezers. Id. If a manufacturer chooses to 

make representations of the energy 

consumption of this equipment, 

beginning 360 days after a final rule, 

were DOE to finalize the proposal, 

manufacturers would be required to test 

according to the proposed test 

procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) DOE 

discusses the costs associated with 

testing this equipment, if a 

manufacturer chooses to make 

representations of the energy 

consumption, in the following 

paragraphs. 

In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE 

estimated CRE testing costs to be 

approximately $5,000 per unit. 75 FR 

71596, 71607. Based on testing at thirdparty test facilities, DOE tentatively 

determined in the June 2022 NOPR that 

$5,000 is still a representative CRE test 

cost based on the existing DOE test 

procedure. 87 FR 39164, 39214. DOE 

has also tentatively determined that 

$5,000 is a representative per-test cost 

for the new test procedures proposed for 

the additional CRE categories (i.e., 

buffet tables or preparation tables, blast 

chillers, and blast freezers). 

For chef bases or griddle stands, DOE 

is amending the ambient test conditions 

in this final rule based on comments 

received in response to the June 2022 

NOPR. Because DOE did not receive any 

information in response to the June 

2022 NOPR indicating testing costs 

would change based on a different 

ambient test condition, DOE determined 

that the amended ambient test 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66216 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

36See www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/ 

ENERGY%20STAR%20Version%205.0%20%

28Rev.%20November%20-%202022%29%

20Commercial%20Refrigerators%20and

%20Freezers%20Specification.pdf. 

conditions would not impact the $5,000 

representative per-test cost for the 

amended CRE test procedure. 

Chef bases or griddle stands are 

currently eligible for ENERGY STAR 

certification under Product 

Specification for Commercial 

Refrigerators and Freezers Version 5.0 

which references 10 CFR part 431, 

subpart C, Appendix B as the required 

test method.36 DOE observed that to the 

extent that chef bases or griddle stand 

manufacturers make representations 

regarding the energy consumption of 

their models, they do so in accordance 

with ENERGY STAR and the existing 

DOE test procedure. EPCA prescribes 

that, if DOE amends a test procedure, all 

representations of energy efficiency and 

energy use of CRE, including those 

made on marketing materials and 

product labels, must be made in 

accordance with that amended test 

procedure, beginning 360 days after 

publication of such a test procedure 

final rule in the Federal Register. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)) Therefore, the 

manufacturers currently making 

representations of the energy 

consumption of chef bases or griddle 

stands will be required to retest 

according to the test procedure 

beginning 360 days after this final rule, 

and may incur some retesting costs 

associated with their chef bases or 

griddle stand models if they choose to 

continue making such representations. 

For any manufacturers not currently 

making representations of the energy 

use of chef bases or griddle stands, 

testing according to the amended test 

procedure will not be required for use 

(other than if making voluntary 

representations of energy consumption) 

until determining compliance with any 

energy conservation standards for chef 

bases or griddle stands, should DOE 

adopt such standards. 

For buffet tables and preparation 

tables, the overall test duration would 

be similar to the test duration for CRE 

currently subject to the test procedure. 

The test would be a 24-hour test, and in 

the June 2022 NOPR DOE proposed 

stabilization requirements consistent 

with CRE currently subject to the test 

procedure. 87 FR 39164, 39214. The 

proposed test setup would not require 

the use of test simulators or test filler 

materials loaded in any refrigerated 

compartments, but would require 

loading pans with distilled water and 

identifying the appropriate control 

setting to maintain the specified average 

temperatures. DOE expects the overall 

test burden associated with loading and 

determining appropriate control settings 

to be similar for testing buffet tables and 

preparation tables, as proposed, and 

other CRE currently subject to the test 

procedure. While DOE has not 

quantified the differences in test 

burden, DOE determined that the test 

burden and duration for buffet and 

preparation tables is similar to CRE 

currently subject to the test procedure, 

and therefore the $5,000 per-test cost is 

appropriate. 

For blast chillers and blast freezers, 

the overall duration of a test as 

proposed would be shorter than the 24- 

hour test period and stabilization period 

required for CRE currently subject to the 

test procedure. As proposed in the June 

2022 NOPR, blast chiller and blast 

freezer testing would require the 

preparation of food simulator material, 

heating that material to the specified 

temperature, loading the heated test 

pans, and then conducting the test 

procedure as specified (DOE estimates 

approximately an 8-hour test duration 

per test). While DOE has not quantified 

the differences in test burden, DOE 

expects the increased test burden and 

decreased test burden to be comparable. 

Therefore, DOE tentatively determined 

in the June 2022 NOPR that $5,000 is a 

representative per-unit test cost for blast 

chillers and blast freezers, based on the 

test procedure proposed. 87 FR 39164, 

39214. 

Under the proposed test procedures, 

were a manufacturer to choose to make 

representations of the energy 

consumption of buffet tables or 

preparation tables, blast chillers, or blast 

freezers beginning 360 days after a final 

rule, and were DOE to finalize the 

proposal, manufacturers would be 

required to base such representations on 

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

6314(d)) 

Based on a review of blast chillers and 

blast freezers available on the market, 

DOE determined in the June 2022 NOPR 

that manufacturers make no claims 

regarding the energy consumption of 

their models. 87 FR 39164, 39214. 

After establishing any test procedure 

for blast chillers and blast freezers, DOE 

expects that the manufacturers currently 

electing to make no claims regarding 

energy consumption would continue to 

do so. Therefore, DOE tentatively 

determined in the June 2022 NOPR that 

the proposed test procedure for blast 

chillers and blast freezers would not 

impact testing costs should the 

proposed test procedure be finalized. 87 

FR 39164, 39214. 

Buffet tables and preparation tables 

are currently subject to test procedures 

under the California Code of 

Regulations. DOE observed that to the 

extent that buffet table and preparation 

table manufacturers make 

representations regarding the energy 

consumption of their models, they do so 

in accordance with the California Code 

of Regulations. EPCA prescribes that, if 

DOE amends a test procedure, all 

representations of energy efficiency and 

energy use, including those made on 

marketing materials and product labels, 

must be made in accordance with that 

amended test procedure, beginning 360 

days after publication of such a test 

procedure final rule in the Federal 

Register. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)) 

Therefore, the manufacturers currently 

making representations of the energy 

consumption of buffet tables and 

preparation tables will be required to 

retest according to the test procedure 

beginning 360 days after this final rule, 

and may incur some retesting costs 

associated with their buffet table and 

preparation table models. 

For any manufacturers not currently 

making representations of the energy 

use of buffet tables or preparation tables, 

blast chillers, or blast freezers, testing 

according to the test procedure will not 

be required (other than if making 

voluntary representations of energy 

consumption) until the compliance date 

of any energy conservation standards for 

that equipment, should DOE adopt such 

standards. 

2. Harmonization With Industry 

Standards 

DOE’s established practice is to adopt 

relevant industry standards as DOE test 

procedures unless such methodology 

would be unduly burdensome to 

conduct or would not produce test 

results that reflect the energy efficiency, 

energy use, water use (as specified in 

EPCA) or estimated operating costs of 

that product during a representative 

average use cycle. 10 CFR 431.4; section 

8(c) of appendix A 10 CFR part 430 

subpart C. In cases where the industry 

standard does not meet EPCA statutory 

criteria for test procedures DOE will 

make modifications through the 

rulemaking process to these standards 

as the DOE test procedure. 

The test procedures for CRE at 10 CFR 

431.63 incorporate by reference AHRI 

1200–2010 for definitions, test rating 

conditions, and calculations; ASHRAE 

72–2005 for test conditions, equipment, 

measurements, and test conduct; and 

AHAM HRF–1–2008 for the volume 

measurement method. 

In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE 

requested comment on the benefits and 

burdens of the proposed updates and 

additions to industry standards 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66217 

37 In response to the June 2022 NOPR, interested 

parties commented in reference to NSF 7–2019. 

NSF 7–2021 was published after the June 2022 

NOPR comment period ended. DOE did not observe 

any changes from the 2019 to 2021 version that 

would impact the comments received or DOE’s 

proposal to reference industry standards other than 

NSF 7–2019 or NSF 7–2021. 

referenced in the test procedure for CRE. 

87 FR 39164, 39215. DOE discusses 

comments received in response to the 

June 2022 NOPR regarding adopting 

provisions of industry standards in the 

relevant discussion sections of this final 

rule. DOE further describes industry 

standards incorporated by reference in 

section IV.N of this document. 

AHRI 1200–2010 has been updated to 

AHRI 1200–2023 to provide additional 

direction regarding application of the 

standard and to provide volume 

measurement instructions (eliminating 

the need to reference AHAM HRF–1– 

2008). ASHRAE 72–2005 has similarly 

been updated in ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Errata to reorganize the standard, 

provide updated setup instructions, 

revise the test sequence, and provide 

additional instructions for some test 

measurements. DOE tentatively 

determined in the June 2022 NOPR that 

these updates (at the time, in earlier or 

draft versions of the standards) provide 

additional detail for testing but would 

otherwise not impact energy 

consumption measurements compared 

to the current approach. In the June 

2022 NOPR, DOE also proposed to 

incorporate by reference an existing 

industry standard for testing buffet 

tables and preparation tables: ASTM 

F2143–16. This standard provides 

instructions regarding setup and test 

conduct. DOE is also aware of the CRE 

industry standard NSF/ANSI 7–2021,37

which establishes minimum food 

protection and sanitation requirements 

for the materials, design, manufacture, 

construction, and performance of CRE 

and CRE components. 

O. Effective and Compliance Dates 

The effective date for the adopted test 

procedure amendment will be 30 days 

after publication of this final rule in the 

Federal Register. EPCA prescribes that 

all representations of energy efficiency 

and energy use, including those made 

on marketing materials and product 

labels, must be made in accordance with 

that amended test procedure, beginning 

360 days after publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(d)(1)) EPCA provides an allowance 

for individual manufacturers to petition 

DOE for an extension of the 360-day 

period if the manufacturer may 

experience undue hardship in meeting 

the deadline. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(2)) To 

receive such an extension, petitions 

must be filed with DOE no later than 60 

days before the end of the 360-day 

period and must detail how the 

manufacturer will experience undue 

hardship. (Id.) To the extent the 

modified test procedure adopted in this 

final rule is required only for the 

evaluation and issuance of updated 

efficiency standards, compliance with 

the amended test procedure does not 

require use of such modified test 

procedure provisions until the 

compliance date of updated standards. 

Upon the compliance date of test 

procedure provisions in this final rule 

any waivers that had been previously 

issued and are in effect that pertain to 

issues addressed by such provisions are 

terminated. 10 CFR 431.401(h)(3). 

Recipients of any such waivers are 

required to test the products subject to 

the waiver according to the amended 

test procedure as of the compliance date 

of the amended test procedure. The 

amendments proposed in this document 

pertain to issues addressed by waivers 

and interim waivers granted to AHT 

(Case Nos. CR–006, 2017–007, 2020– 

023, 2020–025, 2022–001, and 2022– 

002), ITW (Case No. CR–007), and 

Hussmann (Case No. 2020–003). See 

sections III.F.1 and III.I of this final rule 

for a discussion of the proposals to 

address the issues in the existing 

waivers and interim waivers. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866, 13563 and 14094 

Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ as 

supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 

13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 

2011) and amended by E.O. 14094, 

‘‘Modernizing Regulatory Review,’’ 88 

FR 21879 (April 11, 2023), requires 

agencies, to the extent permitted by law, 

to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only 

upon a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify its costs (recognizing 

that some benefits and costs are difficult 

to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to 

impose the least burden on society, 

consistent with obtaining regulatory 

objectives, taking into account, among 

other things, and to the extent 

practicable, the costs of cumulative 

regulations; (3) select, in choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. DOE emphasizes as 

well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to 

use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(‘‘OIRA’’) in the Office of Management 

and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) has emphasized 

that such techniques may include 

identifying changing future compliance 

costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, this final 

regulatory action is consistent with 

these principles. 

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also 

requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant 

regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review. 

