10292 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–TP–0034] 

RIN 1904–AC40 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedure for Commercial 

Refrigeration Equipment 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

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

Department of Energy (DOE) is 

amending its test procedure for 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

(CRE), incorporating changes that will 

take effect 30 days after the final rule is 

published in the Federal Register. 

These changes will be mandatory for 

equipment testing to demonstrate 

compliance with the amended energy 

standards (Docket No. EERE–2010–BT– 

STD–0003). The amendments to the test 

procedure adopted in this final rule 

include updating references to industry 

test procedures to their current versions, 

incorporating methods to evaluate the 

energy impacts resulting from the use of 

night curtains and lighting occupancy 

sensors and controls, and allowing 

testing of certain commercial 

refrigeration equipment at the lowest 

temperature at which it is able to 

operate, referred to as its lowest 

application product temperature. In 

response to comments received in 

response to the relevant November 2010 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), 

and to minimize the testing burden on 

manufacturers, DOE is also 

incorporating provisions to allow 

manufacturers to test at the rating 

temperatures and ambient conditions 

required by NSF International (founded 

in 1944 as the National Sanitation 

Foundation, now referred to simply as 

NSF) for food safety testing. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

March 22, 2012. The final rule changes 

will be mandatory for equipment testing 

starting on the compliance date of any 

amended energy conservation standards 

promulgated as a result of the on-going 

energy conservation standard 

rulemaking for commercial refrigeration 

equipment (Docket No. EERE–2010–BT– 

STD–0003). Representations either in 

writing or in any broadcast 

advertisement with respect to energy 

consumption of commercial 

refrigeration equipment must also be 

made using the revised DOE test 

procedure beginning on that compliance 

date. 

The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in this final 

rule is approved by the Director of the 

Office of the Federal Register as of 

March 22, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: The docket is available for 

review at regulations.gov, including 

Federal Register notices, framework 

documents, public meeting attendee 

lists and transcripts, comments, and 

other supporting documents/materials. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

in the regulations.gov index. However, 

not all documents listed in the index 

may be publicly available, such as 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/

commercial/refrigeration_

equipment.html. This Web page will 

contain a link to the docket for this 

notice on the regulations.gov site. The 

regulations.gov Web page will contain 

simple instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. For further information 

on how to review the docket, contact 

Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 

or by email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Charles Llenza, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–2192. Email: 

Charles.Llenza@ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, GC–71, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–6111. 

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule incorporates by reference into Part 

431 the following industry standards: 

(1) Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard 

1200 (I–P)–2010, ‘‘2010 Standard for 

Performance Rating of Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 

Storage Cabinets,’’ and 

(2) Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM) Standard HRF– 

1–2008, ‘‘Energy and Internal Volume of 

Refrigerating Appliances (2008),’’ 

including Errata to Energy and Internal 

Volume of Refrigerating Appliances, 

Correction Sheet issued November 17, 

2009. 

Copies of AHRI standards may be 

purchased from the Air-Conditioning, 

Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, 

2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, 

VA 22201, 703–524–8800, or at 

www.ahrinet.org. 

Copies of AHAM standards may be 

purchased from the Association of 

Home Appliance Manufacturers, 1111 

19th Street, NW., Suite 402, 

Washington, DC 20036, 202–872–5955, 

or at www.aham.org. 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

C. Test Procedure Rulemaking 

Requirements and Impact on Energy 

Conservation Standards 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

III. Discussion 

A. Amendments to the Test Procedure 

1. Updated References to Industry Test 

Procedures to Their Most Current 

Versions 

2. Inclusion of a Method for Determining 

Reduced Energy Consumption Due to the 

Use of Night Curtains on Open Cases 

a. Representative Use 

b. Applicable Equipment 

c. Cost Effectiveness 

3. Inclusion of a Calculation for 

Determining Reduced Energy 

Consumption Due to Use of Lighting 

Occupancy Sensors or Controls 

a. Definition of Lighting Control and 

Lighting Occupancy Sensor 

b. Manual Controls 

c. Remote Lighting Controls 

d. Representative Energy Savings 

e. Optional Physical Test 

4. Inclusion of a Provision for Testing at 

Lowest Application Product 

Temperature 

a. Definition of Lowest Application 

Product Temperature 

b. Extension of Lowest Application 

Product Temperature Rating to All 

Equipment Classes and Rating 

Temperatures 

c. Energy Conservation Standard for 

Equipment Tested at the Lowest 

Application Product Temperature 

d. Remote Condensing Units and the 

Lowest Application Product 

Temperature 

5. Provisions Allowing Testing of 

Equipment at NSF Test Temperatures 

B. Other Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

Comments and DOE Responses 

1. Equipment Scope 

a. Remote Condensing Racks 

b. Testing of Part-Load Technologies at 

Variable Refrigeration Load 

2. Effective Date 

3. Preemption 

4. Burden of Testing 

a. Determination of Basic Models in the 

Context of Night Curtain and Lighting 

Occupancy Sensor and Scheduled 

Control Test Provisions 

b. Estimates of Burden 

c. Coordination With ENERGY STAR 

5. Association With Compliance, 

Certification, and Enforcement 

Regulations 

a. Test Tolerances 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 10293 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

2EPCA prescribes energy conservation standards 

for self-contained commercial refrigerators, freezers, 

and refrigerator-freezers with solid or transparent 

doors designed for holding temperature 

applications, as well as self-contained refrigerators 

with transparent doors designed for pull-down 

applications. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)–(3)) EPCA also 

requires DOE to develop standards for ice-cream 

freezers; self-contained commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers without doors; 

and remote condensing commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(c)(4)(A)) DOE conducted a rulemaking to 

establish standards for these equipment classes 

(2009 energy conservation standards rulemaking) 

and published a final rule on January 9, 2009 (the 

January 2009 final rule). 74 FR 1092. 

6. Alternative Refrigerants 

7. Secondary Coolant Systems 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

M. Congressional Notification 

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

Title III, Part C of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), 

Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6311– 

6317, as codified), added by Public Law 

95–619, title IV, section 441(a), 

established the Energy Conservation 

Program for Certain Industrial 

Equipment, a program covering certain 

industrial equipment, which includes 

commercial refrigerators, freezers, and 

refrigerator-freezers, the subject of this 

final rule.1

Under EPCA, this program consists 

essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) 

labeling; (3) Federal energy conservation 

standards 2; and (4) certification and 

enforcement procedures. The testing 

requirements consist of test procedures 

that manufacturers of covered 

equipment must use (1) as the basis for 

certifying to DOE that their equipment 

complies with the applicable energy 

conservation standards adopted under 

EPCA; and (2) for making 

representations about the efficiency of 

those pieces of equipment. Similarly, 

DOE must use these test requirements to 

determine whether the equipment 

complies with relevant standards 

promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6315(b), 6295(s), and 6316(a)) The 

current test procedure for commercial 

refrigeration equipment appears under 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part 431, subpart C. 

EPCA requires DOE to conduct an 

evaluation of each class of covered 

equipment at least once every 7 years to 

determine whether to, among other 

things, amend the test procedure for 

such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(1)(A)) This rulemaking fulfills 

DOE’s obligation under EPCA to 

evaluate the test procedure for 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

every 7 years. 

In addition, EPCA contains specific 

provisions relating to the test procedure 

for commercial refrigeration equipment. 

The test procedure for commercial 

refrigerators, freezers, and refrigeratorfreezers must be: (1) The test procedure 

determined to be generally accepted 

industry testing procedures; or (2) rating 

procedures developed or recognized by 

the American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) or by the 

American National Standards Institute 

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

EPCA also establishes the initial test 

procedure for self-contained 

refrigerators, freezers, and refrigeratorfreezers with doors. EPCA established 

the ASHRAE Standard 117 test 

procedure, ‘‘Method of Testing Closed 

Refrigerators,’’ (ASHRAE 117–2002) as 

the initial test procedure for commercial 

refrigeration equipment, which became 

effective on January 1, 2005. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(6)(A)(ii)) 

EPCA also establishes that if ASHRAE 

117 is amended, the Secretary of Energy 

(Secretary) must, by rule, amend the 

DOE test procedure to ensure 

consistency with the amended ASHRAE 

117 standard, unless a case can be 

made, through certain findings based on 

clear and convincing evidence, that the 

amended ASHRAE 117 does not meet 

the requirements for a test procedure set 

forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(E) 

and 6314(2)–(3)) In addition, EPCA 

states that if a test procedure other than 

ASHRAE 117 is approved by ANSI, the 

Secretary must review the relative 

strengths and weaknesses of such a new 

test procedure relative to the ASHRAE 

117 test procedure and, based on that 

review, determine whether to adopt the 

alternate test procedure as the DOE test 

procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(F)) 

B. Background 

ASHRAE amended ASHRAE 117– 

2002 and adopted ASHRAE Standard 

72–2005, ‘‘Method of Testing 

Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers,’’ 

in its place, which was approved by 

ANSI on July 29, 2005. During the 2006 

en masse test procedure rulemaking, 

which adopted the test procedures 

specifically established in EPACT 2005, 

DOE reviewed ASHRAE Standard 72– 

2005, as well as ARI Standard 1200– 

2006. 71 FR 71357 (Dec. 8, 2006). DOE 

determined that ARI Standard 1200– 

2006 references the test procedure in 

ASHRAE Standard 72–2005, as well as 

the rating temperatures prescribed in 

EPACT 2005 for certain types of 

commercial refrigerators and freezers. 

(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(B)(i)) As a result, 

on December 8, 2006, DOE published a 

final rule (December 2006 en masse test 

procedure final rule) that, among other 

things, adopted ANSI/Air-Conditioning 

and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) 

Standard 1200–2006, ‘‘2006 Standard 

for Performance Rating of Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 

Storage Cabinets,’’ (hereafter referenced 

as ARI Standard 1200–2006) as the 

referenced test procedure for measuring 

energy consumption for commercial 

refrigeration equipment. 71 FR 71370 

(Dec. 8, 2006); 10 CFR 431.63–64. ARI 

Standard 1200–2006 prescribes rating 

temperature specifications of 38 °F (±2 

°F) for commercial refrigerators and 

refrigerator compartments, 0 °F (±2 °F) 

for commercial freezers and freezer 

compartments, and ¥5 °F (±2 °F) for 

commercial ice-cream freezers. Even 

though ARI Standard 1200–2006 

specified a rating temperature for 

commercial ice-cream freezers, EPACT 

2005 did not specify a rating 

temperature or standards for 

commercial ice-cream freezers. During 

the 2006 test procedure rulemaking, 

DOE determined that testing at a ¥15 °F 

(±2 °F) rating temperature was more 

representative of the actual energy 

consumption of commercial freezers 

specifically designed for ice-cream 

application. 71 FR 71357 (Dec. 8, 2006). 

Therefore, in the December 2006 en 

masse test procedure final rule, DOE 

adopted a ¥15 °F (±2 °F) rating 

temperature for commercial ice-cream 

freezers, rather than the ¥5 °F (±2 °F) 

prescribed in the ARI Standard 1200– 

2006. Id. at 71357 (Dec. 8, 2006). In 

addition, as part of the 2006 en masse 

test procedure final rule, DOE adopted 

ANSI/AHAM Standard HRF–1–2004, 

‘‘Energy, Performance and Capacity of 

Household Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers and Freezers,’’ (hereafter 

referred to as AHAM HRF–1–2004) for 

measuring refrigerated compartment 

volumes for equipment covered under 

this rule. Id. at 71358 (Dec. 8, 2006). 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
10294 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

3Night curtains are devices made of an insulating 

material, typically insulated aluminum fabric, 

designed to be pulled down over the open front of 

the case (similar to the way a window shade 

operates) to decrease infiltration and heat transfer 

into the case when the merchandizing 

establishment is closed. 

4Lighting occupancy sensors are devices that 

automatically shut off or dim the lights in display 

cases when no motion is detected in the sensor’s 

coverage area for a certain preset period of time. 

Scheduled lighting control means a device which 

automatically shuts off or dims the lighting in a 

display case at preset scheduled times throughout 

the day. 

5 In the Framework document docket for 

commercial refrigeration equipment energy 

conservation standards, comments were identified 

using the following format based on when the 

comment was submitted in the rulemaking process. 

Section 1.1.XXX refers to Federal Register 

documents, section 1.2.XXX refers public meeting 

support documents, and 1.3.XXX refers to 

comments submitted by interested parties. This 

particular notation refers to a comment (1) by 

California Codes and Standards, (2) in document 

number 5 of the written comments submitted by 

interested parties, and (3) appearing on page 3. 

6A notation in this form provides a reference for 

information that is in the docket of DOE’s 

rulemaking to develop test procedures for 

commercial refrigeration equipment (Docket No. 

EERE–2010–BT–TP–0034), which is maintained at 

www.regulations.gov. This notation indicates that 

the statement preceding the reference is document 

number 19 in the docket for the commercial 

refrigeration equipment test procedure rulemaking, 

and appears at page 191 of that document. 

Approximately one year after the 

publication of the December 2006 en 

masse test procedure final rule, ARI 

merged with the Gas Appliance 

Manufacturers Association (GAMA) to 

form the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), and 

updated its test procedure, the most 

recent version of which is AHRI 

Standard 1200–2010, ‘‘2010 Standard 

for Performance Rating of Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 

Storage Cabinets,’’ (hereafter referenced 

as AHRI Standard 1200–2010), which 

was approved by ANSI on January 4, 

2011. AHRI Standard 1200–2010 

includes changes to (1) the equipment 

class nomenclature used in the test 

procedure, (2) the method of 

normalizing equipment energy 

consumption, (3) the ice-cream freezer 

test temperature, and (4) other minor 

clarifications. These changes aligned the 

AHRI test procedure with the 

nomenclature, rating temperatures, and 

normalization method used in DOE’s 

2009 energy conservation standards 

rulemaking for commercial refrigeration 

equipment. 74 FR 1092, 1093–96 (Jan. 9, 

2009). 