OIRA has determined that this final 

regulatory action does not constitute a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, 

this action was not submitted to OIRA 

for review under E.O. 12866. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

of a final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(‘‘FRFA’’) for any final rule where the 

agency was first required by law to 

publish a proposed rule for public 

comment, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule, if promulgated, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

As required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the DOE 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s website: www.energy.gov/gc/ 

office-general-counsel. DOE reviewed 

this final rule under the provisions of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

procedures and policies published on 

February 19, 2003. DOE has concluded 

that the rule would not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66218 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

38U.S. Department of Energy’s Compliance 

Certification Database is available at 

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data (Last 

accessed February 24, 2023). 

39California Energy Commission’s Modernized 

Appliance Efficiency Database System is available 

at cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/ 

AdvancedSearch.aspx (Last accessed February 24, 

2023) 

40Panjiva Supply Chain Intelligence is available 

at: panjiva.com/import-export/United-States (Last 

accessed March 28, 2023). 

41The Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers subscription 

login is available online at app.dnbhoovers.com/ 

(Last accessed March 28, 2023). 42 Id. 

number of small entities. The factual 

basis for this certification is as follows. 

DOE uses the Small Business 

Administration (‘‘SBA’’) small business 

size standards to determine whether 

manufacturers qualify as ‘‘small 

businesses,’’ which are listed by the 

North American Industry Classification 

System (‘‘NAICS’’). The SBA considers 

a business entity to be small business if, 

together with its affiliates, it employs 

less than a threshold number of workers 

specified in 13 CFR part 121. CRE 

manufacturers, who produce the 

equipment covered by this final rule, are 

classified under NAICS code 333415, 

‘‘Air-conditioning and Warm Air 

Heating Equipment and Commercial 

and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a 

threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer 

for an entity to be considered a small 

business for this category. This 

employee threshold includes all 

employees in a business’s parent 

company and any other subsidiaries. 

DOE has recently conducted a focused 

inquiry into small business 

manufacturers of the CRE covered by 

this rulemaking. As with the initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis, DOE 

accessed its Compliance Certification 

Database (‘‘CCD’’),38 California Energy 

Commission’s Modernized Appliance 

Efficiency Database System 

(‘‘MAEDbS’’),39 and other public 

sources, including manufacturer 

websites, to create a list of companies 

that produce, manufacture, import, or 

private label the CRE covered by this 

rulemaking. DOE refreshed its 

equipment database in support of the 

FRFA. DOE then consulted other 

publicly available data, such as 

manufacturer specifications and product 

literature, import/export logs (e.g., bills 

of lading from Panjiva 40), and basic 

model numbers, to identify original 

equipment manufacturers (‘‘OEMs’’) of 

the equipment covered by this 

rulemaking. DOE further relied on 

public sources and subscription-based 

market research tools (e.g., Dun & 

Bradstreet reports 41) to determine 

company location, headcount, and 

annual revenue. DOE screened out 

companies that do not offer equipment 

covered by this rulemaking, do not meet 

the SBA’s definition of a ‘‘small 

business,’’ or are foreign-owned and 

operated. 

DOE initially identified 83 OEMs 

selling CRE into the U.S. market. Of the 

83 OEMs identified, DOE estimates that 

25 qualify as small OEMs and are not 

foreign-owned and operated. 

In this final rule, DOE amends and 

establishes test procedures for CRE as 

follows: 

(1) Establish new definitions for hightemperature refrigerator, mediumtemperature refrigerator, lowtemperature freezer, and mobile 

refrigerated cabinet, and amend the 

definition for ice-cream freezer; 

(2) Incorporate by reference the most 

current versions of industry standards 

AHRI 1200, ASHRAE 72, and AHRI 

1320; 

(3) Establish definitions and a new 

appendix C including test procedures 

for buffet tables and preparation tables; 

(4) Establish definitions and a new 

appendix D including test procedures 

for blast chillers and blast freezers; 

(5) Amend the definition and certain 

test conditions for chef bases or griddle 

stands; 

(6) Specify refrigerant conditions for 

CRE that use R–744; 

(7) Allow for certification of 

compartment volumes based on 

computer-aided design models; 

(8) Incorporate provisions for defrosts 

and customer order storage cabinets 

currently specified in waivers and 

interim waivers; 

(9) Adopt product-specific 

enforcement provisions; 

(10) Clarify use of the lowest 

application product temperature 

provisions; 

(11) Remove the obsolete test 

procedure in appendix A; and 

(12) Specify a sampling plan for 

volume and total display area. 

DOE maintains that the amendments 

detailed in the final rule would not 

impact testing costs, which would 

remain at approximately $5,000 perunit. Furthermore, DOE does not expect 

manufacturers would need to re-test or 

re-certify equipment as manufacturers 

would be able to rely on data generated 

under the current test procedure for the 

amendments detailed in this final rule. 

For the test procedures established by 

this final rule for additional categories 

of CRE not currently subject to the DOE 

test procedure (i.e., buffet tables or 

preparation tables, and blast chillers 

and blast freezers), testing would not be 

required (other than making voluntary 

representations of energy consumption) 

until the compliance date of any energy 

conservation standards for equipment in 

these categories. If a manufacturer 

chooses to make representations of the 

energy consumption of this equipment, 

beginning 360 days after a final rule, 

manufacturers would be required to test 

according to the adopted test procedure. 

(42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) DOE has determined 

that $5,000 is a representative per-test 

cost for the new test procedures for the 

additional CRE categories. 

For the amended test procedure 

established by this final rule for chef 

bases or griddle stands, testing similarly 

would not be required until the 

compliance date of any energy 

conservation standards for equipment in 

these categories. However, any 

representations of energy use for chef 

bases or griddle stands must be made in 

accordance with the amended test 

procedure starting 360 days after this 

notice publishes in the Federal Register. 

Manufacturers currently choosing to 

make representations of the energy 

consumption of this equipment 

according to the existing test procedure 

may continue to do so until 360 days 

after publication of this final rule. To 

the extent that a manufacturer chooses 

to test according to the amended test 

procedure, DOE has determined that 

$5,000 is a representative per-test cost, 

consistent with the other CRE 

categories. 

Based on a review of commercially 

available blast chillers and blast 

freezers, DOE has determined that 

manufacturers make no claims regarding 

the energy consumption of their models. 

To the extent that buffet table and 

preparation table manufacturers make 

claims regarding the energy 

consumption of their models, DOE 

observed that they do so in accordance 

with the California Code of Regulations. 

The manufacturers currently making 

representations of the energy 

consumption of buffet tables and 

preparation tables would be required to 

test according to the adopted test 

procedure beginning 360 days after the 

final rule. 

DOE reviewed California Energy 

Commission’s MAEDbS and identified 

two small domestic OEMs currently 

making representations of the energy 

consumption of buffet table or 

preparation table models. According to 

MAEDbS, one small OEM makes claims 

regarding the energy consumption of 26 

buffet table or preparation table models 

and the other small OEM makes claims 

regarding the energy consumption of 15 

buffet table or preparation table models. 

Based on Dun & Bradstreet reports,42


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66219 

both small OEMs have an estimated 

annual revenue of over $100 million. As 

previously discussed, DOE estimates a 

per-unit test cost of $5,000. Therefore, 

DOE estimates that the potential costs 

associated with re-testing would be 

minimal, accounting for approximately 

0.1 percent of annual revenue for both 

small businesses. 

AHRI commented that they disagree 

with DOE’s conclusion that ‘‘the 

amendments detailed in the NOPR 

would not have a significant impact on 

a substantial number of small entities.’’ 

(AHRI, No. 38, p. 14) AHRI expressed 

concern about the impact of the 

proposed amendments on small entities, 

including both manufacturers and end 

users, because the proposed 

amendments could drive a continued 

use of older, less efficient, and leaky 

equipment. Id. AHRI commented further 

that Natural Resources Canada 

(‘‘NRCAN’’) would likely harmonize 

with this requirement, resulting in 

additional cost associated with thirdparty testing for NRCAN and also for 

ENERGY STAR, which would create an 

undue burden, especially on small 

businesses. Id. 

NAMA stated its agreement with 

AHRI and advised DOE that this 

conclusion was inaccurate, and that 

NAMA had profound concerns about 

the impact of the proposed amendments 

on small entities, including both 

manufacturers and end users. (NAMA, 

No. 33, p. 4) NAMA commented that its 

concerns centered around the 

possibility of the proposed amendments 

driving a continued use of older, less 

efficient, and refrigerant-leaky 

equipment, as well as a continuation of 

the trend of greater sale of refurbished 

products that do not meet current DOE 

standards. Id. NAMA also advised DOE 

that NRCAN would likely harmonize 

with this requirement, creating 

additional costs associated with the 

testing for NRCAN, especially for new 

classifications—and costs associated 

with third-party testing (required for 

both NRCAN and ENERGY STAR) 

would create an undue burden, 

especially on small businesses. Id. 

Continental commented that as 

previously stated in its comments, some 

proposed changes to test procedures, 

including use of ASHRAE 72–2022, 

would increase test burden on 

manufacturers and testing agencies, and 

prove particularly burdensome to small 

manufacturers like itself. (Continental, 

No. 29, p. 9) 

Hoshizaki commented that they 

disagree with DOE, and stated that 

adding new test standards to previously 

unregulated products will require 

testing at least two of each model to 

fully realize the impact of new test 

standards. (Hoshizaki, No. 30, p. 5) 

Hoshizaki commented that DOE 

requires listing of the product with the 

CCD, and accurate testing will be 

needed to qualify such listings. Id. They 

noted that since NRCAN is likely to 

harmonize with DOE requirements, 

third-party certification is required for 

NRCAN listing. Id. They commented 

that costs associated with this thirdparty testing is an undue burden on 

small business manufacturers. Id. 

Regarding the small business impacts, 

as previously discussed, DOE does not 

expect small manufacturers would need 

to re-test or re-certify CRE models as a 

direct result of the amendments detailed 

in this final rule. For the two small 

manufacturers that may incur some retesting costs associated with making 

voluntary representations of energy 

consumption, DOE’s analysis indicates 

that re-testing costs would have de 

minimis cost impacts on the small 

manufacturers, which would account 

for approximately 0.1 percent of annual 

revenue for each of the small 

businesses. Regarding the estimated test 

procedure costs, see section III.N.1 of 

this final rule for additional discussion 

of the per-unit testing costs. 

DOE does not anticipate that the 

adopted test procedure amendments 

would result in increased testing costs 

for the vast majority of manufacturers, 

including small manufacturers. DOE 

estimates that two small businesses may 

incur some re-testing costs associated 

with their buffet table and preparation 

table models. However, DOE’s research 

indicates these costs would account for 

approximately 0.1 percent of annual 

revenue for both small OEMs identified. 

Therefore, DOE concludes that the cost 

effects accruing from the final rule 

would not have a ‘‘significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities,’’ and that the preparation of a 

FRFA is not warranted. DOE will submit 

a certification and supporting statement 

of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration for review under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

Manufacturers of CRE must certify to 

DOE that their products comply with 

any applicable energy conservation 

standards. To certify compliance, 

manufacturers must first obtain test data 

for their products according to the DOE 

test procedures, including any 

amendments adopted for those test 

procedures. DOE has established 

regulations for the certification and 

recordkeeping requirements for all 

covered consumer products and 

commercial equipment, including CRE. 

(See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The 

collection-of-information requirement 

for the certification and recordkeeping 

is subject to review and approval by 

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (‘‘PRA’’). This requirement has been 

approved by OMB under OMB control 

number 1910–1400. Public reporting 

burden for the certification is estimated 

to average 35 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. 

DOE is not amending the certification 

or reporting requirements for CRE in 

this final rule. Further, certification data 

will be required for buffet tables and 

preparation tables, blast chillers, and 

blast freezers; however, DOE is not 

proposing certification or reporting 

requirements for these categories of CRE 

in this final rule. Instead, DOE may 

consider proposals to amend the 

certification requirements and reporting 

for these categories under a separate 

rulemaking regarding appliance and 

equipment certification. DOE will 

address changes to OMB Control 

Number 1910–1400 at that time, as 

necessary. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

In this final rule, DOE establishes test 

procedure amendments that it expects 

will be used to develop and implement 

future energy conservation standards for 

CRE. DOE has determined that this rule 

falls into a class of actions that are 

categorically excluded from review 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) and DOE’s implementing 

regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. 

Specifically, DOE has determined that 

adopting test procedures for measuring 

energy efficiency of consumer products 

and industrial equipment is consistent 

with activities identified in 10 CFR part 

1021, appendix A to subpart D, A5 and 

A6. Accordingly, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66220 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have federalism implications. The 

Executive order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive order also requires agencies to 

have an accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 

published a statement of policy 

describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. DOE examined this final rule 

and determined that it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the products that are the subject of this 

final rule. States can petition DOE for 

exemption from such preemption to the 

extent, and based on criteria, set forth in 

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

action is required by Executive Order 

13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard; and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation (1) clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

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

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, this final rule 

meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

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

regulatory action resulting in a rule that 

may cause the expenditure by State, 

local, and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100 million or more in any one year 

(adjusted annually for inflation), section 

202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency 

to publish a written statement that 

estimates the resulting costs, benefits, 

and other effects on the national 

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

UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 

develop an effective process to permit 

timely input by elected officers of State, 

local, and Tribal governments on a 

proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental 

mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan 

for giving notice and opportunity for 

timely input to potentially affected 

small governments before establishing 

any requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 

12820; also available at 

www.energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel. DOE examined this final rule 

according to UMRA and its statement of 

policy and determined that the rule 

contains neither an intergovernmental 

mandate nor a mandate that may result 

in the expenditure of $100 million or 

more in any year, so these requirements 

do not apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

final rule will not have any impact on 

the autonomy or integrity of the family 

as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

will not result in any takings that might 

require compensation under the Fifth 

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

J. Review Under 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). Pursuant to OMB 

Memorandum M–19–15, Improving 

Implementation of the Information 

Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE 

published updated guidelines which are 

available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/ 

files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final

%20Updated%20IQA%

20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. 

DOE has reviewed this final rule under 

the OMB and DOE guidelines and has 

concluded that it is consistent with 

applicable policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

significant energy action. A ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ is defined as any action 

by an agency that promulgated or is 

expected to lead to promulgation of a 

final rule, and that (1) 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66221 

reasonable alternatives to the action and 

their expected benefits on energy 

supply, distribution, and use. 

This regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it 

would not have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, nor has it been designated as 

a significant energy action by the 

Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is 

not a significant energy action, and, 

accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

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

with section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974, as amended 

by the Federal Energy Administration 

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

788; ‘‘FEAA’’) Section 32 essentially 

provides in relevant part that, where a 

proposed rule authorizes or requires use 

of commercial standards, the notice of 

proposed rulemaking must inform the 

public of the use and background of 

such standards. In addition, section 

32(c) requires DOE to consult with the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’) 

concerning the impact of the 

commercial or industry standards on 

competition. 

The modifications to the test 

procedure for CRE adopted in this final 

rule incorporate testing methods 

contained in certain sections of the 

following commercial standards: AHRI 

1200–2023, AHRI 1320–2011, ASHRAE 

72–2022 with Errata, and ASTM F2143– 

16. DOE has evaluated these standards 

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 this rule before its effective date. The 

report will state that it has been 

determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major 

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

N. Description of Materials Incorporated 

by Reference 

In this final rule, DOE incorporates by 

reference the following test standards: 

AHRI 1200–2023 is an industryaccepted test procedure that provides 

rating instructions, calculations, and 

methods for CRE. The test procedure 

discussed in this final rule references 

AHRI 1200–2023 for specific rating 

instructions, calculations, and rating 

methods for CRE. AHRI 1200–2023 is 

available at www.ahrinet.org/standards/ 

search-standards. 

AHRI 1320–2011 is an industry 

accepted test procedure that provides 

rating instructs, calculations, and 

methods for CRE used with secondary 

coolants. The test procedure discussed 

in this final rule references AHRI 1320– 

2011 regarding specific provisions 

regarding secondary coolants, but 

otherwise references AHRI 1200–2023 

as discussed. AHRI 1320–2011 is 

available at www.ahrinet.org/standards. 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72–2022 is 

an industry-accepted test procedure that 

provides setup, instrumentation, 

measurement, and test conduct 

instructions for testing CRE. The test 

procedure discussed in this final rule 

references ASHRAE 72–2022 as the 

basis for test setup and test conduct 

requirements. 

Errata sheet for ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 72–2022, Method of Testing 

Open and Closed Commercial 

Refrigerators and Freezers, November 

11, 2022. This errata sheet corrects the 

note preceding Normative Appendix A 

of ASHRAE 72–2022. 

ASHRAE 72–2022 is available at 

www.techstreet.com/standards/ashrae72-2022?product_id=1710927 and the 

November 11, 2022 Errata is available at 

www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/ 

standards-and-guidelines/standardserrata. 

ASTM F2143–16 is an industryaccepted test procedure that provides 

setup, instrumentation, conditions, 

measurement, and test conduct 

instructions for testing buffet tables and 

preparation tables. The test procedure 

discussed in this final rule references 

ASTM F2143–16 as the basis for test 

setup and test conduct for buffet tables 

and preparation tables. Copies of ASTM 

F2143–16 can be purchased at 

www.astm.org/f2143–16.html. 

ASTM E1084–86 (Reapproved 2009), 

which appears in the regulatory text, 

has already been incorporated by 

reference for that text; no change is 

being made to this standard. 

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this final rule. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Small 

businesses. 

10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation test 

procedures, Incorporation by reference, 

and Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on September 8, 

2023, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

pursuant to delegated authority from the 

Secretary of Energy. That document 

with the original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on September 

12, 2023. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 

431 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of 

Federal Regulations as set forth below: 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. Section 429.42 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) to read 

as follows: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66222 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 429.42 Commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers. 

(a) * * * 

(3) Represented value calculations. 

The volume and total display area 

(TDA) of a basic model, as applicable, 

is the mean of the measured volumes 

and the mean of the measured TDAs, as 

applicable, for the tested units of the 

basic model, based on the same tests 

used to determine energy consumption. 

(4) Convertible equipment. Each basic 

model of commercial refrigerator, 

freezer, or refrigerator-freezer that is 

capable of operating at integrated 

average temperatures that spans the 

operating temperature range of multiple 

equipment classes, either by adjusting a 

thermostat for a basic model or by the 

marketed, designed, or intended 

operation for a basic model with a 

remote condensing unit but without a 

thermostat, must determine the 

represented values, which includes the 

certified ratings, either by testing, in 

conjunction with the applicable 

sampling provisions, or by applying an 

AEDM to comply with the requirements 

necessary to certify to each equipment 

class that the basic model is capable of 

operating within. 

(i) Customer order storage cabinets. 

For customer order storage cabinets that 

have individual-secured compartments 

that are convertible between the ≥32 °F 

and <32 °F operating temperatures, the 

customer order storage cabinets must 

determine the represented values, 

which includes the certified ratings, 

either by testing, in conjunction with 

the applicable sampling provisions, or 

by applying an AEDM, with all 

convertible compartments operating 

either as medium temperature 

refrigerators or all convertible 

compartments as low-temperature 

freezers, or at the lowest application 

product temperature for each equipment 

class as specified in § 431.64 of this 

chapter, to comply with the 

requirements necessary to certify to 

each equipment class that the basic 

model is capable of operating within. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 429.72 by adding 

paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 429.72 Alternative methods for 

determining non-energy ratings. 

* * * * * 

(f) Commercial refrigerators, freezers, 

and refrigerator-freezers. The volume of 

a basic model of a commercial 

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or 

freezer may be determined by 

performing a calculation of the volume 

based upon computer-aided design 

(CAD) models of the basic model in lieu 

of physical measurements of a 

production unit of the basic model. If 

volume is determined by performing a 

calculation of volume based on CAD 

drawings, any value of volume of the 

basic model reported to DOE in a 

certification of compliance in 

accordance with § 429.42(b)(2)(iii) must 

be calculated using the CAD-derived 

volume(s) and the applicable provisions 

in the test procedures in 10 CFR part 

431.64 for measuring volume. 

■ 4. Amend § 429.134 by adding 

reserved paragraphs (dd) and (ee) and 

paragraph (ff) to read as follows: 

§ 429.134 Product-specific enforcement 

provisions. 

* * * * * 

(dd)–(ee) [Reserved] 

(ff) Commercial refrigerators, freezers, 

and refrigerator-freezers—(1) 

Verification of volume. The volume will 

be measured pursuant to the test 

requirements of 10 CFR part 431 for 

each unit tested. The results of the 

measurement(s) will be averaged and 

compared to the value of the certified 

volume of the basic model. The certified 

volume will be considered valid only if 

the average measured volume is within 

five percent of the certified volume. 

(i) If the certified volume is found to 

be valid, the certified volume will be 

used as the basis for determining the 

maximum daily energy consumption 

allowed for the basic model. 

(ii) If the certified volume is found to 

be invalid, the average measured 

volume of the units in the sample will 

be used as the basis for determining the 

maximum daily energy consumption 

allowed for the basic model. 

(2) Verification of total display area. 

The total display area will be measured 

pursuant to the test requirements of 10 

CFR part 431 for each unit tested. The 

results of the measurement(s) will be 

averaged and compared to the value of 

the certified total display area of the 

basic model. The certified total display 

area will be considered valid only if the 

average measured total display area is 

within five percent of the certified total 

display area. 

(i) If the certified total display area is 

found to be valid, the certified total 

display area will be used as the basis for 

determining the maximum daily energy 

consumption allowed for the basic 

model. 

(ii) If the certified total display area is 

found to be invalid, the average 

measured total display area of the units 

in the sample will be used as the basis 

for determining the maximum daily 

energy consumption allowed for the 

basic model. 

(3) Determination of pull-down 

temperature application. A 

classification of a basic model as pulldown temperature application will be 

considered valid only if a model meets 

the definition of ‘‘pull-down 

temperature application’’ specified in 

§ 431.62 of this chapter as follows. 

(i) 12-ounce beverage can 

temperatures will be measured for 12- 

ounce beverage cans loaded at the 

locations within the commercial 

refrigerator that are as close as possible 

to the locations that would be measured 

by test simulators according to the test 

procedure for commercial refrigerators 

specified in § 431.64 of this chapter. 

(ii) The commercial refrigerator will 

be operated at ambient conditions 

consistent with those specified for 

commercial refrigerators in § 431.64 of 

this chapter and at the control setting 

necessary to achieve a stable integrated 

average temperature of 38 °F, prior to 

loading. 

(iii) 12-ounce beverage cans to be 

fully loaded into the commercial 

refrigerator (with and without 

temperature measurements) will be 

maintained at 90 °F ±2 °F based on the 

average measured 12-ounce beverage 

can temperatures prior to loading into 

the commercial refrigerator. 

(iv) The duration of pull-down (which 

must be 12 hours or less) will be 

determined starting from closing the 

commercial refrigerator door after 

completing the 12-ounce beverage can 

loading until the integrated average 

temperature reaches 38 °F ±2 °F. 

(v) An average stable temperature of 

38 °F will be determined by operating 

the commercial refrigerator for an 

additional 12 hours after initially 

reaching 38 °F ±2 °F with no changes to 

control settings, and determining an 

integrated average temperature of 38 °F 

±2 °F at the end of the 12 hour stability 

period. 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 6. Section 431.62 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.62 Definitions concerning 

commercial refrigerators, freezers and 

refrigerator-freezers. 

Air-curtain angle means: 

(1) For equipment without doors and 

without a discharge air grille or 

discharge air honeycomb, the angle 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66223 

between a vertical line extended down 

from the highest point on the 

manufacturer’s recommended load limit 

line and the load limit line itself, when 

the equipment is viewed in crosssection; and 

(2) For all other equipment without 

doors, the angle formed between a 

vertical line and the straight line drawn 

by connecting the point at the inside 

edge of the discharge air opening with 

the point at the inside edge of the return 

air opening, when the equipment is 

viewed in cross-section. 