Similarly, AHAM updated Standard 

HRF–1–2004 to its most recent version, 

AHAM HRF–1–2008, ‘‘Energy and 

Internal Volume of Refrigerating 

Appliances.’’ The changes to this 

standard were mostly editorial and 

involved reorganizing some of the 

sections for greater simplicity and 

usability. As part of the reorganization, 

the sections of AHAM HRF–1–2004 that 

currently are referenced within the DOE 

test procedure, specifically section 3.21, 

‘‘Volume’’; sections 4.1 through 4.3, 

‘‘Method for Computing Total 

Refrigerated Volume and Total Shelf 

Area of Household Refrigerators and 

Household Wine Chillers’’; and sections 

5.1 through 5.3, ‘‘Method for Computing 

Total Refrigerated Volume and Total 

Shelf Area of Household Freezers’’; 

were reorganized and renumbered in the 

updated HRF–1–2008. However, the 

content of those sections was not 

changed substantially. The newly 

updated AHRI Standard 1200–2010 

references the most recent version of the 

AHAM standard, AHAM HRF–1–2008. 

As such, DOE is updating its test 

procedures to adopt AHRI Standard 

1200–2010 as the test procedure for 

commercial refrigeration equipment and 

AHAM HRF–1–2008 as the prescribed 

method for determining refrigerated 

compartment volume. 

DOE is also incorporating new test 

methods in the DOE test procedure to 

better address certain energy efficiency 

features applicable to CRE that cannot 

be accounted for by the current test 

procedure. During the advanced notice 

of proposed rulemaking phase of the 

2009 energy conservation standards 

rulemaking for commercial refrigeration 

equipment, DOE screened out several 

energy efficient technology options 

because their effects were not captured 

by the current test procedure. 72 FR 

41162, 41179–80 (July 26, 2007). In the 

amended test procedure described in 

this final rule, DOE is adopting 

modifications to its test procedure to 

better address some of these 

technologies. Specific changes include 

provisions for measuring the impact of 

night curtains 3 and lighting occupancy 

sensors and controls 4. 

On May 18, 2010, DOE held a public 

meeting (the May 2010 Framework 

public meeting) to discuss the 

rulemaking framework for the 

concurrent CRE energy conservation 

standards (Docket No. EERE–2010–BT– 

STD–0003). See 75 FR 24824 (May 6, 

2010). During the May 2010 Framework 

public meeting, DOE received 

comments from several interested 

parties that additional rating 

temperatures should be considered in 

the test procedure for certain types of 

specialized commercial refrigeration 

equipment. The commenters stated that 

some covered commercial refrigeration 

equipment designed for operation at 

higher temperatures is not able to be 

tested at the prescribed 38 °F, and they 

suggested that DOE consider this in both 

the test procedure and the standards 

rulemakings. (Docket No. EERE–2010– 

BT–STD–0003, California Codes and 

Standards, No. 1.3.005 5 at p. 3) For 

example, some equipment is designed 

for storing goods such as wine, candy, 

and flowers at temperatures that are 

held constant, but are higher than the 

temperatures typically used in 

commercial refrigerators for perishable 

food storage and merchandising. 

(Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–STD–0003, 

Structural Concepts, No. 1.2.006 at p. 

59) Consequently, in the NOPR DOE 

issued on November 24, 2010 to propose 

amendments to the test procedure for 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

(November 2010 NOPR), DOE proposed 

provisions for testing commercial 

refrigeration equipment that is designed 

to operate at temperatures higher than 

38 °F at the lowest integrated average 

product temperature the equipment can 

achieve, defined as the lowest possible 

application product temperature. 76 FR 

71596, 71605. On January 6, 2011, DOE 

held a public meeting (January 2011 

NOPR public meeting) to discuss the 

amendments proposed in the November 

2010 NOPR and to provide an 

opportunity for interested parties to 

comment (www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/ 

commercial/pdfs/ 

fr_cre_nopr_11_24_2010.pdf). At the 

January 2011 NOPR public meeting, 

DOE received further comments from 

interested parties that the proposed 

provisions for testing equipment at the 

lowest application product temperature 

should be expanded to include freezers 

and ice-cream freezers. As an example, 

interested parties pointed out that ice 

storage units are designed to operate at 

20 °F. Equipment that operates at 20 °F 

would fall into the freezer temperature 

category, but interested parties claim 

that this specific type of equipment 

cannot operate at 0 °F, which is the 

prescribed rating temperature for 

freezers in the current test procedure. 

(True, No. 19 at p. 191 6; Hussmann, No. 

19 at pp. 192–93; Traulsen, No. 19 at p. 

194) In response to these comments, 

DOE is incorporating a provision in this 

final rule permitting testing any 

equipment that cannot be tested at the 

prescribed rating temperature to be 

tested at the ‘‘lowest application 

product temperature.’’ 

C. Test Procedure Rulemaking 

Requirements and Impact on Energy 

Conservation Standards 

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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 10295 

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

Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers.’’ Ann 

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

food_equipment/standards.asp. 

8Hereafter, any reference in this document to the 

current or existing DOE test procedure will refer to 

the test procedure for commercial refrigeration 

equipment established by the 2006 en masse test 

procedure final rule. 71 FR 71370 (Dec 8, 2006). 

EPCA requires that the test procedures 

promulgated by DOE be reasonably 

designed to produce test results that 

reflect energy efficiency, energy use, 

and estimated operating costs of the 

covered equipment during a 

representative average use cycle. EPCA 

also requires that the test procedure not 

be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) In addition, if DOE 

determines that a test procedure 

amendment is warranted, it must 

publish proposed test procedures and 

offer the public an opportunity to 

present oral and written comments on 

any amendment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)(1)– 

(2)) 

EPCA also prescribes that if any 

rulemaking amends a test procedure, 

DOE must determine to what extent, if 

any, the proposed test procedure would 

alter the measured energy efficiency of 

any covered equipment as determined 

under the existing test procedure. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(e)(1) and 6314(a)(6)) 

Further, if DOE determines that the 

amended test procedure would alter the 

measured efficiency of covered 

equipment, DOE must amend the 

applicable energy conservation standard 

accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2) and 

6314(a)(6)) DOE recognizes that the test 

procedure amendments adopted in this 

final rule will affect the measured 

energy use of some commercial 

refrigeration equipment. However, DOE 

is currently considering amendments to 

the existing Federal energy conservation 

standards for commercial refrigeration 

equipment in a concurrent rulemaking, 

(Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–STD– 

0003). DOE will use the test procedure 

amendments adopted in this final rule 

as the basis for standards development 

in the concurrent energy conservation 

standards rulemaking. 

Today’s rule also fulfills DOE’s 

obligation to periodically review its test 

procedures under 42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(1)(A). DOE anticipates that its 

next evaluation of this test procedure 

will occur in a manner consistent with 

the timeline set out in this provision. 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

DOE is modifying its test procedure 

for commercial refrigeration equipment 

to incorporate current industry-accepted 

test procedures, address certain energy 

efficiency features that are not 

accounted for in the current test 

procedure (i.e., night curtains and light 

occupancy sensors and controls), and 

allow testing of commercial refrigeration 

equipment at temperatures other than 

one of the three currently specified 

rating temperatures. Specifically, this 

test procedure final rule permits testing 

of commercial refrigeration equipment 

at the lowest application product 

temperature. This final rule also allows 

manufacturers to test equipment at the 

test conditions prescribed by NSF/ 

ANSI–7, ‘‘Commercial Refrigerators and 

Freezers’’ (hereafter referred to as NSF– 

7), a food safety standard issued by 

NSF.7 The NSF–7 test conditions 

represent more stringent rating 

temperatures and ambient conditions 

than the DOE test procedure conditions 

and are required by NSF for food safety 

testing of certain commercial 

refrigeration equipment. These test 

procedure amendments alter the 

measured energy efficiency of some 

covered equipment. As such, DOE is 

establishing in this final rule that use of 

the amended test procedure for 

compliance with DOE energy 

conservation standards or 

representations with respect to energy 

consumption of commercial 

refrigeration equipment is required on 

the compliance date of any revised 

energy conservation standards, which 

are being considered in a concurrent 

rulemaking (Docket No. EERE–2010– 

BT–STD–0003). DOE has added 

language to the final test procedure 

amendments to clarify that 

manufacturers are required to use the 

amended test procedure to demonstrate 

compliance with DOE’s energy 

conservation standards, and for labeling 

or other representations as to the energy 

consumption of any covered equipment, 

beginning on the compliance date of any 

final rule establishing amended energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

refrigeration equipment. Prior to the 

compliance date of this final rule, 

manufacturers will continue to use the 

existing DOE test procedure established 

by the 2006 en masse test procedure 

final rule (71 FR 71370 (Dec. 8, 2006)),8

and set forth at 10 CFR 431.64, to show 

compliance with existing DOE energy 

conservation standards and for 

representations concerning the energy 

consumption of covered equipment. 

In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE 

proposed amendments to the existing 

test procedure for commercial 

refrigeration equipment. 76 FR 71596 

(Nov. 24, 2010). DOE held a public 

meeting on January 6, 2011 to present 

the amendments proposed in the 

November 2010 NOPR and received 

comments from interested parties. DOE 

analyzed the comments received as a 

result of the January 2011 NOPR public 

meeting and incorporated 

recommendations, where appropriate, 

into this test procedure final rule. The 

specific test procedure amendments and 

responses to all comments DOE received 

as a result of the November 2010 NOPR 

are presented in section III, 

‘‘Discussion.’’ 

III. Discussion 

Section III.A presents all of the 

revisions to the DOE test procedure 

found at 10 CFR part 431, subpart C, 

‘‘Uniform test method for measuring the 

energy consumption of commercial 

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

and discusses the comments received on 

these topics during the January 2011 

NOPR public meeting and the 

associated comment period. These 

revisions include the following: 

1. Updated references to industry test 

procedures to their most current 

versions; 

2. Inclusion of a method for 

determining energy savings due to the 

use of night curtains on open cases; 

3. Inclusion of a calculation for 

determining energy savings due to use 

of lighting occupancy sensors or 

controls; 

4. Inclusion of a provision for testing 

at lowest application product 

temperature; and 

5. Provisions allowing testing of 

equipment at NSF test temperatures. 

At the January 2011 NOPR public 

meeting and in subsequent written form, 

DOE received many comments from 

stakeholders that did not pertain to a 

specific test procedure amendment. In 

section III.B, DOE provides responses to 

comments pertaining to the following 

subject areas: 

1. Equipment scope; 

2. Effective date; 

3. Preemption; 

4. Burden of testing; 

5. Alternative refrigerants; and 

6. Secondary coolant systems. 

A. Amendments to the Test Procedure 

Today’s final rule incorporates the 

following changes to the test procedure 

for commercial refrigeration equipment 

in 10 CFR part 431, subpart C. 

1. Updated References to Industry Test 

Procedures to Their Most Current 

Versions 

In this final rule, DOE is updating the 

industry test procedures referenced in 

the DOE test procedure for commercial 

refrigeration equipment to their most 

current versions, namely AHRI Standard 

1200–2010 and AHAM Standard HRF– 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
10296 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

9Southern California Edison, Refrigeration and 

Technology and Test Center, Energy Efficiency 

Division. Effects of the Low Emissivity Shields on 

Performance and Power Use of a Refrigerated 

Display Case. August 1997. Irwindale, CA. 

www.econofrost.com/acrobat/sce_report_long.pdf. 

1–2008. The current DOE test procedure 

for commercial refrigeration equipment, 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 8, 2006, adopted ARI 

Standard 1200–2006, with additional 

provisions for testing ice-cream freezers 

at ¥15 °F, as the test procedure used to 

establish compliance with the 

applicable energy conservation 

standard. 71 FR 71340, 71356–58. Since 

the publication of the December 2006 en 

masse test procedure final rule, AHRI 

has released an updated version of its 

test procedure, AHRI Standard 1200– 

2010. The updated test procedure 

includes both editorial and technical 

changes to (1) the equipment class 

nomenclature used within the test 

procedure; (2) the integrated average 

rating temperature for ice-cream 

freezers; and (3) the method of 

normalizing and reporting units for 

equipment energy consumption. These 

changes align the AHRI test procedure 

with the nomenclature and method 

adopted by DOE in the January 2009 

final rule. 74 FR 1092 (Jan. 9, 2009); 10 

CFR 431.66. AHRI Standard 1200–2010 

is also the test procedure currently used 

in the commercial refrigeration 

industry. In the November 2010 NOPR, 

DOE proposed to incorporate by 

reference AHRI 1200–2010 in the DOE 

test procedure. 75 FR 71602 (Nov. 24, 

2010). 

The current DOE test procedure also 

references AHAM HRF–1–2004 as the 

protocol for determining refrigerated 

compartment volume. AHAM has also 

updated its Standard HRF–1–2004 to 

newer version AHAM HRF–1–2008, 

which makes editorial changes 

including reorganizing some sections for 

greater simplicity and usability. AHRI 

1200–2010 also references AHAM HRF– 

1–2008. For consistency, in the 

November 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed 

to incorporate by reference the more 

recent AHAM HRF–1–2008 in the test 

procedure for measuring refrigerated 

compartment volume. 75 FR 71602 

(Nov. 24, 2010). 

In commenting on the November 2010 

NOPR, AHRI, the American Council for 

an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), 

and the Northwest Energy Efficiency 

Alliance (NEEA) all supported DOE’s 

proposals. (AHRI, No. 15 at p. 2; ACEEE, 

No. 12 at p. 2; NEEA, No. 8 at p. 3) DOE 

did not receive any dissenting 

comments. DOE believes AHRI 1200– 

2010 and AHAM Standard HRF–1–2008 

are the most up-to-date and commonly 

used test procedures for commercial 

refrigeration in the industry. DOE agrees 

with interested parties that these test 

procedures are appropriate to 

characterize the energy consumption of 

all commercial refrigeration equipment 

included within the scope of this 

rulemaking. Thus, in this final rule, 

DOE is updating the industry test 

procedures referenced in the DOE test 

procedure for commercial refrigeration 

equipment to their most current 

versions, AHRI Standard 1200–2010 and 

AHAM Standard HRF–1–2008. 

2. Inclusion of a Method for 

Determining Reduced Energy 

Consumption Due to the Use of Night 

Curtains on Open Cases 

DOE’s current test procedure does not 

account for potential decreased energy 

consumption resulting from the use of 

night curtains on commercial 

refrigeration equipment. Night curtains 

are devices made of an insulating 

material, typically insulated aluminum 

fabric, designed to be pulled down over 

the open front of the case (similar to the 

way a window shade operates) when the 

merchandizing establishment is either 

closed or the customer traffic is 

significantly decreased. The insulating 

shield, or night curtain, decreases 

infiltration by preventing the mixing of 

the cool air inside the case with the 

relatively warm, humid air in the store 

interior. It also reduces conductive and 

radiative heat transfer into the case. 

Night curtains reduce compressor loads 

and defrost cycles, which can decrease 

the total energy use of the commercial 

refrigeration equipment. A 1997 study 

by the Southern California Edison 

Refrigeration Technology and Test 

Center found that, when used for 6 

hours per day, night curtains reduce 

total energy use of the case by 

approximately 8 percent.9

In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE 

proposed adopting a standardized 

physical test method to allow 

manufacturers to account for the 

possible energy reduction associated 

with night curtains installed on open 

cases. DOE chose a physical test because 

it accurately captures differences in 

energy consumption as a function of 

similar technologies and case 

dimensions. 75 FR 71602–03 (Nov. 24, 

2010). It is important to capture the 

different impacts on energy 

consumption among different night 

curtain designs because of the 

significant performance disparities that 

can exist. For example, night curtains 

made of low-emissivity materials, such 

as aluminum, decrease the radiative 

losses from the case and therefore are 

much more effective at reducing heat 

loss than night curtains made of plastic, 

linoleum, or other non-reflective 

materials. In addition, each night 

curtain may reduce energy consumption 

differently, depending on its particular 

insulating characteristics and design. 

Case dimensions, air curtain 

performance, and base infiltration load 

also impact night curtain performance. 

A physical test also accurately captures 

differences in the energy conservation 

performance of night curtains as a 

function of case dimension or night 

curtain design. 

In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE 

proposed using a physical test method 

similar to section 7.2 in ASHRAE 

Standard 72–2005, ‘‘Door-Opening 

Requirements,’’ which reads as follows: 

Night Curtain Requirements. For open 

display cases sold with night curtains 

installed, the night curtain shall be employed 

according to manufacturer instructions for a 

total of 6 hours, 3 hours after the start of a 

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. 

DOE further clarified that the test 

procedure for night curtains would, if 

adopted, apply only to cases sold with 

night curtains installed. 75 FR 71602–03 

(Nov. 24, 2010). Following publication 

of the November 2010 NOPR, DOE 

received comments regarding the 

representative use of night curtains, the 

types of cases on which night curtains 

can be used, and the cost effectiveness 

of night curtains. These comments and 

DOE’s responses are presented in the 

following sections. 

a. Representative Use 

While interested parties generally 

agreed with the proposed test procedure 

for night curtains, some interested 

parties expressed concerns regarding the 

way in which night curtains would be 

treated in the standards analysis, 

including the concern that the potential 

treatment might not be representative of 

actual use. Zero Zone stated that, while 

it agreed with the proposed test method 

for night curtains, it did not believe that 

night curtains should be allowed to be 

used to reduce measured energy 

consumption in the DOE test procedure 

because installing them does not 

necessarily mean that end users will 

deploy them. In addition, Zero Zone 

stated that 24-hour stores cannot use 

night curtains, and that night curtains 

may have a short lifetime. (Zero Zone, 

No. 16 at p. 1) AHRI supported 

providing a method to account for the 

reduced energy consumption of night 

curtains, but questioned the origin of 

DOE’s 6-hour assumption. (AHRI, No. 

19 at pp. 72–73) Earthjustice stated that, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 10297 

10Southern California Edison, Refrigeration and 

Technology and Test Center, Energy Efficiency 

Division. Effects of the Low Emissivity Shields on 

Performance and Power Use of a Refrigerated 

Display Case. August 1997. Irwindale, CA. 

www.econofrost.com/acrobat/sce_report_long.pdf. 

11Faramarzi, R. and Woodworth-Szieper, M. 

Effects of Low-E Shields on the Performance and 

Power Use of a Refrigerated Display Case. ASHRAE 

Transactions. 1999. 105(1). 

12Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. Query of 

Database of GrocerySmart Data. Portland, OR. 

Received October 18, 2011. Last viewed July 23, 

2011. 

in accordance with the provisions of 

EPCA, which guide DOE’s development 

of test procedures and call for the test 

procedures to reflect ‘‘representative 

use,’’ DOE should account for the 

inapplicability of night curtains to 

24-hour retailers; the likelihood of end 

users actually deploying night curtains; 

and the relative lifetime of night 

curtains and likelihood of users 

replacing broken ones. Earthjustice 

added that, while CRE lifetimes span 

10 to 15 years according to DOE’s own 

figures, research has estimated a 7-year 

lifetime for night curtains. (Earthjustice, 

No. 11 at p. 1) California Codes and 

Standards agreed that night curtains 

have significantly shorter lifetimes than 

most of the other components that 

comprise an open display case, and 

suggested that any credit given to night 

curtains should be discounted because 

their effective life is short. (California 

Codes and Standards, No. 13 at p. 3) 

The Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC) agreed with DOE’s proposal, but 

reiterated Earthjustice’s concern that 

night curtains are not reliably used in 

the field and have shorter lifetimes than 

the refrigerated cases. (NRDC, No. 14 at 

p. 2) ACEEE recommended that DOE 

base its treatment of night curtains on 

underlying data that present a realistic 

estimate of actual patterns of field use, 

the fraction of users who actually 

employ them, and the relative lifetimes 

of these features. (ACEEE, No. 12 at p. 

4) California Codes and Standards 

expressed concern that DOE’s treatment 

of night curtains might not be 

representative of actual in-field usage 

and thus might overstate the savings 

derived from night curtains. Such use, 

the comment stated, is dependent both 

on the specific application and on 

human (employee) behavior. (California 

Codes and Standards, No. 13 at pp. 2– 

3) NEEA commented that it believes the 

use of night curtains for compliance 

testing could grant too much credit to a 

feature that has questionable in-field 

value, which would undermine the 

statutory requirement that the test 

procedure reasonably approximate 

actual use. In addition, NEEA 

commented that night curtains would 

have negligible impacts during periods 

of peak demand, and that if 

manufacturers preferred night curtains 

to features that would reduce energy 

consumption during peak demand 

periods, the incorporation of night 

curtains would not be advantageous. 

Because of this, NEEA agreed with 

DOE’s proposed 6-hour cycle of use for 

night curtains in the test procedure 

when a case is tested with night curtains 

because it is more conservative than an 

8-hour cycle. (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 4) 

In response to interested parties’ 

comments that the intended use of a 

night curtain does not necessarily 

represent actual use in the field, DOE 

acknowledges that actual use of night 

curtains may be variable in the field. 

However, night curtains are an available 

technology for reducing energy 

consumption in commercial 

refrigeration equipment, and DOE 

believes that including night curtains in 

its test procedure provides 

manufacturers with a mechanism for 

estimating the energy consumption 

impacts of this technology and provides 

a more accurate representation of how 

those units may operate when installed. 

The test procedure adopted in this final 

rule is consistent across all cases sold 

with night curtains, regardless of their 

anticipated use. With regard to 

Earthjustice’s concern with respect to 

the use of night curtains in 24-hour 

stores, DOE is not mandating the use of 

night curtains, but rather is simply 

accounting for the use of night curtains 

in the 24-hour test procedure. In 

addition, DOE notes that night curtains 

may in fact be used in 24-hour stores 

during periods of low use, although 

DOE concedes that this is less common. 

In response to AHRI’s question 

regarding why DOE proposed 6 hours as 

the time period for night curtains to be 

implemented, DOE believes that 6 hours 

conservatively represents the amount of 

time a night curtain would be drawn in 

a typical, non-24-hour store, when 

accounting for stocking and the fact that 

not all night curtains can be deployed 

at once. In addition, 6 hours is 

consistent with all field data and studies 

that DOE has identified.10 11 12

In response to the comments 

regarding the expected life of a night 

curtain, DOE understands that a night 

curtain may have a shorter life than a 

display case. However, DOE accounts 

for repair and replacement costs in the 

energy conservation standards analyses 

and believes these issues are better 

addressed in that rulemaking. DOE 

believes a 6-hour period of use 

adequately represents the anticipated 

use of a night curtain, while DOE is also 

cognizant of potential reductions in 

energy savings due to application and 

field use issues. DOE will discuss 

treatment of night curtains further in the 

associated energy conservation 

standards rulemaking and its impact on 

the energy use of commercial 

refrigeration equipment (Docket No. 

EERE–2010–BT–STD–0003). 

b. Applicable Equipment 

Southern Store Fixtures stated that 

night curtains can only be practicably 

used on vertical open display cases, and 

further clarified that on semi-vertical 

display cases the night curtain can 

interfere with the air flow in the case. 

(Southern Store Fixtures, No. 19 at p. 

135) True Manufacturing (True) 

responded that semi-vertical night 

curtains do exist. (True, No. 19 at p. 

137) Southern Store Fixtures also 

commented that an air curtain, which 

blows air across the front of an open 

case to reduce infiltration, can be 

temporarily used to reduce infiltration 

and heat loss to the case, and inquired 

whether an air curtain would meet 

DOE’s proposed definition of a night 

curtain. (Southern Store Fixtures, No. 19 

at p. 136) NEEA supported DOE’s 

proposed definition of night curtain, 

provided the definition would be 

applied only to open cases of all sorts. 

NEEA also stated that, while it is not 

opposed to the inclusion of air curtains 

in the definition of ‘‘night curtain,’’ it 

has seen no data to show that air 

curtains are used to reduce infiltration 

and heat loss or that they would save 

energy. However, NEEA saw no reason 

to exclude air curtains from the 

definition of night curtain. (NEEA, No. 

8 at pp. 3–4) 

Zero Zone requested clarification 

regarding whether the night curtain 

provision could be applied to cases with 

doors that also have night curtains 

installed (Zero Zone, No. 19 at p. 145), 

and offered that night curtains could 

provide benefits for doored cases. (Zero 

Zone, No. 16 at p. 1) True stated that it 

had seen night curtains implemented on 

doored cases and that this does save a 

minimal amount of energy, but that 

these minor savings did not justify 

consideration of night curtains in the 

DOE test procedure. (True, No. 19 at pp. 

146–47) Zero Zone commented that 

DOE proposed in the test procedure 

NOPR that automatic controls be 

required on lighting in order to meet 

DOE’s proposed definition of ‘‘lighting 

occupancy sensor’’ or ‘‘lighting 

control.’’ Given this proposal, Zero Zone 

questioned why automatic night 

curtains would not then be required to 

meet DOE’s definition of ‘‘night 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
10298 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

13 ‘‘75/55 rating condition’’ describes the standard 

ambient temperature and relative humidity 

requirements for testing commercial refrigeration 

equipment in the DOE test procedure. Specifically, 

the DOE test procedure requires equipment be 

tested at 75 °F and 55 percent relative humidity. 

14Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 

6—‘‘Efficiency Standards for Residential and 

Nonresidential Buildings.’’ April 23, 2008. 

15California Utilities Statewide Codes and 

Standards Team. Working Draft Measure 

Information Template Supermarket Refrigeration: 

2013 California Building Energy Efficiency 

Standards. April 2011. www.energy.ca.gov/title24/ 

2013standards/prerulemaking/documents/2011-04- 

18_workshop/review/2013_CASE_

NR15_Commercial_Refrigeration_working

_draft_4.13.2011.pdf. 

16 DOE’s Solid State Lighting (SSL) Technology 

Demonstration GATEWAY program features highperformance SSL products for general illumination 

in a variety of exterior and interior applications. 

Eligible products are installed at demonstration 

host sites, where their performance can be 

evaluated. Performance measures include energy 

consumption, light output/distribution, and 

installation/interface/control issues. Qualitative 

performance is investigated via feedback surveys of 

the relevant user communities. More information 

on the program is available at 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/ 

gatewaydemos.html. 

17U.S. Department of Energy. Demonstration 

Assessment of Light-Emitting Diode (LED) Freezer 

Case Lighting. October 2009. Prepared by Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory for the U.S. DOE 

Solid State Lighting Technology Demonstration 

GATEWAY Program. Washington, DC. http:// 

apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ 

ssl/gateway_freezer-case.pdf. 

curtain.’’ (Zero Zone, No. 16 at p. 1) 

Southern Store Fixtures commented that 

the provision for starting the night 

curtain test 3 hours after a defrost 

period creates a problem for cases that 

are on a timed defrost and scheduled to 

defrost every 2 hours. (Southern Store 

Fixtures, No. 19 at p. 142) Southern 

Store Fixtures added that defrost occurs 

more frequently for some open cases. In 

response to Southern Store Fixtures, 

ACEEE stated that, if the 75/55 rating 

condition 13 does not cause frost 

accumulation sufficient to require 

defrost after 3 hours, it would oppose 

any special consideration for equipment 

without adaptive defrost. The test 

procedure, ACEEE commented, should 

not shelter legacy technologies when 

more modern alternatives are available. 

(ACEEE, No. 12 at pp. 5–6) 

In response to interested parties’ 

comments on the use of night curtains 

on doored cases, it is DOE’s 

understanding that night curtains can be 

applied to all types of open cases 

(vertical, semi-vertical, and horizontal) 

and that night curtains are most 

effective and commonly used on open 

cases, rather than on doored cases. DOE 

was not able to identify any publicly 

available data regarding the use of night 

curtains on doored cases. Lacking a 

sound technical basis for including 

night curtains on doored cases, DOE is 

hesitant to expand the definition of 

night curtain to explicitly include 

doored cases at this time. DOE also 

agrees with True in that use of night 

curtains on doored cases will not 

significantly impact the daily energy 

consumption of the display case as 

measured by the DOE test procedure. 

Therefore, DOE is not extending the 

night curtain test procedure to include 

night curtain testing on cases with doors 

in this final rule. DOE will continue to 

monitor the prevalence and energy 

saving potential of these technologies in 

the market and may address them in a 

future rulemaking. 