Basic model means all commercial 

refrigeration equipment manufactured 

by one manufacturer within a single 

equipment class, having the same 

primary energy source, and that have 

essentially identical electrical, physical, 

and functional characteristics that affect 

energy consumption. 

Blast chiller means commercial 

refrigeration equipment, other than a 

blast freezer, that is capable of the rapid 

temperature pull-down of hot food 

products from 135 °F to 40 °F within a 

period of four hours, when measured 

according to the test procedure at 

appendix D to subpart C of part 431. 

Blast freezer means commercial 

refrigeration equipment that is capable 

of the rapid temperature pull-down of 

hot food products from 135 °F to 40 °F 

within a period of four hours and 

capable of achieving a final product 

temperature of less than 32 °F, when 

measured according to the test 

procedure at appendix D to subpart C of 

this part. 

Buffet table or preparation table 

means a commercial refrigerator with an 

open-top refrigerated area, that may or 

may not include a lid, for displaying or 

storing merchandise and other 

perishable materials in pans or other 

removable containers for customer selfservice or food production and 

assembly. The unit may or may not be 

equipped with a refrigerated storage 

compartment underneath the pans or 

other removable containers that is not 

thermally separated from the open-top 

refrigerated area. 

Chef base or griddle stand means 

commercial refrigeration equipment that 

has a maximum height of 32 in., 

including any legs or casters, and that 

is designed and marketed for the 

express purpose of having a griddle or 

other cooking appliance placed on top 

of it that is capable of reaching 

temperatures hot enough to cook food. 

Closed solid means equipment with 

doors, and in which more than 75 

percent of the outer surface area of all 

doors on a unit are not transparent. 

Closed transparent means equipment 

with doors, and in which 25 percent or 

more of the outer surface area of all 

doors on the unit are transparent. 

Commercial freezer means a unit of 

commercial refrigeration equipment in 

which all refrigerated compartments in 

the unit are capable of operating below 

32 °F (±2 °F). 

Commercial hybrid means a unit of 

commercial refrigeration equipment: 

(1) That consists of two or more 

thermally separated refrigerated 

compartments that are in two or more 

different equipment families, and 

(2) That is sold as a single unit. 

Commercial refrigerator means a unit 

of commercial refrigeration equipment 

in which all refrigerated compartments 

in the unit are capable of operating at or 

above 32 °F (±2 °F). 

Commercial refrigerator-freezer means 

a unit of commercial refrigeration 

equipment consisting of two or more 

refrigerated compartments where at 

least one refrigerated compartment is 

capable of operating at or above 32 °F 

(±2 °F) and at least one refrigerated 

compartment is capable of operating 

below 32 °F (±2 °F). 

Commercial refrigerator, freezer, and 

refrigerator-freezer means refrigeration 

equipment that— 

(1) Is not a consumer product (as 

defined in § 430.2 of this chapter); 

(2) Is not designed and marketed 

exclusively for medical, scientific, or 

research purposes; 

(3) Operates at a chilled, frozen, 

combination chilled and frozen, or 

variable temperature; 

(4) Displays or stores merchandise 

and other perishable materials 

horizontally, semi-vertically, or 

vertically; 

(5) Has transparent or solid doors, 

sliding or hinged doors, a combination 

of hinged, sliding, transparent, or solid 

doors, or no doors; 

(6) Is designed for pull-down 

temperature applications or holding 

temperature applications; and 

(7) Is connected to a self-contained 

condensing unit or to a remote 

condensing unit. 

Customer order storage cabinet means 

a commercial refrigerator, freezer, or 

refrigerator-freezer that stores customer 

orders and includes individual, secured 

compartments with doors that are 

accessible to customers for order 

retrieval. 

Door means a movable panel that 

separates the interior volume of a unit 

of commercial refrigeration equipment 

from the ambient environment and is 

designed to facilitate access to the 

refrigerated space for the purpose of 

loading and unloading product. This 

includes hinged doors, sliding doors, 

and drawers. This does not include 

night curtains. 

Door angle means: 

(1) For equipment with flat doors, the 

angle between a vertical line and the 

line formed by the plane of the door, 

when the equipment is viewed in crosssection; and 

(2) For equipment with curved doors, 

the angle formed between a vertical line 

and the straight line drawn by 

connecting the top and bottom points 

where the display area glass joins the 

cabinet, when the equipment is viewed 

in cross-section. 

Fully open (for drawers) means 

opened not less than 80% of their full 

travel. 

High-temperature refrigerator means a 

commercial refrigerator that is not 

capable of an operating temperature at 

or below 40.0 °F. 

Holding temperature application 

means a use of commercial refrigeration 

equipment other than a pull-down 

temperature application, except a blast 

chiller or freezer. 

Horizontal Closed means equipment 

with hinged or sliding doors and a door 

angle greater than or equal to 45°. 

Horizontal Open means equipment 

without doors and an air-curtain angle 

greater than or equal to 80° from the 

vertical. 

Ice-cream freezer means: 

(1) Prior to the compliance date(s) of 

any amended energy conservation 

standard(s) issued after January 1, 2023 

for ice-cream freezers (see § 431.66), a 

commercial freezer that is capable of an 

operating temperature at or below 

¥5.0 °F and that the manufacturer 

designs, markets, or intends specifically 

for the storing, displaying, or dispensing 

of ice cream or other frozen desserts; or 

(2) Upon the compliance date(s) of 

any amended energy conservation 

standard(s) issued after January 1, 2023 

for ice-cream freezers (see § 431.66), a 

commercial freezer that is capable of an 

operating temperature at or below 

¥13.0 °F and that the manufacturer 

designs, markets, or intends specifically 

for the storing, displaying, or dispensing 

of ice cream or other frozen desserts. 

Integrated average temperature means 

the average temperature of all test 

package measurements taken during the 

test. 

Lighting occupancy sensor means a 

device which uses passive infrared, 

ultrasonic, or other motion-sensing 

technology to automatically turn off or 

dim lights within the equipment when 

no motion is detected in the sensor’s 

coverage area for a certain preset period 

of time. 

Lowest application product 

temperature means the integrated 

average temperature (or for buffet tables 

or preparation tables, the average pan 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66224 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

temperature of all measurements taken 

during the test) at which a given basic 

model is capable of consistently 

operating that is closest to the integrated 

average temperature (or for buffet tables 

or preparation tables, the average pan 

temperature of all measurements taken 

during the test) specified for testing 

under the DOE test procedure (see 

§ 431.64). 

Low-temperature freezer means a 

commercial freezer that is not an icecream freezer. 

Medium-temperature refrigerator 

means a commercial refrigerator that is 

capable of an operating temperature at 

or below 40.0 °F. 

Mobile refrigerated cabinet means 

commercial refrigeration equipment that 

is designed and marketed to operate 

only without a continuous power 

supply. 

Night curtain means a device which is 

temporarily deployed to decrease air 

exchange and heat transfer between the 

refrigerated case and the surrounding 

environment. 

Operating temperature means the 

range of integrated average temperatures 

at which a self-contained commercial 

refrigeration unit or remote-condensing 

commercial refrigeration unit with a 

thermostat is capable of operating or, in 

the case of a remote-condensing 

commercial refrigeration unit without a 

thermostat, the range of integrated 

average temperatures at which the unit 

is marketed, designed, or intended to 

operate. 

Pull-down temperature application 

means a commercial refrigerator with 

doors that, when fully loaded with 12- 

ounce beverage cans at 90 degrees F, can 

cool those beverages to an average stable 

temperature of 38 degrees F in 12 hours 

or less. 

Rating temperature means the 

integrated average temperature a unit 

must maintain during testing (i.e., either 

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

the lowest application product 

temperature). 

Remote condensing unit means a 

factory-made assembly of refrigerating 

components designed to compress and 

liquefy a specific refrigerant that is 

remotely located from the refrigerated 

equipment and consists of one or more 

refrigerant compressors, refrigerant 

condensers, condenser fans and motors, 

and factory supplied accessories. 

Scheduled lighting control means a 

device which automatically shuts off or 

dims the lighting in a display case at 

scheduled times throughout the day. 

Self-contained condensing unit means 

a factory-made assembly of refrigerating 

components designed to compress and 

liquefy a specific refrigerant that is an 

integral part of the refrigerated 

equipment and consists of one or more 

refrigerant compressors, refrigerant 

condensers, condenser fans and motors, 

and factory-supplied accessories. 

Semivertical Open means equipment 

without doors and an air-curtain angle 

greater than or equal to 10° and less 

than 80° from the vertical. 

Service over counter means 

equipment that has sliding or hinged 

doors in the back intended for use by 

sales personnel, with glass or other 

transparent material in the front for 

displaying merchandise, and that has a 

height not greater than 66 in. and is 

intended to serve as a counter for 

transactions between sales personnel 

and customers. 

Test package means a packaged 

material that is used as a standard 

product temperature-measuring device. 

Transparent means greater than or 

equal to 45 percent light transmittance, 

as determined in accordance with 

ASTM E1084–86 (Reapproved 2009) 

(incorporated by reference, see § 431.63) 

at normal incidence and in the intended 

direction of viewing. 

Vertical Closed means equipment 

with hinged or sliding doors and a door 

angle less than 45°. 

Vertical Open means equipment 

without doors and an air-curtain angle 

greater than or equal to 0° and less than 

10° from the vertical. 

Wedge case means a commercial 

refrigerator, freezer, or refrigeratorfreezer that forms the transition between 

two regularly shaped display cases. 

■ 7. Amend § 431.63 by revising 

paragraphs (a), (c), (d), and (e) to read 

as follows: 

§ 431.63 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

(a) Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this subpart with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce 

any edition other than that specified in 

this section, the DOE must publish a 

document in the Federal Register and 

the material must be available to the 

public. All approved incorporation by 

reference (IBR) material is available for 

inspection at DOE and at the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). Contact DOE at: the U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, EE–5B, 

Washington, DC 20024, (202)-586–9127, 

Buildings@ee.doe.gov, www.energy.gov/ 

eere/buildings/building-technologiesoffice. For information on the 

availability of this material at NARA, 

visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/ 

cfr/ibr-locations.html or email: 

fr.inspection@nara.gov. The material 

may be obtained from the sources in the 

following paragraphs of this section: 

* * * * * 

(c) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating, 

and Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson 

Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201; 

(703) 524–8800; ahri@ahrinet.org; 

www.ahrinet.org/. 

(1) ARI Standard 1200–2006, 

Performance Rating of Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 

Storage Cabinets, 2006; IBR approved 

for § 431.66. 

(2) AHRI Standard 1200 (I–P)–2010 

(‘‘AHRI Standard 1200 (I–P)–2010’’), 

2010 Standard for Performance Rating 

of Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets, 

2010; IBR approved for § 431.66. 

(3) AHRI Standard 1200–2023 (I–P) 

(‘‘AHRI 1200–2023’’), 2023 Standard for 

Performance Rating of Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 

Storage Cabinets, copyright 2023; IBR 

approved for appendices B, C, and D to 

this subpart. 

(4) AHRI Standard 1320–2011 (I–P), 

(‘‘AHRI 1320–2011’’) 2011 Standard for 

Performance Rating of Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 

Storage Cabinets for Use With 

Secondary Refrigerants, copyright 2011; 

IBR approved for appendix B to this 

subpart. 

(d) ASHRAE. The American Society of 

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

Tullie Circle NE, Atlanta, GA 30329; 

(404) 636–8400; ashrae@ashrae.org; 

www.ashrae.org/. 

(1) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72–2022 

(ASHRAE 72–2022), Method of Testing 

Open and Closed Commercial 

Refrigerators and Freezers, approved 

June 30, 2022; IBR approved for 

appendices B, C, and D to this subpart. 

(2) Errata sheet for ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 72–2022 (ASHRAE 72–2022 

Errata), Method of Testing Open and 

Closed Commercial Refrigerators and 

Freezers, November 11, 2022; IBR 

approved for appendices B, C, and D to 

this subpart. 

(e) ASTM. ASTM International, 100 

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

Conshohocken, PA 19428; (877) 909– 

2786; www.astm.org/. 

(1) ASTM E1084–86 (Reapproved 

2009), Standard Test Method for Solar 

Transmittance (Terrestrial) of Sheet 

Materials Using Sunlight, approved 

April 1, 2009; IBR approved for 

§ 431.62. 

(2) ASTM F2143–16, Standard Test 

Method for Performance of Refrigerated 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66225 

Buffet and Preparation Tables, 

approved May 1, 2016; IBR approved for 

appendix C to this subpart. 

■ 8. Section 431.64 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.64 Uniform test method for the 

measurement of energy consumption of 

commercial refrigerators, freezers, and 

refrigerator-freezers. 

(a) Scope. This section provides the 

test procedures for measuring, pursuant 

to EPCA, the energy consumption or 

energy efficiency for a given equipment 

category of commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers. 

(b) Testing and calculations. (1) 

Determine the daily energy 

consumption and volume or total 

display area of each covered commercial 

refrigerator, freezer, or refrigeratorfreezer by conducting the appropriate 

test procedure set forth below in 

appendix B, to this subpart. The daily 

energy consumption of commercial 

refrigeration equipment shall be 

calculated using raw measured values 

and the final test results shall be 

reported in increments of 0.01 kWh/day. 

(2) Determine the daily energy 

consumption and pan storage volume, 

pan display area, and refrigerated 

volume of each buffet table or 

preparation table by conducting the 

appropriate test procedure set forth 

below in appendix C to this subpart. 

The daily energy consumption shall be 

calculated using raw measured values 

and the final test results shall be 

recorded in increments of 0.01 kWh/ 

day. 

(3) Determine the energy consumption 

per weight of product and product 

capacity of each blast chiller and blast 

freezer by conducting the appropriate 

test procedure set forth below in 

appendix D to this subpart. The energy 

consumption per weight of product 

shall be calculated using raw measured 

values and the final test results shall be 

recorded in increments of 0.01 kWh/lb. 

Appendix A [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 9. Appendix A to subpart C of part 

431 is removed and reserved. 

■ 10. Appendix B to subpart C of part 

431 is revised to read as follows: 

Appendix B to Subpart C of Part 431— 

Uniform Test Method for the 

Measurement of Energy Consumption of 

Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, 

and Refrigerator-Freezers 

Note: On or after September 20, 2024, any 

representations, including for certification of 

compliance, made with respect to the energy 

use or efficiency of commercial refrigeration 

equipment, except for buffet tables or 

preparation tables, blast chillers, blast 

freezers, or mobile refrigerated cabinets, must 

be made in accordance with the results of 

testing pursuant to this appendix. Prior to 

September 20, 2024, any representations with 

respect to energy use or efficiency of 

commercial refrigeration equipment, except 

for buffet tables or preparation tables, blast 

chillers, blast freezers, or mobile refrigerated 

cabinets, must be made either in accordance 

with the results of testing pursuant to this 

appendix or with the results of testing 

pursuant to this appendix as it appeared in 

appendix B to subpart C of part 431 in the 

10 CFR parts 200–499 edition revised as of 

January 1, 2023. Buffet tables or preparation 

tables are subject to the test method 

requirements in appendix C to subpart C of 

part 431. Blast chillers and blast freezers are 

subject to the test method requirements in 

appendix D to subpart C of part 431. 

The test procedure for equipment cooled 

only by secondary coolants in section 1.1.3 

of this appendix is not required for use until 

the compliance date(s) of any amended 

energy conservation standard(s) (see 

§ 431.66) for such commercial refrigeration 

equipment. 

High-temperature refrigerators must be 

tested as medium-temperature refrigerators 

according to section 2.1.3 of this appendix 

based on the lowest application product 

temperature until the compliance date(s) of 

any amended energy conservation 

standard(s) (see § 431.66) established for 

high-temperature refrigerators. On and after 

the compliance date(s) of such energy 

conservation standard(s) (see § 431.66), hightemperature refrigerators must be tested as 

high-temperature refrigerators according to 

section 2.1.4 of this appendix. 

0. Incorporation by Reference 

DOE incorporated by reference in § 431.63 

the entire standard for AHRI 1200–2023; 

AHRI 1320–2011; ASHRAE 72–2022 and 

ASHRAE 72–2022 Errata (the latter two 

collectively referenced as ASHRAE 72–2022 

with Errata). However, only enumerated 

provisions of AHRI 1200–2023 and AHRI 

1320–2011 are applicable to this appendix as 

follows: 

0.1. AHRI 1200–2023 

(a) Section 3, ‘‘Definitions,’’ as referenced 

in section 1.1 of this appendix. 

(b) Section 3.2.8, ‘‘Dew Point,’’ as 

referenced in section 2.2. of this appendix. 

(c) Section 3.2.20, ‘‘Total Display Area 

(TDA),’’ as referenced in section 3.2 of this 

appendix. 

(d) Section 4, ‘‘Test Requirements,’’ as 

referenced in section 1.1 of this appendix. 

(e) Section 4.1.1.1, ‘‘High Temperature 

Applications,’’ as referenced in section 2.1.4 

of this appendix. 

(f) Section 4.1.1.2, ‘‘Ice Cream 

Applications,’’ as referenced in section 2.1.1 

of this appendix. 

(g) Section 4.1.1.3, ‘‘Low Temperature 

Applications,’’ as referenced in section 2.1.2 

of this appendix. 

(h) Section 4.1.1.4, ‘‘Medium Temperature 

Applications,’’ as referenced in section 2.1.3 

of this appendix. 

(i) Section 5.1, ‘‘Rating Requirements for 

Remote Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets’’ as 

referenced in sections 1.1.2, 1.1.3, and 1.5.3.3 

of this appendix. 

(j) Section 5.2, ‘‘Rating Requirements for 

Self-Contained Commercial Refrigerated 

Display Merchandisers and Storage 

Cabinets,’’ as referenced in section 1.1.1 of 

this appendix. 

(k) Section 9, ‘‘Symbols and Subscripts,’’ as 

referenced in section 1.1 and 2.2 of this 

appendix. 

(l) Appendix C, ‘‘Commercial Refrigerated 

Display Merchandiser and Storage Cabinet 

Refrigerated Volume Calculation— 

Normative’’ as referenced in section 3.1 of 

this appendix. 

(m) Appendix D, ‘‘Commercial Refrigerated 

Display Merchandiser and Storage Cabinet 

Total Display Area (TDA) Calculation— 

Normative,’’ as referenced in section 3.2 of 

this appendix. 

0.2. AHRI 1320–2011 

(a) Sections 5.2.7 and 5.2.8 as referenced in 

section 1.1.3 of this appendix. 

(b) [Reserved]. 

1. Test Procedure 

1.1. Determination of Daily Energy 

Consumption. Determine the daily energy 

consumption of each covered commercial 

refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-freezer by 

conducting the test procedure set forth in 

AHRI 1200–2023, section 3, ‘‘Definitions,’’ 

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

9, ‘‘Symbols and Subscripts.’’ 

1.1.1. For each commercial refrigerator, 

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

1200–2023, section 5.2, ‘‘Rating 

Requirements for Self-Contained Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 

Storage Cabinets.’’ 

1.1.2. For each commercial refrigerator, 

freezer, or refrigerator-freezer with a remote 

condensing unit, also use AHRI 1200–2023, 

section 5.1, ‘‘Rating Requirements for Remote 

Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets.’’ 

1.1.3. For each commercial refrigerator, 

freezer, or refrigerator-freezer used with a 

secondary coolant, test according to section 

1.1.2 of this appendix, except in place of the 

equations for CDEC and CEC in sections 5.1.2 

and 5.1.2.1 of AHRI 1200–2023, respectively, 

apply the following equations: 

CDEC = CEC + [FEC + LEC + AEC + DEC + 

PEC]* + CPEC 

CEC = [(Qrt + QCP) · (t ¥ tdt)]/(EER · 1000) 

Where CPEC and QCP are as specified in 

sections 5.2.7 and 5.2.8 of AHRI 1320–2011 

and EER is determined based on a 

temperature that is 6.0 °F lower than the 

secondary coolant cabinet inlet temperature. 

1.2. Methodology for Determining 

Applicability of Transparent Door Equipment 

Families. To determine if a door for a given 

model of commercial refrigeration equipment 

is transparent: 

(a) Calculate the outer door surface area 

including frames and mullions; 

(b) calculate the transparent surface area 

within the outer door surface area excluding 

frames and mullions; 

(c) calculate the ratio of (2) to (1) for each 

of the outer doors; and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66226 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

(d) the ratio for the transparent surface area 

of all outer doors must be greater than 0.25 

to qualify as a transparent equipment family. 

1.3. Drawers. Drawers shall be treated as 

identical to doors when conducting the DOE 

test procedure. Commercial refrigeration 

equipment with drawers intended for use 

with pans shall be configured with stainless 

steel food service pans, installed in a 

configuration per the manufacturer’s 

instructions utilizing the maximum pan sizes 

specified. If the manufacturer does not 

specify the pan sizes, the maximum pan 

depth and pan volume allowed shall be used. 

For commercial refrigeration equipment with 

drawers intended for use with pans, the net 

usable volume includes only the interior 

volume of the pan(s) in the drawer. The net 

usable volume shall be measured by the 

amount of water needed to fill all the pan(s) 

to within 0.5 inches of the top rim, or 

determined by calculating the total volume of 

all pan(s) using the pan manufacturers’ 

published pan volume. For commercial 

refrigeration equipment with drawers not 

intended for pans, the net usable volume 

shall be equal to the total volume of the 

drawer to the top edge of the drawer. Test 

simulators shall be placed in commercial 

refrigeration equipment with drawers as 

follows: For each drawer, there shall be two 

test simulators placed at each of the 

following locations: at the left end, at the 

right end, and at consistent 24 inch to 48 

inch intervals across the width of the drawer 

(for drawers wider than 48 inches). For 

drawers with overall internal width of 48 

inches or less, only the left and right ends 

shall have test simulators. If test simulators 

are to be placed at a pan edge or divider, the 

test simulator shall be placed at the nearest 

adjacent location. For each drawer, one test 

simulator shall be placed on the bottom of 

the pan or drawer at each of the front and 

rear test simulator locations of the drawer. 

Test simulators shall be placed in contact 

with the drawer or pan end or ends unless 

load limiting stops are provided as part of the 

case. Test simulators shall be secured such 

that the test simulators do not move during 

the test. The net usable volume where test 

simulators are not required shall be filled 

with filler material so that between 60 

percent and 80 percent of the net usable 

volume is occupied by test simulators and 

uniformly occupied by filler material. 

1.4. Long-time Automatic Defrost. For 

commercial refrigeration equipment not 

capable of operating with defrost intervals of 

24 hours or less, testing may be conducted 

using a two-part test method. 

1.4.1. First Part of Test. The first part of the 

test shall be a 24-hour test starting in steadystate conditions and including eight hours of 

door opening (according to ASHRAE 72– 

2022 with Errata). The energy consumed in 

this test, ET1, shall be recorded. 

1.4.2. Second Part of Test. The second part 

of the test shall be a defrost cycle, including 

any operation associated with a defrost. The 

start and end of the test period be determined 

as the last time before and first time after a 

defrost occurrence when the measured 

average simulator temperature (i.e., the 

instantaneous average of all test simulator 

temperature measurements) is within 0.5 °F 

of the IAT as measured during the first part 

of the test. The energy consumed in this test, 

ET2, and duration, tDI, shall be recorded. 

1.4.3. Daily Energy Consumption. Based on 

the measured energy consumption in these 

two tests, the daily energy consumption 

(DEC) in kWh shall be calculated as: 

Where: 

DEC = daily energy consumption, in kWh; 

ET 1 = energy consumed during the first part 

of the test, in kWh; 

ET 2 = energy consumed during the second 

part of the test, in kWh; 

tNDI = normalized length of defrosting time 

per day, in minutes; 

tDI = length of time of defrosting test period, 

in minutes; 

tDC = minimum time between defrost 

occurrences, in days; and 

1440 = conversion factor, minutes per day. 

1.5. Customer Order Storage Cabinets. 

Customer order storage cabinets shall 

conduct door openings according to ASHRAE 

72–2022 with Errata, except that each door 

shall be opened to the fully open position for 

8 seconds, once every 2 hours, for 6 dooropening cycles. 