In response to Southern Store 

Fixtures’ comment regarding air 

curtains, the definition of a night 

curtain does not necessarily exclude air 

curtains because the definition does not 

specify a material or construction. DOE 

is defining a night curtain as a 

technology that is used temporarily to 

reduce infiltration and heat loss on 

commercial refrigeration equipment, 

without additional qualifiers. In 

response to Zero Zone’s comment 

regarding automatic night curtains, both 

automatic and manual night curtains are 

included in this definition, as well as air 

curtains, provided that they are 

temporarily deployed to decrease air 

exchange and heat transfer between the 

refrigerated case and the surrounding 

environment. To accommodate all 

defrost cycles, the test procedure 

requires the night curtain to be drawn 

3 hours after the first defrost cycle. This 

change is consistent with updates that 

ASHRAE is considering making to the 

ASHRAE Standard 72 requirements for 

door openings. This addresses Southern 

Store fixtures concern regarding cases 

which may defrost every 2 hours and 

would never reach a time period ‘‘3 

hours after defrost,’’ since those cases 

now may select a defrost cycle as the 

‘‘first’’ to begin the test and then initiate 

the night curtain test 3 hours following 

the first defrost. 

c. Cost Effectiveness 

In response to DOE’s proposal for 

testing night curtains, Southern Store 

Fixtures commented that DOE should 

consider the cost effectiveness of night 

curtains and noted that the analysis 

supporting the development of State of 

California’s Title 24, ‘‘California’s 

Energy Efficiency Standards for 

Residential and Nonresidential 

Buildings,’’ 14 recently showed that 

using night curtains is not cost effective. 

(Southern Store Fixtures, No. 19 at p. 

70) AHRI did not object to the inclusion 

of testing provisions for night curtains, 

but did not believe the installation of 

night curtains is a cost-effective measure 

to save a significant amount of energy. 

AHRI referenced a study conducted by 

California Codes and Standards 15

which examined the cost effectiveness 

of night curtains and suggested that 

DOE review this study as well. (AHRI, 

No. 15 at p. 2) California Codes and 

Standards responded that while the 

State of California determined that night 

curtains were not cost effective, the 

analysis did not include the potential 

for reduction in radiative heat losses, 

which could be substantial. (California 

Codes and Standards, No. 19 at pp. 74– 

75) AHRI also stated that night curtains 

should not be mandated. (AHRI, No. 19 

at pp. 72–73) 

DOE acknowledges interested parties’ 

concerns regarding the cost 

effectiveness of night curtains. DOE will 

perform a cost-effectiveness analysis as 

part of the process to consider amended 

energy conservation standards for 

commercial refrigeration equipment. 

Additionally, DOE’s energy 

conservation standards are performance 

standards, and neither night curtains 

nor any other specific technology will 

be mandated. Night curtains will be 

treated as a design that manufacturers 

could use to reduce energy consumption 

in the energy conservation standards 

analysis. The comments described 

above pertain mainly to energy 

conservation standards and will be 

addressed in more detail in that 

rulemaking. 

3. Inclusion of a Calculation for 

Determining Reduced Energy 

Consumption Due to Use of Lighting 

Occupancy Sensors or Controls 

The current DOE test procedure does 

not account for the potential reduction 

in energy consumption resulting from 

the use of lighting occupancy sensors 

and scheduled controls. The potential 

for decreased energy use due to the use 

of occupancy-based sensors or schedulebased controls varies in the field due to 

differing environmental and operating 

conditions. However, studies, including 

a demonstration project conducted 

through the DOE Solid State Lighting 

(SSL) Technology Demonstration 

GATEWAY program,16 have shown that 

lighting occupancy sensors or controls 

could reduce the total energy use of a 

typical refrigerated merchandising unit 

operating in a grocery store by up to 40 

percent.17

In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE 

proposed a calculation method to 

account for the reduced energy 

consumption due to the use of lighting 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 10299 

18The EER of a particular cooling device is a 

measure of its relative efficiency, expressed as the 

ratio of the cooling output to the energy consumed. 

occupancy sensors or controls. The 

proposed lighting occupancy sensor test 

procedure consisted of three primary 

calculations: (1) Calculation of direct 

energy use of lighting with occupancy 

sensors or scheduled controls installed; 

(2) calculation of reduced refrigeration 

load when energy use of lights located 

within the refrigerated compartment is 

decreased; and (3) calculation of the 

adjusted daily energy consumption 

based on the decreased lighting energy 

use and decreased compressor energy 

use. These calculations require several 

default assumptions, which would be 

used uniformly for all cases employing 

this test procedure. These assumptions 

designate values for the length of time 

lighting is off or dimmed due to lighting 

occupancy sensors or scheduled 

controls, the energy efficiency ratio 

(EER) 18 of the compressor, and the 

portion of energy produced from the 

lights that becomes heat in the case and 

increases the refrigeration load. 75 FR 

71602–05 (Nov. 24, 2010). 

At the January 2011 NOPR public 

meeting, DOE presented its proposal for 

treatment of lighting occupancy sensors 

and scheduled controls. DOE received 

comments on the definitions DOE 

proposed, the scope of technology 

covered, the calculation of energy 

savings, and optional physical testing. 

As part of the associated CRE energy 

conservation standards rulemaking, 

DOE also received comments pertaining 

to the proposed test procedure provision 

for lighting occupancy sensors and 

scheduled lighting controls. The 

comments DOE received on these 

issues, as well as DOE’s responses, are 

presented in the following sections. 

a. Definition of Lighting Control and 

Lighting Occupancy Sensor 

In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to define ‘‘lighting control’’ 

and ‘‘lighting occupancy sensor’’ as 

follows: 

Lighting control means an electronic device 

which automatically adjusts the lighting in a 

display case at scheduled times throughout 

the day. 

Lighting occupancy sensor means an 

electronic device which uses passive 

infrared, ultrasonic, or other motion-sensing 

technology to detect the presence of a 

customer or employee, allowing the lights 

within the equipment to be turned off or 

dimmed when no motion is detected in the 

sensor’s coverage area. 

75 FR 71611 (Nov. 24, 2010). 

In response, NEEA agreed with DOE’s 

proposed definitions for lighting 

controls, but stated that the term 

‘‘electronic’’ seemed superfluous. 

(NEEA, No. 8 at p. 4) Coca-Cola 

Company (Coca-Cola) suggested that the 

term ‘‘automatic’’ or ‘‘automatically’’ be 

added to the definitions of lighting 

occupancy sensor and lighting controls. 

(Coca-Cola, No. 19 at p. 157) ACEEE 

agreed with NEEA that the term 

‘‘electronic’’ should be removed from 

the definition of lighting control and 

occupancy sensor. Additionally, ACEEE 

added that the definition of lighting 

control should not be limited to 

scheduled times, as such a definition 

excludes the possibility of accounting 

for controllers that respond to ambient 

lighting conditions. (ACEEE, No. 12 at 

p. 4) ACEEE added that, although such 

technologies have not been developed 

yet, DOE has allowed for the possibility 

of other, more advanced technologies in 

other rulemakings by marking some 

technologies ‘‘reserved.’’ ACEEE also 

commented that it was partially DOE’s 

responsibility to investigate these types 

of potentially attractive technology 

options that are not yet in the 

marketplace, and that it was important 

to ensure that any potential new 

technologies could be tested using the 

DOE test procedure. (ACEEE, No. 19 at 

pp. 181–82) True responded that the test 

procedure and energy conservation 

standards do not prevent manufacturers 

from innovating new technologies, but 

rather set a minimum standard that 

manufacturers must meet. True also 

commented that the desired lighting 

level in cases can differ based on a 

number of variables in addition to 

ambient lighting level (for example, 

based on marketing purposes). (True, 

No. 19 at pp. 183 and 186) 

Southern Store Fixtures commented 

that DOE should consider the 

environmental impact of producing 

lighting occupancy sensors and controls 

and questioned their energy savings in 

the field. (Southern Store Fixtures, No. 

19 at p. 153) 

DOE agrees with interested parties 

that the term ‘‘electronic’’ may be 

superfluous and is removing the term 

from the definitions for ‘‘lighting 

occupancy sensor’’ and ‘‘scheduled 

lighting control’’ adopted in this final 

rule. In addition, DOE agrees with CocaCola that the term ‘‘automatic’’ more 

accurately describes the function of the 

devices described. DOE will also define 

‘‘scheduled lighting control’’ instead of 

‘‘lighting control,’’ as this term is more 

descriptive of the device being defined. 

With respect to lighting controls that 

respond to external factors other than 

motion or physical presence, such as 

ambient light, DOE does not believe any 

such technologies are widely used and 

is not aware of any data regarding their 

efficacy. While these factors do not 

prevent DOE from including the 

potential for such technologies in the 

definition of lighting controls or in a 

new definition, the calculations in the 

test method for lighting occupancy 

sensors and controls were based on the 

potential reduction in energy 

consumption associated specifically 

with lighting occupancy sensors and 

schedule-based controls. DOE believes 

that applying these same ‘‘time off’’ or 

‘‘time dimmed’’ assumptions to other 

technologies may not be representative 

of their actual performance and would 

not be appropriate. DOE has not been 

able to identify any data related to the 

energy savings of lighting sensors that 

adjust case lighting based on ambient 

lighting. Because DOE is currently using 

a calculation method based on the 

estimated hours a lighting sensor will 

dim or turn off lights to calculate 

lighting energy savings, it would be 

difficult to incorporate provisions for 

other types of sensors without data 

regarding their anticipated or realized 

efficacy. In the absence of such data, it 

is difficult for DOE to estimate a 

representative energy savings from 

ambient light sensors. Therefore, DOE 

does not intend to include provisions 

for ambient light sensors or other sensor 

technologies in the definition of lighting 

sensors and/or controls. 

With respect to Southern Store 

Fixtures’ comment that DOE should 

assess the environmental impact of 

manufacturing lighting occupancy 

sensors and weigh the impact against 

the achieved savings, DOE believes 

lighting occupancy sensors have proven 

effective over their lifetime and can save 

energy when installed on commercial 

refrigeration equipment. DOE will 

assess the environmental impact of 

lighting occupancy sensors in the 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking (Docket No. EERE–2010– 

BT–STD–0003). However, DOE notes 

that life-cycle environmental impacts of 

equipment manufacture and disposal 

are typically outside the scope of the 

environmental impact analysis 

performed in any standards rulemaking. 

b. Manual Controls 

In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE’s 

definitions of ‘‘lighting control’’ and 

‘‘lighting occupancy sensor’’ both dealt 

exclusively with automatic 

technologies. 75 FR 71611 (Nov. 24, 

2011). At January 2011 NOPR public 

meeting, AHRI and Zero Zone 

commented that it was inconsistent for 

DOE to allow night curtains that must 

be deployed manually to achieve energy 

savings in the DOE test procedure, but 

not to allow manual light switches to 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
10300 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

19 ‘‘California Investor Owned Utilities’’ refers 

here to a joint comment submitted by Southern 

California Edison, Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company, Southern California Gas Company, and 

San Diego Gas and Electric in Docket No. EERE– 

2010–BT–STD–0003. 

receive credit for energy savings. (AHRI, 

No. 19 at p. 152; Zero Zone, No. 19 at 

p. 160) 

While DOE acknowledges that manual 

switches can be used to dim or turn off 

case lighting to save energy when a store 

is closed, DOE is not aware of any data 

that substantiate their use. Because DOE 

does not have any data on which to base 

the treatment of manual switches, 

including a provision for manual light 

switches in the test procedure would be 

very speculative. In addition, DOE has 

observed that most cases spanning the 

full range of efficiencies currently 

available on the market already include 

manual light switches installed. In 

contrast, night curtains and other 

automatic lighting controls technologies 

are sold as energy efficiency features 

incorporated into only higher efficiency 

commercial refrigeration equipment. 

Further, manual switches have been 

installed on cases for some time as a 

utility feature, to turn off lights when 

replacing light bulbs for example, rather 

than as an energy saving feature. 

Lacking data that substantiate the use 

of manual switches to save additional 

energy, and given the fact that manual 

light switches are a baseline technology 

and are not installed to produce energy 

savings, DOE is not including manual 

switches in the definition of a lighting 

control technology. 

c. Remote Lighting Controls 

In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE 

proposed that remote lighting control 

systems would not receive credit for any 

potential energy savings in the DOE test 

procedure. 75 FR 71605 (Nov. 24, 2010). 

California Codes and Standards 

commented that some scheduled 

lighting controls are external to the case, 

and inquired whether cases in which 

the controls were installed external to 

the case would receive credit under the 

proposed test procedure. (California 

Codes and Standards, No. 13 at p. 5) 

California Codes and Standards 

suggested that DOE clearly state that the 

credit for time switch control would 

only apply when the switch is on-board 

the display case. (California Codes and 

Standards, No. 19 at p. 187) As part of 

the rulemaking for the CRE energy 

conservation standards (Docket No. 

EERE–2010–BT–STD–0003), DOE 

published the Notice of Public Meeting 

and availability of the CRE Preliminary 

Analysis Technical Support Document 

(76 FR 17573 (March 30, 2011)) and 

held a public meeting on April 19, 2011 

at DOE headquarters in Washington, DC 

During the commercial refrigeration 

equipment preliminary analysis public 

meeting (April 2011 Preliminary 

Analysis public meeting) and in 

subsequent written comments, 

numerous interested parties stated that 

many cases were installed with remote 

lighting sensors or controls that were 

operated at the aisle or store level. 

(Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–STD–0003, 

Southern Store Fixtures, No. 31 at pp. 

190–91, 194; Zero Zone, No. 31 at p. 

196; California Investor Owned 

Utilities,19 No. 42 at p. 4) NEEA 

responded that cases wired uniquely to 

receive a remote energy management 

system should receive credit in the DOE 

test procedure. (Docket No. EERE–2010– 

BT–STD–0003, NEEA, No. 31 at p. 195) 

There are several ways in which a 

manufacturer, refrigeration contractor, 

or store owner can implement lighting 

controls, including individual case 

controls, single controls serving an 

entire case lineup, and storewide energy 

management systems. Including remote 

lighting controls in the test procedure 

could inadvertently set a precedent for 

deeming remote energy management 

technologies to be part of the covered 

equipment and allocating energy 

savings gained by these external devices 

to associated pieces of equipment. For 

example, a remote lighting control 

system may control systems other than 

commercial refrigeration equipment, 

and such systems are typically not sold 

with a piece of commercial refrigeration 

equipment. Cases set up to interact with 

these remote control systems have a 

dedicated circuit for lights so that the 

lights can be controlled separately from 

the rest of the case. However, this 

lighting circuit configuration does not 

inherently save energy and must be 

paired with an energy management 

control system. These energy 

management systems are sold separately 

from the piece of commercial 

refrigeration equipment, may be 

produced by a different manufacturer 

from the one that produces the case, and 

are not integral to the commercial 

refrigeration equipment. 

DOE acknowledges that remote 

lighting controls do save energy and 

may be the more commonly used 

technology to dim or turn off lights in 

the field. However, energy consumption 

for a piece of commercial refrigeration 

equipment must be determined using 

the DOE test procedure on a 

representative unit, as shipped from the 

point of manufacture. 76 FR 12422, 

12453 (March 7, 2011) Because a remote 

energy management system is not part 

of the piece of equipment as shipped 

from the manufacturer, but rather it is 

a separate piece of equipment that may 

be supplied by a separate manufacturer, 

remote energy management controls 

will not be considered in this test 

procedure final rule. 

d. Representative Energy Savings 

In addition to conserving energy 

directly through decreased lighting 

electrical load, occupancy sensors also 

decrease the heat load from lights that 

are located inside the refrigerated space 

of refrigeration equipment. Therefore, as 

part of the calculation method for 

lighting occupancy sensors and 

controls, DOE proposed a calculation 

method to account for these energy 

impacts in the November 2010 NOPR. 

75 FR 71602–05 (Nov. 24, 2010). This 

calculation, as proposed, quantifies the 

reduced compressor energy use 

resulting from lighting occupancy 

sensors and scheduled controls and 

relies on a table of fixed compressor 

EERs, as described below. 

Where: 

CECA= alternate compressor energy 

consumption (kilowatt-hours); 

LECsc = lighting energy consumption of 

internal case lights with lighting 

occupancy sensors and controls 

deployed (kilowatt-hours); 

Pli = rated power of lights when they are fully 

on (watts); 

tl = time lighting would be on without 

lighting occupancy sensors or controls 

(24 hours); and 

EER = energy efficiency ratio from Table 1 in 

AHRI Standard 1200–2010 for remote 

condensing equipment and the values 

shown in Table III.1 of this document for 

self-contained equipment (British 

thermal units per watt (Btu/W)). 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER21FE12.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 10301 

20ENERGY STAR is a joint program of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency and DOE that 

establishes a voluntary rating, certification, and 

labeling program for highly energy efficient 

consumer products and commercial equipment. 

Information on the program is available at 

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

TABLE III.1—EER FOR SELF-CONTAINED COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATED

DISPLAY MERCHANDISERS AND

STORAGE CABINETS

Operating temperature class EER 

Btu/W 

Medium ......................................... 11.26 

Low ............................................... 7.14 

Ice Cream ..................................... 4.80 

Notes: 

1. EER values for operating temperature 

classes are calculated based on the average 

EER value of all equipment in that class, analyzed as part of the previous energy conservation standards rulemaking for commercial refrigeration equipment (2009 rulemaking). 74 

FR 1092 (Jan. 9, 2009). This does not include 

equipment for which standards were set by 

Congress in EPACT 2005 (VCT, VCS, HCT, 

HCS, and SOC at medium (M) and low (L) 

temperatures) or classes for which standards 

were set using extension multipliers in the 

2009 rulemaking (VOP.SC.L, SVO.SC.L, 

VOP.SC.I, SVO.SC.I, HZO.SC.I, VOP.SC.I, 

SVO.SC.I, HZO.SC.I, HCS.SC.I, SOC.SC.I). 

This nomenclature is described in the 2009 

rulemaking. 74 FR1093. 

2. These values only represent compressor 

EERs and do not include condenser fan energy use. 

Southern Store Fixtures stated that 

assigning average values for the EER in 

the calculation of energy reduction due 

to lighting occupancy sensors would 

penalize manufacturers that have more 

efficient compressors. (Southern Store 

Fixtures, No. 19 at p. 170) NEEA stated 

that not including the condenser fan 

energy consumption in the EER value 

creates an over-credit for any heat load 

that is not imposed on the case, and 

agreed with Southern Store Fixtures that 

this approach gives more credit to less 

efficient compressors. (NEEA, No. 19 at 

p. 171) NEEA further stated that, while 

it has no issue with the direct savings 

from lighting controls as proposed in 

the test procedure, it does not support 

the proposed method for calculating 

indirect energy savings. First, according 

to NEEA, DOE should account for 

condenser fan energy use. Second, 

NEEA disagreed with the compressor 

EER values in the November 2010 NOPR 

because the values are carried out to two 

decimal places, which NEEA described 

as unnecessary. Third, NEEA stated that 

light-emitting diode lighting would 

lessen the impact on compressor loads. 

Fourth, NEEA disagreed with the idea 

that a single factor be used for 

discounting lighting heat load, instead 

suggesting that this factor varies by case 

type. (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 5) California 

Codes and Standards also suggested that 

DOE research and incorporate different 

multiplicative factors for alternate 

compressor energy consumption for 

open versus closed cases, because a 

lower factor may be appropriate for 

open cases. (California Codes and 

Standards, No. 13 at pp. 4–5) 

With respect to its compressor EER 

values, DOE believes that the same 

values can be used for all self-contained 

equipment because compressor 

efficiency is primarily a function of 

compressor design for a given 

combination of load, product 

temperature, and ambient conditions, 

rather than a specific case geometry. In 

addition, as a precedent, Table 1 in 

AHRI 1200–2010 provides EER values 

for remote condensing equipment that 

are not specifically directed toward 

either open or closed refrigerated cases. 

DOE recognizes that the EER values 

presented in the November 2010 NOPR 

are not exact quantitative 

representations of specific compressor 

designs on the market, and that 

compressor performance will vary based 

on compressor manufacturer and model, 

operating conditions, and the overall 

design of the specific refrigeration 

system in which the compressor is used. 

However, DOE believes that the EER 

values it proposed are sound 

representations of default compressor 

performance available in the 

marketplace today that, when applied 

equally to all equipment, will yield a 

consistent and repeatable result. DOE 

acknowledges that two decimal points is 

not appropriate for these default values 

and has revised them to the nearest 

whole number for this final rule. (See 

the amendments to 10 CFR 431.64 

(b)(2)(iii), following this preamble). 

In response to comments that DOE 

did not account for condenser fan 

energy consumption, DOE assumed the 

compressor fan runs continuously in 

self-contained equipment in the 

calculations for reduced compressor 

energy consumption resulting from the 

use of lighting occupancy sensors and 

scheduled controls. This assumption 

may slightly underestimate the savings 

in some cases, but DOE believes it 

adequately represents expected energy 

savings in the field. DOE agrees that it 

is important that the default compressor 

EER values not exaggerate energy 

savings or disincentivize energy 

efficiency in compressors. However, 

because these values are applied to all 

commercial refrigeration equipment, 

regardless of actual performance, DOE 

does not believe the default values will 

affect or motivate compressor selection 

or design, as they will produce 

comparable results across all systems to 

which they are applied. 

Because DOE is allowing the option of 

a physical test to determine savings 

from lighting occupancy sensors and 

controls (see section III.A.3.e), DOE 

must be cognizant of the fact that the 

calculated reduction in refrigeration 

load and associated indirect energy 

savings are comparable to those that 

would be measured in the physical test. 

In revising the EER values, DOE has also 

attempted to ensure that the default 

values do not result in greater savings 

than would be achieved if a case with 

an efficient compressor were tested. 

Because the calculation does not 

account for reduced compressor fan 

power or heat leakage from the 

compressor into the case, DOE believes 

that the EER values will not 

significantly overestimate indirect 

lighting energy savings. In addition, 

because the physical test method is 

optional, a manufacturer may always 

choose to use the calculation method, 

which is consistent across all 

equipment. 

e. Optional Physical Test 

In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE 

proposed a calculation method to 

account for the energy savings due to 

the use of lighting occupancy sensors or 

controls. DOE proposed a calculation 

method because it believed it would be 

representative, consistent, and relatively 

less burdensome for manufacturers 

compared to a physical test. In this 

assessment, DOE accounted for the fact 

that manufacturers may need to conduct 

tests with lights on for the duration of 

the test for other programs, for example 

for ENERGY STAR® 20 certification. 75 

FR 71600, 71605 (Nov. 24, 2010). 

At the January 2011 public meeting 

and in subsequent written comments, 

Coca-Cola, NEEA, and California Codes 

and Standards suggested that DOE allow 

optional empirical testing for the energy 

reduction associated with lighting 

controls. (Coca-Cola, No. 19 at p. 172; 

NEEA, No. 19 at p. 175; California 

Codes and Standards, No. 13 at p. 5) 

Earthjustice stated that the method 

proposed in the November 2010 NOPR 

ignores condenser fan energy use, 

underestimates compressor EER, and 

uses a fixed discount factor for the 

lighting heat load that, in actuality, 

would vary by unit. Earthjustice further 

stated that testing with lighting off or 

dimmed would resolve this issue 

without adding additional burden. 

(Earthjustice, No. 11 at p. 2) NEEA 

agreed with Earthjustice and 

commented that actual testing of 

lighting controls would be a superior 

way to account for their impacts, and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
10302 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

that DOE should either require testing or 

make it optional rather than relying 

solely on calculations. (NEEA, No. 8 at 

pp. 5–6) 

ACEEE commented that alternative 

lighting methods, for example fiber 

bundles, could be developed, and that 

the DOE test procedure should provide 

a way for lighting vendors to capture the 

energy savings of new, innovative 

lighting technologies so that they can 

promote the technology to case 

manufacturers. (ACEEE, No. 19 at p. 

173) 

Hussmann Corporation (Hussmann) 

cautioned that the DOE test procedure 

should be cognizant of the repeatability 

of test results using a physical test 

method, specifically when units are 

tested at third-party laboratories. 

(Hussmann, No. 19 at p. 175) Traulsen 

commented that physically testing the 

energy reduction of lighting occupancy 

sensors and scheduled controls could be 

done with a $20 to $60 timing device, 

which translates to approximately $100 

when accounting for markups. Traulsen 

added that $100 could be problematic 

for some small manufacturers. 

(Traulsen, No. 19 at p. 177) 

DOE agrees with NEEA and 

Earthjustice that an optional physical 

testing method would be more 

representative of actual condensing unit 

energy reduction for a given case. 

However, DOE also agrees with 

Traulsen that physical testing should be 

an optional method due to the increased 

burden associated with additional 

testing. In response to Hussmann’s 

comment, DOE believes the test 

procedure amendments for lighting 

occupancy sensors and scheduled 

controls adopted in this final rule, 

which allow for use of the calculation 

method or performance of a physical 

test, are sufficiently repeatable for the 

purpose of showing compliance with 

DOE energy conservation standards. 

Thus, in this test procedure final rule, 

DOE is incorporating provisions that 

allow manufacturers to choose either 

the calculation method or a physical test 

to demonstrate and credit energy 

savings associated with lighting 

occupancy sensors and scheduled 

controls. DOE believes that continuing 

to provide a calculation method for 

lighting occupancy sensors and controls 

is a less burdensome and more 

consistent method to account for the 

energy savings associated with these 

technologies. Nonetheless, if a 

manufacturer wishes to account for the 

energy reduction associated with 

lighting occupancy sensors and controls 

through physical testing, DOE is 

specifying that a physical test may be 

performed. The physical test will be 

prescribed as ‘‘optional’’ to allow the 

use of a calculation method to reduce 

burden on manufacturers and provide 

flexibility in the rating of equipment. In 

response to ACEEE’s comment regarding 

the treatment of innovative new lighting 

technologies, DOE believes the optional 

physical test will allow manufacturers 

to measure the energy consumption of 

any new lighting technology that cannot 

be characterized by the calculation 

method. In either case, manufacturers 

will be expected to record which test 

method, calculation or physical, was 

used to determine the energy 

consumption of the equipment and to 

keep this information as part of the data 

underlying the certification. For DOEinitiated testing, DOE will run the 

optional physical test. 

4. Inclusion of a Provision for Testing at 

Lowest Application Product 

Temperature 

DOE has developed equipment classes 

based on three distinct temperature 

categories: (1) refrigerators that operate 

at or above 32 °F and are tested at an 

integrated average temperature of 38 °F 

(±2 °F); (2) freezers that operate below 

32 °F and above ¥5 °F and are tested 

at an integrated average temperature of 

0 °F (±2 °F); and (3) ice-cream freezers 

that operate at or below ¥5 °F and are 

tested at an integrated average 

temperature of ¥15 °F (±2 °F). 10 CFR 

431.66(d)(1) 

During the May 2010 Framework 

public meeting, several parties 

commented that some equipment 

covered under this rulemaking is 

designed to operate at significantly 

higher temperatures than the designated 

temperature for the corresponding 

equipment class. Specifically, California 

Codes and Standards stated that DOE 

should review test methods for niche 

equipment that may require different 

temperature criteria and schedules. 

(Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–STD–0003; 

California Codes and Standards, No. 5 at 

p. 3) Structural Concepts also stated that 

some types of equipment, such as candy 

and wine cases, operate at 55 or 60 °F, 

yet would have to be tested at 38 °F to 

meet an energy conservation standard, 

which is problematic because these 

units are not designed to operate at that 

temperature. (Docket No. EERE–2010– 

BT–STD–0003; Structural Concepts, No. 

6 at p. 59) 

AHRI Standard 1200–2010 includes 

provisions for such equipment to be 

rated at the application product 

temperature. To accommodate 

equipment that operates at temperatures 

much greater than the 38 °F (±2 °F) 

rating temperature, in the November 

2010 NOPR DOE proposed including a 

provision for testing refrigerators that 

cannot operate at the prescribed 38 °F 

(±2 °F) integrated average rating 

temperature, permitting them to be 

tested at the lowest application product 

temperature. In the November 2010 

NOPR, ‘‘lowest application product 

temperature’’ was defined as ‘‘the 

lowest integrated average product 

temperature achievable and 

maintainable within ± 2 °F for the 

duration of the test.’’ 75 FR 71605 (Nov. 