1.5.1. Ambient Compartments. For 

customer order storage cabinets that have at 

least one individual-secured compartment 

that is not capable of maintaining an 

integrated average temperature below the 

ambient dry-bulb temperature, the 

individual-secured compartment(s) at 

ambient dry-bulb temperature shall be 

categorized as a high-temperature refrigerator 

compartment for the purpose of testing and 

rating. All volume, total display area, and 

energy consumption calculations shall be 

included within the high-temperature 

refrigerator category and summed with other 

high-temperature refrigerator category 

compartment(s) calculations. 

1.5.2. Convertible Compartments. For 

customer order storage cabinets that have 

individual-secured compartments that are 

convertible between the ambient dry-bulb 

temperature and the ≥32 °F operating 

temperature, the convertible compartment 

shall be tested as a medium-temperature 

refrigerator compartment or at the lowest 

application product temperature as specified 

in section 2.2 of this appendix. 

1.5.3. Inverse Refrigeration Load Test. For 

customer order storage cabinets that supply 

refrigerant to multiple individual-secured 

compartments and that allow the suction 

pressure from the evaporator in each 

individual-secured compartment to float 

based on the temperature required to store 

the customer order in that individual-secured 

compartment, test according to section 1.1.2 

of this appendix, except that energy (heat) 

loss shall be allowed at a rate and DT 

equivalent to the energy gains of a standard 

refrigerated cabinet as specified in sections 

1.5.3.1–1.5.3.3 of this appendix. 

1.5.3.1. Anti-sweat door heaters. Antisweat door heaters shall be de-energized for 

the inverse refrigeration load test specified in 

section 1.5.3. of this appendix. 

1.5.3.2. Integrated Average Temperature. 

For medium-temperature refrigerator 

compartments, the integrated average 

temperature shall be 112.4 °F ±2.0 °F. For 

low-temperature freezer compartments, the 

integrated average temperature shall be 

150.4 °F ±2.0 °F. For ambient compartments, 

the integrated average temperature shall be 

75.4 °F ±2.0 °F. 

1.5.3.3. Daily Energy Consumption. 

Determine the calculated daily energy 

consumption (‘‘CDEC’’) and the EER based on 

AHRI 1200–2023, section 5.1, ‘‘Rating 

Requirements for Remote Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 

Storage Cabinets,’’ except that the 

compressor energy consumption (‘‘CEC’’) 

shall be calculated by applying the following 

equations: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER26SE23.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66227 

ML = Nd × (Ae + Am) 

Ae = [(Ha ¥ Hc) ¥ (Ht ¥ Ha)] × ma

Am = Cp,liner × Wliner × DTliner

Where: 

CEC = compressor energy consumption, kWh 

per day; 

Q = inverse refrigeration load (does not 

include waste heat from auxiliary 

components and moisture infiltration), 

in BTU per h; 

t = test duration, in h; 

ML = moisture load impacts, BTU per day; 

FEC = evaporator fan motor(s) energy 

consumption, Wh per day; 

AEC = anti-condensate heater(s) energy 

consumption, Wh per day; 

DEC = defrost heater(s) energy consumption, 

Wh per day; 

3.412 = conversion factor, BTU per Wh; 

EER = energy efficiency ratio, BTU per Wh; 

1000 = conversion factor, W per kW; 

Win = energy input measured over the test 

period for all energized components 

(heaters, controls, and fans) located in 

the refrigerated compartments, in Wh; 

Nd = number of door openings during test, 

unitless; 

Ae = enthalpy adjustment, BTU per day; 

Am = moisture/frost accumulation, BTU per 

day; 

Ha = ambient air enthalpy, BTU per pound; 

Hc = compartment air enthalpy based on air 

conditions during cold operation (e.g., 

0 °F dry bulb/¥20 °F dew point for 

freezer compartment, 38 °F dry bulb/ 

20 °F dew point for refrigerator 

compartment, 75 °F dry bulb/20 °F dew 

point for ambient compartment), BTU 

per pound; 

Ht = compartment air enthalpy during heat 

leak test based on dew point being equal 

to ambient air dew point, BTU per 

pound; 

ma = mass of compartment air exchanged 

(30% of total compartment volume) 

based density of air during cold 

operation, pounds; 

Cp,liner = specific heat of liner material, BTU 

per °F per pound; 

Wliner = weight of all liner parts, pounds; and 

DTliner = maximum temperature rise of all 

liner parts (e.g., 4.5 °F, 2.5 °F, and 1 °F for 

freezer, refrigerator, and ambient 

compartments, respectively), °F. 

2. Test Conditions 

2.1. Integrated Average Temperatures. 

Conduct the testing required in section 1 of 

this appendix, and determine the daily 

energy consumption at the applicable 

integrated average temperature as follows: 

2.1.1. Ice-Cream Freezers. Test ice-cream 

freezers and ice-cream freezer compartments 

to the integrated average temperature 

specified in section 4.1.1.2, ‘‘Ice Cream 

Applications,’’ of AHRI 1200–2023. 

2.1.2. Low-Temperature Freezers. Test lowtemperature freezers and low-temperature 

freezer compartments to the integrated 

average temperature specified in section 

4.1.1.3, ‘‘Low Temperature Applications,’’ of 

AHRI 1200–2023. 

2.1.3. Medium-Temperature Refrigerators. 

Test medium-temperature refrigerators and 

medium-temperature refrigerator 

compartments to the integrated average 

temperature specified in section 4.1.1.4, 

‘‘Medium Temperature Applications,’’ of 

AHRI 1200–2023. 

2.1.4. High-Temperature Refrigerators. Test 

high-temperature refrigerators and hightemperature refrigerator compartments to the 

integrated average temperature specified in 

section 4.1.1.1, ‘‘High Temperature 

Applications,’’ of AHRI 1200–2023. 

2.2. Lowest Application Product 

Temperature. If a unit of commercial 

refrigeration equipment is not able to be 

operated at the integrated average 

temperature specified in section 2.1 of this 

appendix, test the unit at the lowest 

application product temperature (LAPT), as 

defined in § 431.62. For units equipped with 

a thermostat, LAPT is the measured 

temperature at the lowest thermostat setting 

of the unit (for units that are only able to 

operate at temperatures above the specified 

test temperature) or the highest thermostat 

setting of the unit (for units that are only able 

to operate at temperatures below the 

specified test temperature). For remote 

condensing equipment without a thermostat 

or other means of controlling temperature at 

the case, the lowest application product 

temperature is measured at the temperature 

achieved with the dew point temperature (as 

defined in section 3.2.8, ‘‘Dew Point,’’ of 

AHRI 1200–2023) or mid-point evaporator 

temperature (as defined in section 9, 

‘‘Symbols and Subscripts,’’ of AHRI 1200– 

2023) set to 5 degrees colder than that 

required to maintain the manufacturer’s 

specified application temperature that is 

closest to the specified integrated average 

temperature. 

2.3. Testing at NSF Test Conditions. For 

commercial refrigeration equipment that is 

also tested in accordance with NSF test 

procedures (Type I and Type II), integrated 

average temperatures and ambient conditions 

used for NSF testing may be used in place 

of the DOE-prescribed integrated average 

temperatures and ambient conditions 

provided they result in a more stringent test. 

That is, the measured daily energy 

consumption of the same unit, when tested 

at the rating temperatures and/or ambient 

conditions specified in the DOE test 

procedure, must be lower than or equal to the 

measured daily energy consumption of the 

unit when tested with the rating 

temperatures or ambient conditions used for 

NSF testing. The integrated average 

temperature measured during the test may be 

lower than the range specified by the DOE 

applicable temperature specification 

provided in section 2.1 of this appendix, but 

may not exceed the upper value of the 

specified range. Ambient temperatures and/ 

or humidity values may be higher than those 

specified in the DOE test procedure. 

2.4. Liquid Refrigerant Pressure Required 

Accuracy. The liquid refrigerant pressure 

required accuracy is ±35 kPa (±5.1 psi). 

2.5 Commercial Refrigerator, Freezer, and 

Refrigerator-Freezer connected to a Direct 

Expansion Remote Condensing Unit with R– 

744. For commercial refrigerators, freezers, 

and refrigerator-freezers connected to a direct 

expansion remote condensing unit with R– 

744, instead of the liquid refrigerant 

measurements for direct-expansion remote 

units specified in appendix A to ASHRAE 

72–2022 with Errata, the liquid refrigerant 

measurements for direct-expansion remote 

units shall be: liquid refrigerant temperature 

shall be 30.0 °F with a tolerance for the 

average over test period of ±3.0 °F and a 

tolerance for the individual measurements of 

±5.0 °F; liquid refrigerant pressure shall be 

the saturated liquid pressure corresponding 

to a condensing temperature in the range of 

32.0 °F to 44.0 °F for the average over test 

period; and liquid refrigerant subcooling 

shall be greater than 2.0 °R for the average 

over test period. 

2.6 Chef Base or Griddle Stand Test 

Conditions. For chef bases or griddle stands, 

instead of the dry-bulb temperature, wet-bulb 

temperature, and radiant heat temperature 

specified in appendix A to ASHRAE 72–2022 

with Errata: dry-bulb temperature shall be 

86.0 °F with a tolerance for the average over 

test period of ±1.8 °F and a tolerance for the 

individual measurements of ±3.6 °F; wet-bulb 

temperature shall be 73.7 °F with a tolerance 

for the average over test period of ±1.8 °F and 

a tolerance for the individual measurements 

of ±3.6 °F; and radiant heat temperature shall 

be greater than or equal to 81.0 °F. 

3. Volume and Total Display Area 

3.1. Determination of Volume. Determine 

the volume of a commercial refrigerator, 

freezer, and refrigerator-freezer using the 

method set forth in AHRI 1200–2023, 

appendix C, ‘‘Commercial Refrigerated 

Display Merchandiser and Storage Cabinet 

Refrigerated Volume Calculation— 

Normative.’’ 

3.2. Determination of Total Display Area. 

Determine the total display area of a 

commercial refrigerator, freezer, and 

refrigerator-freezer using the method set forth 

in AHRI 1200–2023, section 3.2.20, ‘‘Total 

Display Area (TDA),’’ and appendix D, 

‘‘Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandiser and Storage Cabinet Total 

Display Area (TDA) Calculation— 

Normative.’’ 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2ER26SE23.006</GPH>
66228 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 11. Appendix C to subpart C of part 

431 is added to read as follows: 

Appendix C to Subpart C of Part 431— 

Uniform Test Method for the 

Measurement of Energy Consumption of 

Buffet Tables or Preparation Tables 

Note: On or after September 20, 2024, any 

representations, including for certification of 

compliance, made with respect to the energy 

use or efficiency of buffet tables or 

preparation tables must be made in 

accordance with the results of testing 

pursuant to this appendix. 

0. Incorporation by Reference 

DOE incorporated by reference in § 431.63 

the entire standard for AHRI 1200–2023, 

ASHRAE 72–2022, ASHRAE 72–2022 Errata 

(the latter two collectively referenced as 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata), and ASTM 

F2143–16. However, only enumerated 

provisions of those documents are applicable 

to this appendix as follows: 

0.1. AHRI 1200–2023 

(a) Section 3.2.17, ‘‘Refrigerated Volume 

(Vr),’’ as referenced in section 2.2 of this 

appendix. 

(b) Normative Appendix C, ‘‘Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandiser and 

Storage Cabinet Refrigerated Volume 

Calculation,’’ as referenced in section 2.2 of 

this appendix. 

0.2 ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata 

(a) Section 5.1, ‘‘Installation and Settings,’’ 

as referenced in section 1.3 of this appendix. 

(b) Section 5.2, ‘‘Wall or Vertical Partition 

Placement,’’ as referenced in section 1.3 of 

this appendix. 

(c) Section 5.3, ‘‘Components and 

Accessories,’’ as referenced in section 1.3 of 

this appendix. 

(d) Section 6.1, ‘‘Ambient Temperature and 

Humidity,’’ as referenced in section 1.2 of 

this appendix. 

(e) Section 7.1, ‘‘Sequence of Operations,’’ 

as referenced in section 1.5 of this appendix. 