24, 2010). DOE clarified that, for 

equipment rated at the lowest 

application product temperature, the 

integrated average temperature achieved 

during the test should be recorded, and 

that equipment tested at the lowest 

application product temperature would 

still be required to comply with the 

applicable standard for its respective 

equipment class. 75 FR 71605 (Nov. 24, 

2010). DOE received several comments 

related to (1) the definition of lowest 

application product temperature; (2) 

expanding the definition of lowest 

application product temperature to 

include freezers and ice-cream freezers 

that cannot operate at the specified 

rating temperatures; (3) the energy 

conservation standard for equipment 

tested at the lowest application product 

temperature; and (4) how the provision 

for lowest application product 

temperature would accommodate 

remote condensing equipment. The 

specific comments and DOE’s responses 

are provided in the subsequent sections. 

a. Definition of Lowest Application 

Product Temperature 

In comments received during the 

November 2010 NOPR comment period, 

NEEA stated that lowest application 

product temperature could be defined as 

the lowest temperature setting on the 

thermostat, and that DOE needs to better 

define what the lowest temperature is 

and how it is determined. (NEEA, No. 

19 at p. 213) True responded that the 

lowest application product temperature 

is based on a number of factors and that 

units should be tested at the lowest set 

point. (True, No. 19 at p. 214) NEEA 

also stated that, due to the differences 

in types, applications, and 

configurations for applicationtemperature equipment, DOE must 

establish test procedures for this 

equipment that address the way that 

they are designed and controlled, as 

well as the ambient conditions in which 

they are operated, regardless of the 

shipment volume, in accordance with 

EPCA. (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 6) ACEEE 

commented that the lowest application 

temperature should be standardized, 

and inquired whether manufacturers 

would be able to test to any temperature 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 10303 

21Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy 

Efficiency. ‘‘Energy Efficiency Regulations.’’ 

Canada Gazette. Part I; June 2010. 

they want, or if the lowest application 

product temperature will be restricted to 

one or a few values. ACEEE added that 

equipment comparison would be 

difficult if there is no standardization. 

(ACEEE, No. 19 at pp. 217 and 219) 

DOE believes that ‘‘the lowest 

thermostat setting’’ may not be a 

prescriptive enough definition in all 

cases. In some cases, the CRE does not 

contain an adjustable thermostat, which 

can be manually changed for testing. 

DOE agrees with True that the lowest 

application product temperature is 

based on a number of factors and cannot 

be limited to one CRE accessory. DOE 

intends to provide manufacturers with 

the flexibility to determine the lowest 

application product temperature for a 

given case only when the CRE cannot be 

tested at the specified rating 

temperatures. The phrase ‘‘lowest 

application product temperature’’ is also 

consistent with the nomenclature used 

in the Canadian energy efficiency 

regulations and test procedures for selfcontained commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator freezers, 

established by Natural Resources 

Canada.21 In most cases with 

thermostats, DOE agrees that the lowest 

application product temperature is, in 

fact, the lowest thermostat set point. 

In response to ACEEE’s comments, 

DOE is not restricting the lowest 

application product temperature to 

specific values. To qualify to use the 

lowest application product temperature 

for a certain piece of equipment, a 

manufacturer should be confident that 

any case tested under that equipment 

rating could achieve the specified 

lowest application product temperature 

within ±2 °F and could not be tested at 

the rating temperature for the given 

equipment class. Further, manufacturers 

should clearly document any variation 

in rating temperature setting in the test 

data they maintain underlying the 

certification of each basic model. In this 

test procedure final rule, DOE has better 

defined how the proper test temperature 

is to be determined and has clarified 

that, for many pieces of equipment, this 

will be the lowest temperature setting 

on the unit’s thermostat. DOE agrees 

with commenters that it is important to 

designate equipment tested using the 

lowest application product temperature 

provision to ensure they are not 

incorrectly compared with units that are 

tested at the specified rating 

temperature. While DOE is not 

modifying the certification requirements 

in this final rule to require 

manufacturers to report the temperature 

at which the unit was tested (if other 

than the rating temperature), DOE is 

requiring that documentation be 

maintained as part of the test data 

underlying the certification. Further, the 

certified ratings calculated from the test 

data and applicable sampling plans 

should reflect the energy consumption 

measured at the lowest application 

product temperature setting. 

b. Extension of Lowest Application 

Product Temperature Rating to All 

Equipment Classes and Rating 

Temperatures 

At the January 2011 NOPR public 

meeting, several interested parties 

commented that there is a second 

category of equipment, including ice 

storage cases operating at 20 °F, that are 

unable to be tested at the prescribed 

rating temperature for freezers, or 0 °F 

(±2 °F). The commenters suggested that 

the provisions for testing at the lowest 

application product temperature should 

be expanded to freezers and ice-cream 

freezers to accommodate equipment that 

cannot be rated at the prescribed test 

temperature for its equipment class. 

(True, No. 19 at p. 191; Hussmann, No. 

19 at pp. 192–93; Traulsen, No. 19 at p. 

194; Zero Zone, No. 16 at p. 2; AHRI, 

No. 15 at pp. 2–3) Hussmann added that 

a case designed for 20 °F that is not 

required to be designed to be tested at 

0 °F (±2 °F) for certification would be 

more efficient overall. (Hussmann, No. 

19 at pp. 192–93) 

DOE also has noticed that some 

equipment may not be able to be tested 

at the prescribed rating temperature 

because the operating temperatures are 

below the specified rating temperature 

(e.g., a piece of commercial refrigeration 

equipment that operates at temperatures 

between 32 and 36 °F and cannot be 

tested at an integrated average 

temperature of 38 °F). 

DOE understands that some 

equipment cannot be tested at its 

prescribed rating temperature and is 

adopting provisions in this final rule to 

accommodate testing for those units at 

the lowest application product 

temperature. In response to interested 

parties’ comments regarding equipment 

that operates at, for example, 20 °F, and 

thus falls into the freezer temperature 

range, but is not able to be tested at the 

prescribed rating temperature for 

freezers, 0 °F (±2 °F), DOE is expanding 

the ‘‘lowest application product 

temperature’’ provision to freezers and 

ice-cream freezers. With regard to 

differentiation of equipment that was 

tested at the specified rating 

temperature, DOE is requiring 

manufacturers to maintain 

documentation of the temperature at 

which the unit was tested (if other than 

the DOE prescribed rating temperature) 

as part of the test data underlying the 

certification, as well as base any 

certified ratings on the energy 

consumption of the equipment as 

determined using the lowest application 

product temperature test procedure. 

DOE also notes that while some 

equipment theoretically may not be able 

to be tested at the prescribed rating 

temperature because it operates at 

temperatures lower than the specified 

rating temperature and cannot reach the 

specified rating temperature, DOE is not 

aware of this occurring in any 

equipment that is currently marketed 

and sold in the United States, and DOE 

believes there is little possibility of this 

occurring. To provide clarity in 

differentiating equipment that cannot be 

rated at the prescribed rating condition, 

DOE will continue to refer to this 

provision as the ‘‘lowest application 

product temperature.’’ However, to 

account for all possible temperature 

ranges of equipment, DOE is defining 

the ‘‘lowest application product 

temperature’’ as ‘‘the temperature 

closest to the equipment’s specified 

rating temperature that the unit can 

achieve (±2 °F).’’ In this case, ±2 °F 

refers to the repeatability of the lowest 

application product temperature. 

c. Energy Conservation Standard for 

Equipment Tested at the Lowest 

Application Product Temperature 

In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE 

proposed that equipment tested at the 

lowest application product temperature 

still be required to comply with the 

standard for its respective equipment 

class. 75 FR 71605–06 (Nov. 24, 2010). 

DOE made this proposal due to the 

small fraction of equipment that DOE 

expects to be rated using the lowest 

application product temperature 

provision. DOE analyzed the shipments 

data provided by ARI during the 

Framework comment period of the 2009 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE–2006– 

BT–STD–0126, ARI, No. 7 Exhibit B at 

p. 1). DOE found that, excluding that 

equipment for which EPACT 2005 

amended EPCA to set standards (i.e., 

self-contained commercial refrigerators 

and commercial freezers with doors) (42 

U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)), only 1.7 percent of 

units for which standards were 

established operate at ‘‘application 

temperatures,’’ namely 45 °F, 20 °F, 

10 °F, or ¥30 °F. Of these, units that 

operate at 45 °F (typically ‘‘wine 

chillers’’) had the highest shipments, 

and these units were predominantly 

remote condensing equipment. Given 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
10304 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

the relatively low shipment volumes of 

equipment that operates at application 

temperatures, DOE did not believe it 

was justified in developing separate 

standards for equipment that operates at 

an application temperature different 

than one of the three prescribed rating 

temperatures. 74 FR 1104 (Jan. 9, 2009). 

At the January 2011 NOPR public 

meeting and in written comments 

submitted during the public comment 

period, many interested parties 

commented on DOE’s proposal that 

equipment tested at the lowest 

application product temperature would 

still be required to comply with the 

standard for its respective equipment 

class. California Codes and Standards, 

ACEEE, NEEA, and NRDC all agreed 

that it is reasonable to test equipment 

not capable of achieving a rating 

temperature at its lowest operating 

temperature, provided this equipment 

represents a small market share and is 

appropriately differentiated to prevent 

loopholes. (California Codes and 

Standards, No. 13 at p. 5; ACEEE, No. 

12 at p. 5; NEEA, No. 8 at pp. 6–7; 

NRDC, No. 14 at pp. 1–2) NRDC 

suggested that equipment that cannot be 

tested below 38 °F should be labeled 

and sold with its projected annual 

energy consumption data indicating the 

lowest temperature achievable during 

testing, and should be clearly 

differentiated from equipment that 

meets the required testing temperatures. 

(NRDC, No. 14 at p. 2) ACEEE suggested 

that DOE define equipment classes in a 

manner that prevents the substitution of 

less efficient equipment for more 

efficient general-duty equipment. 

(ACEEE, No. 12 at pp. 1–2) ACEEE also 

expressed concern regarding the 

presence of ice cabinets on the market, 

and questioned how DOE could 

differentiate ice cabinets from freezers if 

they are rated at application 

temperature, so that they are not used 

inappropriately for frozen food storage. 

(ACEEE, No. 12 at p. 5) NEEA disagreed 

with DOE’s tendency to refer to 

equipment with application 

temperatures above 38 °F as ‘‘medium 

temperature’’ because some of this 

equipment operates at significantly 

higher temperatures than the medium 

temperature rating condition of 38 °F. 

Therefore, NEEA suggested that this 

equipment be referred to as ‘‘high or 

elevated temperature’’ equipment. 

Additionally, NEEA asserted that ice 

storage cabinets, or any other equipment 

operating at an operating temperature 

between 0 °F and 38 °F, should not be 

called ‘‘medium’’ or ‘‘low’’ temperature. 

(NEEA, No. 8 at pp. 6–7) 

True asked whether ice chests or 

freezers that are designed to operate at 

20 °F and cannot be tested at 0 °F (±2 

°F) would be required to meet the 

refrigerator or the freezer energy 

conservation standard. (True, No. 19 at 

p. 207) California Codes and Standards 

and NRDC also stated that the standard 

levels should be correspondingly 

adjusted to avoid loopholes, as 

otherwise, less efficient equipment 

potentially could comply if it were 

allowed to be tested at a higher 

operating temperature. (California Codes 

and Standards, No. 13 at p. 5; NRDC, 

No. 14 at pp. 1–2) California Codes and 

Standards suggested that DOE create a 

method to scale standards based on 

rating temperature, and stated that this 

would not require additional equipment 

classes. (California Codes and 

Standards, No. 19 at pp. 223 and 227) 

NRDC stated that, while DOE’s past 

reasoning for not setting specific 

requirements for applicationtemperature equipment was based on 

the small size of the market, a forwardlooking standard should include this 

equipment and set efficiency levels for 

it. (NRDC, No. 14 at p. 2) Sean Gouw 

(unaffiliated) commented that DOE had 

created product classes for niche 

products with low market share before, 

for example built-in residential 

refrigerators. (Gouw, No. 19 at p. 234) 

AHRI commented that refrigerated 

cases that cannot operate at an 

integrated average temperature of 38 °F 

are niche products and represent a small 

part of the market. (AHRI, No. 19 at p. 

228) Southern Store Fixtures 

commented that cases rated for higher 

temperatures do not necessarily use less 

energy because they may require 

additional heaters for humidity control. 

(Southern Store Fixtures, No. 19 at 

p. 229) 

DOE maintains that units tested at the 

lowest application product temperature 

will still be required to meet the 

applicable energy conservation standard 

based on their equipment class. While 

DOE understands that this approach 

may result in slightly less stringent 

standards for the small number of units 

that cannot be tested at the prescribed 

rating temperatures, as interested parties 

pointed out, DOE does not believe that 

establishing separate equipment classes 

for these niche types of equipment 

would be justified given their small 

shipment volume and the wide diversity 

of niche products. 

DOE agrees with interested parties 

that preventing loopholes that would 

allow less efficient equipment to be sold 

is very important. However, DOE 

believes that allowing testing at the 

lowest application product temperature 

for all temperature classes allows for 

coverage of more equipment and may 

allow ‘‘intermediate’’ equipment that 

cannot operate at its prescribed test 

temperatures to be designed to operate 

more efficiently. It is not expected that 

this will create an opportunity for less 

efficient equipment to be sold because 

DOE is requiring units tested at the 

lowest application product temperature 

to be retested if the thermostat is 

changed. 

California Codes and Standards also 

suggested scaling the energy 

consumption data for equipment tested 

at application temperatures to reflect 

projected energy consumption at the 

relevant rating temperature. (California 

Codes and Standards, No. 19 at pp. 223 

and 227) However, DOE agrees with 

Southern Store Fixtures that testing 

these units at a higher integrated 

average temperature does not 

necessarily mean that the unit will use 

less energy. The variability in energy 

use and the impact of variation in 

integrated average temperature will 

depend on case type, geometry, and 

configuration. This makes it very 

difficult to set a consistent scaling factor 

or incorporate temperature into the 

standards equations, as any value 

chosen would be not be representative 

of all cases. This issue will be discussed 

further in the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking (Docket No. 

EERE–2010–BT–STD–0003). 

With respect to NEEA’s suggestion 

that equipment rated at lowest 

application product temperature be 

referred to as ‘‘high or elevated 

temperature’’ equipment, DOE cannot 

control how equipment is referred to or 

categorized in the market beyond the 

equipment classes DOE specifies. Since 

DOE is not creating a unique equipment 

class for this equipment, DOE will 

continue to categorize the equipment 

based on its appropriate equipment 

class. 

d. Remote Condensing Units and the 

Lowest Application Product 

Temperature 

In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE 

proposed that the lowest application 

product temperature provision apply 

equally to self-contained and remote 

condensing commercial refrigeration 

equipment. 75 FR 71605 (Nov. 24, 

2010). AHRI inquired how the lowest 

application product temperature would 

apply to remote condensing equipment, 

because the lowest operating 

temperature for remote condensing 

equipment is dependent on the 

condensing unit to which it is attached. 

(AHRI, No. 19 at p. 203) Zero Zone 

commented that the approach for testing 

equipment at the lowest application 

product temperature was reasonable for 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 10305 

22NSF International. ‘‘NSF/ASNI 7—2009: 

Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers.’’ Ann 

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

food_equipment/standards.asp. 

self-contained equipment, but for 

remote condensing equipment, the size 

of the condensing unit would affect the 

operating temperature range. Zero Zone 

further inquired whether the test 

procedure would regulate the size of 

condensing units. (Zero Zone, No. 19 at 

p. 207) Zero Zone stated that there 

needs to be more specificity in the 

testing of application temperature for 

remote condensing equipment. Zero 

Zone continued by asserting that 

ASHRAE 72 requires that a pressure 

regulator be used to set the evaporating 

temperature to the correct value. This 

means that the limit of evaporating 

temperature is dependent on the size of 

the test laboratory’s compressor rack. 

Zero Zone suggested that, for 

standardization purposes, the DOE test 

procedure should require that the 

saturated suction temperature be set to 

5 °F colder than the temperature needed 

to maintain the application temperature. 

(Zero Zone, No. 16 at p. 2) 

DOE has reviewed Zero Zone’s 

comment and the pertinent sections of 

ASHRAE Standard 72. DOE concedes 

that, for remote condensing equipment 

that does not have a thermostat or 

another means to regulate temperature, 

the size of the compressor rack could 

impact the lowest achievable 

application product temperature. In this 

case, the saturated suction temperature 

at the compressor rack (also referred to 

as the Adjusted Dew Point Temperature 

in AHRI 1200–2010) impacts the 

amount of refrigerant that can flow 

through the evaporator. Larger 

compressor racks are able to achieve 

lower saturated suction temperatures, 

which will produce a lower operating 

temperature in the case than a smaller 

compressor. DOE acknowledges that the 

method included in Zero Zone’s 

comment would create a standardized 

repeatable test for this type of 

equipment. However, DOE believes that 

the specification of a saturated suction 

temperature to 5 °F lower than that 

required to maintain the application 

temperature is somewhat arbitrary and 

not necessarily indicative of the lowest 

operating temperature of the unit. This 

specification also could inadvertently 

restrict or burden manufacturers when 

testing their equipment. DOE did not 

receive comments from other 

manufacturers on this topic. DOE also 

notes that specification of a fixed 

saturated suction temperature is only 

required for remote condensing units 

without thermostats or other means of 

regulating temperatures that are rated at 

the lowest application product 

temperature. DOE is not currently aware 

of any equipment on the market that 

would fit this description. 

In the case of remote condensing 

equipment with a thermostat, DOE 

believes that the lowest application 

product temperature is sufficiently 

defined by the range of the thermostat 

and that the suction temperature is 

similarly limited by the thermostat. 

However, for remote cases that do not 

have a thermostat or other means for 

controlling temperature at the case 

level, DOE acknowledges that this 

relationship between compressor rack 

size and lowest application product 

temperature does create some variability 

in the lowest application product 

temperature that can be achieved by a 

given case. Thus, DOE is requiring that 

the adjusted dew point temperature, as 

defined in AHRI 1200–2010, be set to 5 

°F colder than that temperature required 

to maintain the manufacturer’s lowest 

specified application temperature for 

those pieces of remote condensing 

commercial refrigeration equipment that 

do not have a means for controlling 

temperature at the case, such as a 

thermostat, and cannot be tested at their 

specified integrated average rating 

temperatures. 

5. Provisions Allowing Testing of 

Equipment at NSF Test Temperatures 

Commercial refrigeration equipment 

that is marketed to hold perishable food 

items is classified and certified by NSF/ 

ANSI–7, ‘‘Commercial Refrigerators and 

Freezers’’ (hereafter referred to as NSF– 

7), a food safety standard issued by 

NSF.22 NSF–7 establishes two classes 

for commercial display cases: Type I, 

which is tested at ASHRAE Standard 72 

standard ambient conditions (75 °F dry 

bulb and 64 °F wet bulb temperature), 

and Type II, which is tested at higher 

ambient conditions (80 °F dry bulb and 

68 °F wet bulb temperature). These two 

test conditions are also reported in 

terms of dry bulb temperature and 

percentage relative humidity. Type I 

corresponds to 75 °F and 55 percent 

relative humidity, and Type II 

corresponds to 80 °F and 60 percent 

relative humidity. NSF–7 also requires 

Type I and Type II equipment to be 

tested such that the average temperature 

of each test package containing an 

individual temperature sensor does not 

exceed 41 °F and no single temperature 

sensor exceeds a reading of 43 °F at any 

time during the test. NSF–7 does not 

specify a required average temperature 

for all test sensors or the measurement 

of energy consumption during the test. 

On the other hand, DOE does require an 

integrated average test temperature of 38 

°F ± 2 °F. However, manufacturers have 

reported that they test cases at lower 

integrated average temperatures than 

that specified by DOE to ensure the 

NSF–7 requirements are met. 

At the January 2011 NOPR public 

meeting and in subsequent written 

comments, interested parties 

commented on the similarities and 

differences between the DOE test 

procedure and the NSF–7 test. 

Commenters also noted the additional 

burden associated with performing both 

tests. Southern Store Fixtures 

commented that if a unit designed to 

operate at higher ambient conditions is 

operated at a lower ambient 

temperature, the case will not perform 

as well because it will have an oversized 

compressor and could have operational 

issues with compressor cycling. 

Southern Store Fixtures further 

commented that the energy 

consumption of a case can increase by 

as much as 30 percent when changing 

from a rating condition of 75 °F and 55 

percent relative humidity to 80 °F and 

60 percent relative humidity. (Southern 

Store Fixtures, No. 19 at pp. 94–95) 

True and Coca-Cola stated that a 5 °F 

difference will not significantly affect 

energy consumption and that, for those 

few cases that would be significantly 

affected, they could apply for a waiver. 

(True, No. 19 at p. 122; Coca-Cola, No. 

19 at p. 123) Southern Store Fixtures 

countered that only in cases with solid 

doors will the 5 °F temperature 

difference be insignificant (Southern 

Store Fixtures, No. 19 at p. 131), and 

that the effects of a 5 °F increase in 

temperature can be significant for open 

cases or cases with single pane glass. 

(Southern Store Fixtures, No. 19 at p. 

97) 

Hussmann stated that, although the 

difference in energy use among selfcontained cases may not be significant, 

Hussmann was concerned with the 

additional burden of testing a case 

twice. (Hussmann, No. 19 at p. 123) 

Hussmann stated that all units must 

pass the NSF–7 requirements in order to 

be certified for food safety. The NSF–7 

requirement differs from AHRI 1200 in 

that the maximum average temperature 

can never exceed 41 °F at any time. 

Hussmann also stated that the integrated 

average temperature for the NSF–7 test 

(approximately 34 °F) is actually lower 

than that required by the DOE test 

procedure, and that the energy 

consumption of a medium temperature 

self-contained case is higher during 

testing for NSF compliance than it is 

during the DOE energy consumption 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
10306 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

test. Hussmann commented that, as it 

stands now, equipment that consumes 

more energy during the NSF–7 test than 

is allowed by the DOE test procedure 

would have to be re-tested at DOE 

conditions, thereby imposing an 

additional burden. Hussmann stated 

that 85 percent of its self-contained 

models require NSF testing, meaning 

that hundreds of additional DOE tests 

could be required. (Hussmann, No. 10 at 

pp. 1–2) Hussmann recommended that 

DOE allow for the use of a linear 

polynomial curve-fit in the development 

of a normalization equation from NSF to 

DOE internal temperatures. This would 

allow manufacturers test at NSF internal 

conditions and then normalize to the 

standard DOE conditions, which would 

reduce the testing burden because 

manufacturers already test to the NSF 

standard. (Hussmann, No. 10 at p. 2) 

California Codes and Standards and 

NEEA both suggested that DOE allow 

testing at both the 75 °F and 55 percent 

relative humidity rating condition and 

NSF Type II conditions, provided the 

case, as tested, were to meet the 

applicable energy conservation 

standard. (California Codes and 

Standards, No. 19 at p. 124; NEEA, No. 

19 at p. 127) ACEEE stated its belief that 

commercial refrigeration equipment can 

be divided into two types of equipment: 

that for which food safety is a true 

concern, and that which cools and 

displays product for the purposes of 

presenting value to the consumer. The 

former subset of equipment is rated in 

accordance with NSF food safety 

standards, while the latter is not. 

Therefore, ACEEE suggested making a 

distinction between the two in the DOE 

test procedure, with the NSF–7 test 

procedure being used for equipment for 

which food safety is a true concern, and 

the AHRI/ASHRAE method being used 

for the remaining equipment. ACEEE 

stated that it would endorse such a 

method as long as the two subsets of 

equipment were separated clearly, such 

as via labeling. (ACEEE, No. 12 at pp. 

2–3) 

True stated that the current Federal 

test procedure relies on ASHRAE 

Standard 72, which specifies a rating 

condition of 75 °F and 55 percent 

relative humidity, and that this reflects 

the way cases are currently tested. True 

added that if the test temperatures were 

to be changed, comparison with 

historical data could be difficult. (True, 

No. 19 at pp. 127–28) True also 

acknowledged that self-contained cases 

currently required to meet the EPACT 

2005 standard must test at the DOE 

rating condition of 75 °F and 55 percent 

relative humidity and, optionally, at 

NSF Type II conditions, so there is no 

incremental increase in burden. (True, 

No. 19 at p. 129) 

DOE acknowledges the burden on 

manufacturers that have to certify 

equipment with both the DOE test 

procedure and the NSF–7 test 

procedure. DOE also agrees with 

interested parties that testing cases at an 

ambient temperature of 80 °F, rather 

than the currently specified 75 °F, will 

not have a significant impact on energy 

consumption for cases with doors. DOE 

recognizes that, as Southern Store 

Fixtures mentioned, the impact on open 

cases may be greater than on closed 

cases, but does not believe that 

equipment will have operation or 

performance issues if tested at a the 

temperatures prescribed by the DOE test 

procedure. DOE believes the energy 

consumption of a case should scale with 

ambient temperature and does not 

believe these issues will prevent units 

from being tested using the DOEprescribed test temperatures or 

demonstrating compliance with DOE 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

researched the equipment available on 

the market and requested specific data 

regarding the existence of cases that 

cannot meet the standard or the 

characteristics of their operation. DOE 

has found no evidence or firm data 

supporting the creation of a separate 

equipment class and standard for 

equipment designed to operate at higher 

ambient conditions. Thus, DOE will not 

create specific new equipment classes 

for equipment that is designed to 

operate at internal or ambient 

temperatures other than the test 

conditions prescribed by DOE. 

DOE does not believe development of 

a scaling factor that would be 

sufficiently representative of equipment 

energy consumption and consistent 

across an equipment class is justified 

within the scope of this rulemaking. The 

geometry and design of each case will 

cause the magnitude of the impact of 

variation in temperature to vary, making 

development of any scaling factor 

extremely burdensome. This is true for 

both external and internal temperature 

variations. 

Continuing to require testing at 

standard rating conditions, as 

prescribed in the DOE test procedure, 

without allowances for variation in 

internal or external temperatures, will 

not increase the burden for 

manufacturers. However, it will also not 

reduce the total burden of testing, which 

could be accomplished through 

coordination of test requirements with 

other programs, such as NSF. 

In response to the suggestion that 

cases could optionally be tested at NSF– 

7 conditions (ambient or internal) as 

long as the unit, as tested, complies 

with the energy conservation standard, 

DOE believes that this will effectively 

reduce the burden on manufacturers 

while ensuring that all cases meet or 

exceed the DOE energy conservation 

standard, provided the NSF–7 rating 

temperatures and ambient conditions 

represent a more stringent test. In most 

cases, using the NSF internal 

temperature requirements or Type II 

external ambient conditions represents a 

more conservative test in that 

equipment will have to be more efficient 

to operate at NSF internal temperatures 

or ambient conditions and still comply 

with DOE energy conservation 

standards. For example, as Hussmann 

notes, manufacturers often perform the 

NSF–7 test at a lower integrated average 

temperature than that required by the 

DOE test procedure to ensure their cases 

will comply with NSF’s food safety 

requirements. However, DOE notes that 

this method is optional, and 

manufacturers are technically allowed 

to test cases at up to 41 °F integrated 

average temperature under the NSF–7 

test, provided the air is perfectly mixed 

and the spatial temperature variation 

within the case is very well controlled. 

In an effort to reduce burden for 

manufacturers and allow testing for the 

purposes of NSF certification and DOE 

compliance to occur in the same test, 

DOE is adopting in this final rule 

provisions that allow manufacturers to 

optionally use NSF internal or ambient 

conditions to test equipment in a given 

equipment class, provided the NSF 

conditions are more stringent than the 

prescribed DOE rating temperatures and 

conditions for that equipment class. To 

clarify, manufacturers may test at the 

prescribed 75 °F and 55 percent relative 

humidity ambient rating condition, or 

they may optionally test at the NSF 

Type II conditions of 80 °F and 60 

percent relative humidity. In either case, 

the equipment would be required to 

show compliance with the relevant 

energy conservation standard for that 

equipment class. Additionally, 

manufacturers are allowed to test 

equipment at integrated average 

temperatures that satisfy the DOEspecified rating temperatures or are 

lower than the DOE-specified rating 

temperatures. 

DOE acknowledges that allowing 

equipment to be tested at NSF–7 

conditions in the DOE test procedure 

would make comparison of equipment 

within the same equipment class 

difficult and confusing, given that there 

could be cases tested at four different 

conditions in the same class. However, 

DOE is requiring that equipment rated at 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 10307 

23A notation in the form ‘‘Docket No. EE–2006– 

STD–0126, Zero Zone, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 3.4 at p. 48’’ identifies an oral comment that 

DOE received during the May 16, 2006 Framework 

public meeting and which was recorded on page 48 

of the public meeting transcript (document number 

3.4) in the docket for the 2009 CRE energy 

conservation standards rulemaking (Docket No. 