(f) Section 7.2, ‘‘Preparation Period’’ 

(excluding sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2), as 

referenced in section 1.5 of this appendix. 

(g) Section 7.3, ‘‘Test Periods A and B’’ 

(excluding sections 7.3.1, 7.3.2, 7.3.3, and 

7.3.4), as referenced in sections 1.5 and 1.5.1 

of this appendix. 

(h) Section 7.4, ‘‘Test Alignment Period,’’ 

as referenced in section 1.5 of this appendix. 

(i) Section 7.5, ‘‘Determining Stability,’’ as 

referenced in sections 1.5 and 1.5.2 of this 

appendix. 

(j) Normative Appendix A, ‘‘Measurement 

Locations, Tolerances, Accuracies, and Other 

Characteristics,’’ (only the measured 

quantities specified in section 1.2 of this 

appendix) as referenced in sections 1.2 and 

1.5.3 of this appendix. 

0.3 ASTM F2143–16 

(a) Section 3, ‘‘Terminology,’’ as referenced 

in section 1.1 of this appendix. 

(b) Section 6.1, ‘‘Analytical Balance Scale,’’ 

as referenced in section 1.1 of this appendix. 

(c) Section 6.2, ‘‘Pans,’’ as referenced in 

section 1.1 of this appendix. 

(d) Section 7, ‘‘Reagents and Materials,’’ as 

referenced in section 1.1 of this appendix. 

(e) Section 9, ‘‘Preparation of Apparatus’’ 

(section 9.6 only), as referenced in sections 

1.1 and 1.4.2 of this appendix. 

(f) Section 10.1, ‘‘General’’ (section 10.1.1 

only), as referenced in sections 1.1 and 1.5.3 

of this appendix. 

(g) Section 10.2, ‘‘Pan Thermocouple 

Placement,’’ as referenced in section 1.1 of 

this appendix. 

(h) Section 10.5, ‘‘Test’’ (sections 10.5.5 

and 10.5.6 only), as referenced in sections 1.1 

and 1.5.1 of this appendix. 

(i) Section 11.4, ‘‘Energy Consumption’’ 

(section 11.4.1 only), as referenced in section 

1.1 of this appendix. 

(j) Section 11.5, ‘‘Production Capacity,’’ as 

referenced in sections 1.1 and 2.1 of this 

appendix. 

1. Test Procedure 

1.1. Determination of Daily Energy 

Consumption. Determine the daily energy 

consumption of each buffet table or 

preparation table with a self-contained 

condensing unit by conducting the test 

procedure set forth in ASTM F2143–16 

section 3, ‘‘Terminology,’’ section 6.1, 

‘‘Analytical Balance Scale,’’ section 6.2, 

‘‘Pans,’’ section 7, ‘‘Reagents and Materials,’’ 

section 9.6, ‘‘Preparation of Apparatus’’, 

section 10.1, ‘‘General’’ (section 10.1.1 only), 

section 10.2, ‘‘Pan Thermocouple 

Placement,’’ section 10.5, ‘‘Test’’ (sections 

10.5.5 and 10.5.6 only), section 11.4, ‘‘Energy 

Consumption’’ (section 11.4.1 only), and 

section 11.5, ‘‘Production Capacity,’’ with 

additional instructions as described in the 

following sections. 

1.2. Test Conditions. Ambient conditions 

and instrumentation for testing shall be as 

specified in the ‘‘Chamber conditions’’ and 

‘‘Electricity supply and consumption of unit 

under test and components metered 

separately’’ portions of appendix A to 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata and measured 

according to section 6.1 of ASHRAE 72–2022 

with Errata and the specifications in 

appendix A of ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata. 

The ‘‘highest point’’ of the buffet table or 

preparation table shall be determined as the 

highest point of the open-top refrigerated 

area of the buffet table or preparation table, 

without including the height of any lids or 

covers. The geometric center of the buffet 

table or preparation table is: for buffet tables 

or preparation tables without refrigerated 

compartments, the geometric center of the 

top surface of the open-top refrigerated area; 

and for buffet tables or preparation tables 

with refrigerated compartments, the 

geometric center of the door opening area for 

the refrigerated compartment. 

1.3. Test Setup. Install the buffet table or 

preparation table according to sections 5.1, 

5.2, and 5.3 of ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata. 

1.4. Test Load. 

1.4.1. Pan Loading. Fill pans with distilled 

water to within 0.5 in. of the top edge of the 

pan. For pans that are not configured in a 

horizontal orientation, only the lowest side of 

the pan is filled to within 0.5 in. of the top 

edge of the pan with distilled water. 

1.4.2. Refrigerated Compartments. Measure 

the temperature of any refrigerated 

compartment(s) as specified in section 9.6 of 

ASTM F2143–16. The thermocouples for 

measuring compartment air temperature shall 

be in thermal contact with the center of a 1.6- 

oz (45-g) cylindrical brass slug with a 

diameter and height of 0.75 in. The brass 

slugs shall be placed at least 0.5 in from any 

heat-conducting surface. 

1.5. Stabilization and Test Period. Prepare 

the unit for testing and conduct two test 

periods to determine stability according to 

sections 7.1 through 7.5 of ASHRAE 72–2022 

with Errata, excluding sections 7.2.1, 7.2.2, 

7.3.1, 7.3.2, 7.3.3, and 7.3.4. The preparation 

period under section 7.2 of ASHRAE 72– 

2022 with Errata includes loading the test 

unit pans with distilled water and adjusting 

the controls to maintain the desired 

performance. 

1.5.1. Test Periods A and B. Conduct two 

test periods, A and B, as specified in section 

7.3 of ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata 

(excluding sections 7.3.1, 7.3.2, 7.3.3, and 

7.3.4). The 24-hour test periods shall begin 

with an 8-hour active period as specified in 

section 10.5.5 of ASTM F2143–16. Following 

the active period, the remaining 16 hours of 

the test period shall be a standby period with 

the pans remaining in place, any pan covers 

in the closed position, and with no 

additional door openings. 

1.5.2. Stability. Average pan temperatures 

shall be used to determine stability, as 

specified in section 7.5 of ASHRAE 72–2022 

with Errata, rather than average test simulator 

temperatures. 

1.5.3. Data Recording. For each test period, 

record data as specified in section 10.1.1 of 

ASTM F2143–16, except record wet-bulb 

temperature rather than relative humidity. 

Rather than voltage, current, and power as 

specified in section 10.1.1 of ASTM F2143– 

16, record the electrical supply potential and 

frequency and energy consumption as 

specified in appendix A of ASHRAE 72–2022 

with Errata. 

1.6. Target Temperatures. 

1.6.1. Average Pan Temperature. The 

average of all pan temperature measurements 

during the test period shall be 38 °F ±2 °F. If 

the unit under test is not able to be operated 

at this average temperature range, test the 

unit at the lowest application product 

temperature (LAPT), as defined in § 431.62. 

For units equipped with a thermostat, LAPT 

is measured at the lowest thermostat setting 

of the unit (for units that are only able to 

operate at temperatures above the specified 

test temperature) or the highest thermostat 

setting of the unit (for units that are only able 

to operate at temperatures below the 

specified test temperature). 

1.6.2. Average Compartment Temperature. 

The average of all compartment temperature 

measurements during the test period shall be 

38 °F ±2 °F. If the unit under test is not 

capable of maintaining both average pan 

temperature and average compartment 

temperature within the specified range, the 

average compartment temperature shall be 

the average temperature necessary to 

maintain average pan temperature within the 

specified range. If the unit is tested at the 

LAPT for the average pan temperature, as 

described in section 1.6.1 of this appendix, 

the average compartment temperature is the 

average of all compartment temperature 

measurements at that control setting. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66229 

2. Capacity Metrics 

2.1. Pan Volume. Determine pan volume 

according to section 11.5 of ASTM F2143–16. 

2.2. Refrigerated Volume. Determine the 

volume of any refrigerated compartments 

according to section 3.2.17 and appendix C 

of AHRI 1200–2023. The refrigerated volume 

excludes the volume occupied by pans 

loaded in the open-top display area for 

testing. 

2.3. Pan Display Area. Determine the pan 

display area based on the total surface area 

of water in the test pans when filled to 

within 0.5 in. of the top edge of the pan, or 

for test pans that are not configured in a 

horizontal orientation, when the lowest side 

of the pan is filled to within 0.5 in. of the 

top edge of the pan with water. 

■ 12. Appendix D to subpart C of part 

431 is added to read as follows: 

Appendix D to Subpart C of Part 431— 

Uniform Test Method for the 

Measurement of Energy Consumption of 

Blast Chillers or Blast Freezers 

Note: On or after September 20, 2024, any 

representations, including for certification of 

compliance, made with respect to the energy 

use or efficiency of blast chillers or blast 

freezers must be made in accordance with the 

results of testing pursuant to this appendix. 

0. Incorporation by Reference 

DOE incorporated by reference in § 431.63 

the entire standard for AHRI 1200–2023, 

ASHRAE 72–2022, and ASHRAE 72–2022 

Errata (the latter two collectively referenced 

as ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata). However, 

only enumerated provisions of those 

documents are applicable to this appendix as 

follows: 

0.1 AHRI 1200–2023 

(a) Appendix C, ‘‘Commercial Refrigerated 

Display Merchandiser and Storage Cabinet 

Refrigerated Volume Calculation— 

Normative,’’ as referenced in section 1.1.1. of 

this appendix. 

(b) Reserved. 

0.2 ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata 

(a) Section 4, ‘‘Instruments,’’ as referenced 

in section 1.2 of this appendix. 

(b) Section 5, ‘‘Preparation of Unit Under 

Test’’ (except section 5.4, ‘‘Loading of Test 

Simulators and Filler Material’’), as 

referenced in section 1.2 of this appendix. 

(c) Section 6.1, ‘‘Ambient Temperature and 

Humidity,’’ as referenced in sections 1.2 and 

1.4 of this appendix. 

(d) Figure 6, ‘‘Location of Ambient 

Temperature Indicators,’’ as referenced in 

sections 1.2 and 1.4 of this appendix. 

(e) Normative Appendix A, ‘‘Measurement 

Locations, Tolerances, Accuracies, and Other 

Characteristics,’’ (only the measured 

quantities specified in section 1.2.1 of this 

appendix) as referenced in sections 1.2 and 

1.4 of this appendix. 

1. Test Procedures 

1.1. Scope. This section provides the test 

procedures for measuring the energy 

consumption in kilowatt-hours per pound 

(kWh/lb) for self-contained commercial blast 

chillers and blast freezers that have a 

refrigerated volume of up to 500 ft3. 

1.1.1. Determination of Refrigerated 

Volume. Determine the refrigerated volume 

of a self-contained commercial blast chiller 

or blast freezer using the method set forth in 

AHRI 1200–2023, appendix C, ‘‘Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandiser and 

Storage Cabinet Refrigerated Volume 

Calculation—Normative.’’ 

1.2. Determination of Energy Consumption. 

Determine the energy consumption of each 

covered blast chiller or blast freezer by 

conducting the test procedure set forth in 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata section 4, 

‘‘Instruments,’’ section 5, ‘‘Preparation of 

Unit Under Test’’ (except section 5.4, 

‘‘Loading of Test Simulators and Filler 

Material’’), section 6.1, ‘‘Ambient 

Temperature and Humidity,’’ Figure 6, 

‘‘Location of Ambient Temperature 

Indicators,’’ and normative appendix A, 

‘‘Measurement Locations, Tolerances, 

Accuracies, and Other Characteristics’’ (only 

the measured quantities specified in section 

1.2.1 of this appendix), as well as the 

requirements of this appendix. 

1.2.1. Measured Quantities in Normative 

Appendix A of ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Errata. The following measured quantities 

shall be in accordance with the specifications 

of normative appendix A of ASHRAE 72– 

2022 with Errata: dry bulb temperature 

(except for deviations specified in sections 

1.3 and 1.4 of this appendix), electrical 

supply frequency, electrical supply potential, 

energy consumed (except for deviations 

specified in section 1.3 of this appendix), 

extent of non-perforated surface beyond 

edges of unit under test, front clearance, rear 

or side clearance, and time measurements. 

1.2.2. Additional Specifications for 

ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata. The term 

‘‘refrigerator’’ used in ASHRAE 72–2022 with 

Errata shall instead refer to ‘‘blast chiller’’ or 

‘‘blast freezer,’’ as applicable. In section 5.3 

of ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata, the phrase 

‘‘all necessary components and accessories 

shall be installed prior to loading the storage 

and display areas with test simulators and 

filler material’’ shall be replaced with ‘‘all 

necessary components and accessories shall 

be installed prior to precooling the unit 

under test.’’ Section 5.3.5 shall also require 

that, prior to precooling the unit under test, 

the condensate pan shall be dry. 

1.3. Data Recording Measurement Intervals. 

Measurements shall be continuously 

recorded during the test in intervals no 

greater than 10 seconds. 

1.4. Test Conditions. The required test 

conditions shall have dry bulb temperature 

values according to Table D.1 when 

measured at point A in figure 6 of ASHRAE 

72–2022 with Errata and according to section 

6.1 of ASHRAE 72–2022 with Errata. 

TABLE D.1—TEST CONDITION VALUES AND TOLERANCES

Test condition Value Tolerance 

Dry Bulb .................................................................. 86.0 °F Average over test period: ±1.8 °F. 

Individual measurements: ±3.6 °F. 

1.5. Product Pan. The product pan shall be 

a 12 in. by 20 in. by 2.5 in., 22 gauge or 

heavier, and 300 series stainless steel pan. If 

the blast chiller or blast freezer is not capable 

of holding the 12 in. by 20 in. by 2.5 in. 

product pan dimensions, the manufacturer’s 

recommended pan size shall be used, 

conforming as closely as possible to the 12 

in. by 20 in. by 2.5 in. pan dimensions. 

1.6. Product Temperature Measurement. 

The product temperature shall be measured 

in the geometric center of the measured 

product pans using an unweighted 

thermocouple placed 5⁄8 of an in. above the 

bottom of the measured product pan. The 

thermocouple leads shall be secured to the 

bottom of the measured product pan while 

also allowing for the transfer of the measured 

product pan from the heating source into the 

blast chiller’s or blast freezer’s cabinet. 

1.7. Product Preparation. The product shall 

be made for each product pan and shall be 

loaded to 2 in. of product thickness (i.e., 

depth) within the product pan unless an 

additional product pan with a product 

thickness of less than 2 in. is needed to meet 

the product capacity determined in section 

2.1 of this appendix. A 20-percent-by-volume 

propylene glycol (1,2-Propanediol) mixture 

in water shall be prepared. In each product 

pan, pour the propylene glycol mixture over 

#20 mesh southern yellow pine sawdust to 

create a 22 percent to 78 percent by mass 

slurry. An example of an acceptable sawdust 

specification is the American Wood Fibers 

brand, #20 Mesh Pine Sawdust. Mix until the 

sawdust becomes completely saturated and 

leave uncovered in the product pan. Verify 

that the product pan thermocouple is fully 

submerged in the product mixture and 

reposition the product pan thermocouple to 

the requirements of section 1.6. of this 

appendix if the product pan thermocouple is 

incorrectly positioned after mixing. Each 

product pan shall be weighed before and 

after the food product simulator is added and 

prior to heating the product. The weight of 

the product shall not include the weight of 

the pans, thermocouples, or wires. A 

cumulative total of the product weight shall 

be calculated and the product pans shall 

continue to be loaded with the product 

mixture until the cumulative total reaches, 

but not exceeds, the product capacity 

determined in section 2.1 of this appendix 

with a tolerance of ±5 percent or ±2 pounds, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
66230 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 26, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

whichever is less. The cumulative total 

weight of product, the weight of product in 

each individual pan, and the number of pans 

shall be recorded. 

1.8. Product Pan Heating. Measured 

product pans shall be maintained at an 

average temperature of 160.0 °F ±1.8 °F and 

individual pan temperatures shall be 

maintained at 160 °F ±10 °F for a minimum 

of 8 hours prior to being loaded into the blast 

chiller or blast freezer. Non-measured 

product pans shall also be heated for a 

minimum of 8 hours prior to being loaded 

into the blast chiller or blast freezer and the 

non-measured product pans shall be placed 

in alternating positions with the measured 

product pans in the heating device. Data 

acquisition for the temperature of the 

measured product pans and time 

measurements shall begin to be recorded 

prior to the minimum of 8 hours heating 

period. 

1.9. Product Pan Distribution. The product 

pans shall be spaced evenly throughout each 

vertical column of rack positions in the blast 

chiller or blast freezer without the product 

pans touching any other product pans and 

without the product pans touching the top 

and the bottom of the blast chiller or blast 

freezer cabinet. For blast chillers or blast 

freezers that have an additional product pan 

with a product thickness of less than 2 in., 

the additional product pan shall be placed as 

close to the middle rack position as possible 

while maintaining an even distribution of all 

product pans. If not all rack positions are 

occupied by product pans, the product pan 

locations shall be recorded. 

1.10. Measured Product Pans. If multiple 

product pans are required per level of the 

blast chiller or blast freezer (i.e., product 

pans can be loaded side-by-side at the same 

level), only the product temperature of one 

product pan per level shall be measured and 

the product pans measured should alternate 

vertical columns of the blast chiller or blast 

freezer cabinet so that each vertical column 

does not have two measured product pans on 

sequential levels. If a blast chiller or blast 

freezer requires an additional product pan 

with a thickness less than 2 in., the 

additional product pan shall not be measured 

for product temperature. 

1.11. Stabilization. The blast chiller or 

blast freezer shall stabilize at the test 

conditions specified in section 1.4 of this 

appendix for at least 24 hours without 

operating. 

1.12. Pre-cool Cycle. Data acquisition for 

the test condition temperatures specified in 

section 1.4 of this appendix and time 

measurements shall begin to be recorded 

prior to the pre-cool cycle. The pre-cool cycle 

shall be initiated on a blast chiller or blast 

freezer once the stabilization specified in 

section 1.11 of this appendix is complete. 

The fastest pre-cool cycle shall be selected. 

The pre-cool cycle shall be complete when 

the blast chiller or blast freezer notifies the 

user that the pre-cool is complete. If the blast 

chiller or blast freezer does not notify the 

user that the pre-cool cycle is complete, the 

pre-cool cycle shall be deemed complete 

when the blast chiller or blast freezer reaches 

40 °F or 2 °F based on the blast chiller’s or 

blast freezer’s sensing probe for blast chillers 

and blast freezers, respectively. For blast 

chillers or blast freezers without any defined 

pre-cool cycles, the fastest blast chilling or 

blast freezing cycle shall be run with an 

empty cabinet until the blast chiller or blast 

freezer reaches 40 °F or 2 °F based on the 

blast chiller’s or blast freezer’s sensing probe. 

During the pre-cool cycle, the blast chiller’s 

or blast freezer’s sensing probe shall remain 

in its default or holstered position. The precool test data to be recorded are the test 

condition temperatures specified in section 

1.4 of this appendix, pre-cool cycle selected, 

pre-cool duration, and final pre-cool cabinet 

temperature based on the blast chiller’s or 

blast freezer’s sensing probe. 

1.13. Loading. The blast chiller or blast 

freezer door shall be fully open to an angle 

of not less than 75 °F for loading at 4.0 ±1.0 

minutes after the blast chiller or blast freezer 

completes the pre-cool cycle as specified in 

section 1.12 of this appendix. The door shall 

remain open to load all of the product pans 

for the entirety of the loading procedure. The 

door shall remain open for 20 seconds per 

roll-in rack and 15 seconds per product pan 

for roll-in and standard blast chillers or blast 

freezers, respectively. The total door open 

period shall have a tolerance of ±5 seconds. 

The blast chiller’s or blast freezer’s sensing 

probe shall be inserted into the geometric 

center of a product pan approximately 1 in. 

deep in the product mixture at the median 

pan level in the blast chiller or blast freezer. 

If the product pan at the median level is the 

additional product pan with less than 2 in. 

of product thickness, the closest product pan 

or product pan level that is farthest away 

from the evaporator fan shall be used to 

insert the blast chiller’s or blast freezer’s 

sensing probe. If the median pan level has 

capacity for multiple product pans, the 

probed product pan shall be the furthest 

away from the evaporator. The sensing probe 

shall not touch the bottom of the product pan 

or be exposed to the air. The location of the 

product pan with the sensing probe shall be 

recorded. The sensing probe shall be placed 

so that there is no interference with the 

product pan thermocouple. The product pan 

thermocouple wiring shall not affect the 

energy performance of the blast chiller or 

blast freezer. The door shall remain closed 

for the remainder of the test. 

1.14. Blast Chilling or Blast Freezing Cycle. 

Determine the blast chilling or blast freezing 

cycle that will conduct the most rapid 

product temperature pulldown that is 

designed for the densest food product, as 

stated in the blast chiller’s or blast freezer’s 

manufacturer literature. A blast chilling cycle 

shall have a target temperature of 38.0 °F and 

a blast freezing cycle shall have a target 

temperature of 0.0 °F. The test condition 

temperatures specified in section 1.4 of this 

appendix and the time measurements shall 

continue to be recorded from the pre-cool 

cycle. Measured product pan temperatures 

shall continue to be recorded from the 

minimum of 8-hour period of heating prior 

to the loading of the product pans into the 

blast chiller or blast freezer. Electrical supply 

frequency, electrical supply potential, and 

energy consumed shall start to be recorded as 

soon as the blast chiller or blast freezer door 

is opened to load the product pans. Once the 

blast chiller or blast freezer door is closed, 

the blast chilling cycle or blast freezing cycle 

shall be selected and initiated as soon as is 

practicable. The blast chilling cycle or blast 

freezing cycle selected shall be recorded. The 

blast chilling or blast freezing test period 

shall continue from the door opening until 

all individual measured pan temperatures are 

at or below 40.0 °F or 2.0 °F for blast chiller 

and blast freezer tests, respectively, 

regardless of whether the selected cycle 

program has terminated. If all individual 

measured pan temperatures do not reach 

40.0 °F or 2.0 °F for blast chiller and blast 

freezer tests, respectively, two hours after the 

selected cycle program has terminated, the 

test shall be repeated with the target 

temperature lowered by 1.0 °F until all 

individual measured pan temperatures are at 

or below 40.0 °F or 2.0 °F for blast chiller and 

blast freezer tests, respectively, at the 

conclusion of the test. The duration of the 

blast chiller or blast freezer test shall be 

recorded. 

1.15. Calculations. The measured energy 

consumption determined in section 1.14 of 

this appendix shall be reported in kilowatthours and shall be divided by the cumulative 

total weight of product determined in section 

1.7 of this appendix in pounds. 

2. Capacity Metric 

2.1. Product Capacity. Determine the 

product capacity by reviewing all 

manufacturer literature that is included with 

the blast chiller or blast freezer. The largest 

product capacity by weight that is stated in 

the manufacturer literature shall be the 

product capacity. If the blast chiller or blast 

freezer is able to operate as both a blast 

chiller and a blast freezer when set to 

different operating modes by the user and the 

manufacturer literature specifies different 

product capacities for blast chilling and blast 

freezing, the largest capacity by weight stated 

for the respective operating mode shall be the 

product capacity. If no product capacity is 

stated in the manufacturer literature, the 

product capacity shall be the product 

capacity that fills the maximum number of 12 

in. by 20 in. by 2.5 in. pans that can be 

loaded into the blast chiller or blast freezer 

according to section 1.7 of this appendix. If 

the blast chiller or blast freezer with no 

product capacity stated in the manufacturer 

literature is not capable of meeting the 

definition of a blast chiller or blast freezer 

according to § 431.62 upon testing according 

to section 1 of this appendix, one 12 in. by 

20 in. by 2.5 in. pan shall be removed from 

the blast chiller or blast freezer until the 

definition of a blast chiller or blast freezer is 

met according to § 431.62 when testing 

according to section 1 of this appendix. 

[FR Doc. 2023–19999 Filed 9–25–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2