EERE–2006–STD–0126). 

24 Joint Comment refers to a written comment 

submitted by the Alliance to Save Energy, ACEEE, 

the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, NRDC, 

Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, and 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council in 

Docket No. EERE–2006–STD–0126. 

NSF–7 rating temperatures maintain 

documentation of the internal and 

ambient temperatures as part of the test 

data underlying the certification, so that 

informed comparisons can be made. 

As True acknowledged, 

manufacturers that produce equipment 

covered by EPACT 2005 standards are 

currently testing to both the DOE and 

NSF–7 test procedures. Thus, 

maintaining the proposed equipment 

classes and test temperatures for 

equipment that must also be tested 

using the NSF–7 test for food safety 

certification does not introduce any 

incremental burden on manufacturers. 

Instead, the provision to demonstrate 

compliance by testing the equipment at 

NSF–7 test conditions is only meant to 

provide an opportunity to the 

manufacturers to reduce the number of 

tests for equipment that can comply 

with DOE standards even when tested at 

the more stringent NSF–7 test 

conditions. However, this provision will 

not be advantageous to equipment that 

may be unable to comply by DOE 

standards when tested at the more 

stringent NSF–7 test conditions due to 

a large difference in energy 

consumption at the two different test 

conditions. 

In summary, DOE is incorporating 

language in the test procedure final rule 

that will allow manufacturers to 

optionally test at NSF–7 conditions that 

are more stringent than the DOE test 

conditions to reduce the repetitive test 

burden of testing at both DOE and NSF– 

7 conditions, provided the case still 

meets DOE’s energy conservation 

standards. 

B. Other Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

Comments and DOE Responses 

At the January 2011 NOPR public 

meeting and in the ensuing comment 

period, DOE received comments from 

interested parties regarding several 

issues that pertain to the CRE test 

procedure and energy conservation 

standard rulemakings, but not to 

specific provisions or amendments. 

DOE received comments on the scope of 

covered equipment; the testing of partload technologies not currently 

referenced explicitly in the test 

procedure; the effective date of the test 

procedure rulemaking; preemption of 

State regulations; the burden of testing; 

the association of this final rule with 

DOE’s certification, compliance, and 

enforcement regulations; alternative 

refrigerants; and secondary coolant 

systems. 

1. Equipment Scope 

The test procedure for commercial 

refrigeration equipment prescribes 

methods for testing all commercial 

refrigeration equipment, as defined in 

10 CFR 431.62. The definition of 

commercial refrigerator, freezer, and 

refrigerator-freezer includes all 

refrigeration equipment that: 

(1) Is not a consumer product (as defined 

in § 430.2 of part 430); 

(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, semivertically, 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. 

10 CFR 431.62 

a. Remote Condensing Racks 

California Codes and Standards 

commented that DOE should consider 

regulating remote condensing racks and 

that significant energy savings were 

possible in that type of equipment. 

(California Codes and Standards, No. 19 

at p. 12) California Codes and Standards 

further asked DOE to review the pros 

and cons of establishing a separate 

rulemaking on remote condensers and 

to consider which parts of remote 

condensing equipment should be 

covered by energy conservation 

standards. These standards, the 

comment stated, would be well suited to 

establishing a baseline efficiency for the 

remote condensing unit, independent of 

the type of equipment it serves. 

(California Codes and Standards, No. 13 

at pp. 1–2) ACEEE stated that DOE 

should recognize the distinction 

between dedicated remote condensing 

units and rack systems that serve 

multiple pieces of equipment. ACEEE 

suggested that DOE should develop an 

appropriate method for rating dedicated 

remote compressors across various 

capacities and temperature needs, 

potentially using standard loads for the 

testing of remote rack systems. (ACEEE, 

No. 12 at p. 5) 

During the 2009 CRE energy 

conservation standards rulemaking, 

DOE made the determination not to 

cover remote condensers within the 

scope of the January 2009 final rule, and 

to limit the standards analyses to 

refrigerated cases only and not the 

remote condensers. In the advance 

notice of proposed rulemaking, DOE 

stated: 

In its Framework Document, DOE pointed 

out that EPCA defines a ‘‘self-contained 

condensing unit,’’ in part, as an assembly of 

refrigerating components ‘‘that is an integral 

part of the refrigerated equipment * * *’’ (42 

U.S.C. 6311(9)(F), added by EPACT 2005, 

section 136(a)(3)) EPCA also defines a 

‘‘remote condensing unit,’’ in part, as an 

assembly of refrigerating components ‘‘that is 

remotely located from the refrigerated 

equipment * * *.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(E), 

added by EPACT 2005, section 136(a)(3)) 

DOE also stated in the Framework Document 

that this difference in the definitions may 

mean that, under EPCA, remote condensing 

units are not a part of the refrigerated 

equipment and that energy conservation 

standards for remote condensing commercial 

refrigerators, commercial freezers, and 

commercial refrigerator-freezers would apply 

only to the refrigerated equipment (i.e., 

storage cabinets and display cases), but not 

to the remote condensing units. 

72 FR 41170–71 (July 26, 2007). 

Several interested parties commented 

at that time that coverage of remote 

condensers would be difficult due to the 

wide variety of this type of equipment. 

(Docket No. EERE–2006–STD–0126, 

Zero Zone, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 3.4 at p. 48; 23 ARI, No. 7, at p. 3) 

Additionally, energy efficiency 

advocates and utilities expressed the 

opinion that these units should be 

covered, but not necessarily within the 

scope of that rulemaking. (Docket No. 

EERE–2006–STD–0126, Joint 

Comment,24 No. 9 at p. 5) DOE decided 

to not cover remote condensers in the 

January 2009 final rule. DOE further 

stated that it would address later 

whether it has the authority to regulate 

this equipment, and if so, would 

examine then whether standards for 

remote condensers are warranted and 

feasible. 74 FR 1105 (Jan. 9, 2009). 

DOE believes that nothing has 

changed to affect this stance. DOE 

continues to believe that the condenser 

rack to which a piece of remote 

condensing commercial refrigeration 

equipment is attached to, is a separate 

piece of equipment that may serve other 

equipment types (e.g., walk-in coolers 

and freezers). As such, DOE is not 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
10308 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

considering remote condensing racks in 

the current associated energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

(Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–STD– 

0003). DOE is not introducing test 

procedures for remote condensers in 

this rulemaking, and maintains that 

DOE has no obligation to do so. DOE, if 

it proposed to regulate or develop a test 

procedure for remote condensing racks, 

would do so in a separate rulemaking. 

b. Testing of Part-Load Technologies at 

Variable Refrigeration Load 

Technologies that operate as a 

function of variable ambient conditions 

can reduce annual energy consumption 

of commercial refrigeration equipment 

by adapting to changes in refrigeration 

load that result from changes in ambient 

conditions. These variable load, or partload, technologies include higher 

efficiency expansion valves, condenser 

fan motor controllers, and anti-sweat 

heater controllers. In the November 

2010 NOPR, DOE suggested that, 

although ASHRAE Standard 72–2005 is 

a steady-state test, some variation in 

refrigeration load is experienced in that 

test due to the door opening and night 

curtain provisions. This variation in 

refrigeration load inherent in the test 

procedure means the effects of variable 

load, or part-load, features are already 

captured to some degree in the proposed 

test procedure for commercial 

refrigeration equipment. DOE further 

argued that additional independent or 

explicit part-load testing would result in 

increased cost and burden for 

manufacturers of covered equipment. 

DOE estimated that part-load testing at 

additional rating conditions could more 

than double the cost and burden of 

testing for all commercial refrigeration 

equipment. In the November 2010 

NOPR, DOE stated that explicit testing 

at multiple sets of conditions was not 

justified because of this increased 

burden, and proposed that the test 

procedure continue to reference only 

one standard ambient condition, relying 

on the transient effects inherent in the 

proposed test procedure to capture partload performance. 75 FR 71601 (Nov. 

24, 2010). 

At the January 2011 NOPR public 

meeting and in subsequent written 

comments, NEEA and California Codes 

and Standards agreed with DOE that the 

ASHRAE Standard 72 test method does 

include variation in the refrigeration 

load, which would realize the benefits 

of part-load technologies, such as 

floating head pressure controls, liquid 

suction heat exchangers, and improved 

thermal expansion loads in equipment 

with doors. These interested parties 

asked DOE to evaluate part-load 

technologies in the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking. (NEEA, No. 8 at 

p. 2; California Codes and Standards, 

No. 19 at p. 13) 

AHRI commented that additional, 

specific requirements for testing of partload technologies will add an additional 

burden on manufacturers, and agreed 

with DOE that ASHRAE 72 already 

accounts to some degree for the effects 

of part-load technologies. As a result, 

AHRI recommended against new testing 

requirements for these technologies. 

(AHRI, No. 15 at p. 2) NEEA agreed that 

short-term part-load impacts are limited, 

and that longer-term variations, such as 

those induced by changes in ambient 

conditions, would be difficult to capture 

without imposing a significant 

additional burden. (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 2) 

Conversely, NRDC commented that it 

believed that DOE had not provided 

sufficient data to show that testing at 

varying loads would impose an undue 

burden on manufacturers. NRDC further 

stated that manufacturers that use 

advanced control strategies and 

variable-load technologies need to have 

such features properly credited. 

According to NRDC, to not adequately 

credit such features would conflict with 

section 342 of EPCA, which requires 

DOE to adopt test procedures that reflect 

representative energy use. (NRDC, No. 

14 at pp. 3–4) 

ACEEE stated its belief that gains due 

to technologies such as adaptive 

controls and modulating components 

must be captured in a test procedure to 

fairly express to consumers the better 

value that may be presented by 

equipment that performs more 

efficiently in the field. In ACEEE’s 

opinion, to not capture the effects of 

these features would result in a loss of 

competitiveness by domestic 

manufacturers. (ACEEE, No. 12 at p. 2) 

ACEEE added that it does not believe 

that the current test methods account for 

modulating components and their 

benefits. (ACEEE, No. 12 at p. 6) 

DOE recognizes the desire to better 

characterize the performance of these 

devices. However, DOE believes that the 

refrigerant load changes inherent in the 

amended test procedure are 

representative of average use and that 

the test procedure established in this 

final rule meets the requirements for a 

test procedure established by EPCA 

section 342 (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)). Given 

that, DOE believes the establishment of 

new, independent test requirements for 

part-load conditions is not necessary 

and would impose undue burden on 

manufacturers. As stated previously, 

testing of part-load technologies would 

more than double the burden on 

manufacturers to test equipment. DOE 

maintains that part-load technologies 

that respond to changes in refrigeration 

load will be partially captured in the 

DOE test procedure due to door 

openings, night-curtain deployment, 

compressor cycling, and minor 

fluctuations in the thermodynamic state 

of the case during the test. In any event, 

manufacturers may implement any partload technologies as they see fit. DOE 

believes the efficiency gains achieved by 

part-load technologies in the current test 

procedure are sufficient, and that 

further independent testing is not 

justified. 

2. Effective Date 

EPCA requires that, in any rulemaking 

to amend a test procedure, DOE must 

determine to what extent, if any, the 

proposed test procedure would alter the 

measured energy efficiency of any 

covered product as determined under 

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

6293(e)(1) and 6314(a)(6)(D)) If DOE 

determines that the amended test 

procedure would alter the measured 

efficiency of a covered product, DOE 

must amend the applicable energy 

conservation standard accordingly. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(e)(2) and 6314(a)(6)(D)) 

Several of the provisions in this test 

procedure final rule will change the 

measured energy use of some 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

covered under the scope of current 

standards. As such, DOE is in the 

process of amending the current energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

refrigeration equipment in a concurrent 

rulemaking (Docket No. EERE–2010– 

BT–STD–0003). 

In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to require that the use of the 

amended test procedure be consistent 

with the compliance date of any revised 

energy conservation standards. 75 FR 

71599 (Nov. 24, 2010). DOE is adding 

language to the final test procedure 

amendments clarifying that the 

amendments shall not be used at the 

time of publication to determine 

compliance with the current energy 

conservation standards. Instead, 

manufacturers will be required to use 

the amended test procedure to 

demonstrate compliance with DOE’s 

energy conservation standards on the 

compliance date of any final rule 

establishing amended energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

refrigeration equipment. Until this date, 

manufacturers must continue to use the 

existing DOE test procedure, as set forth 

at 10 CFR 431.64, to demonstrate 

compliance with existing energy 

conservation standards. 

However, EPCA also states that, 

effective 360 days after any amended 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 10309 

test procedure final rule is prescribed, 

any representations of the ‘‘maximum 

daily energy consumption’’ of covered 

equipment, for example in labeling or 

advertising, must be based on results 

generated using the amended test 

procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) In the 

November 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed 

that, as of 360 days after publication of 

any test procedure final rule, 

representations of energy consumption 

of any covered equipment would need 

to be based on results generated using 

the amended test procedure. 75 FR 

71599 (Nov. 24, 2010). This would 

result in possible dual testing 

requirements for some cases between 

the period 360 days after publication of 

the amended test procedure final rule 

and the effective date of any amended 

standards. However, because many of 

the test procedure amendments are 

optional, this is not expected to affect 

many units. For example, if a case is 

sold with and without occupancy 

sensors, the case would be tested in 

accordance with the current DOE test 

procedure, without amendments, to 

show compliance with DOE energy 

conservation standards. Because this 

case is not required to be tested with 

occupancy sensors in the amended test 

procedure, the test using the current 

DOE test procedure is also in 

accordance with the amended test 

procedure and the established daily 

energy consumption values may be 

reported and publicized. 

Representations of the ‘‘maximum daily 

energy consumption’’ of cases 

accounting for the energy savings of 

lighting occupancy sensors, for 

example, could be made only after 

testing the case in accordance with the 

lighting occupancy sensor provisions in 

the amended test procedure. However, 

the amended test procedure could not 

be used to show compliance with DOE 

energy conservation standards until the 

effective date of any amended energy 

conservation standards. This is also true 

for covered equipment sold with night 

curtains. The provision for testing cases 

at the lowest application product 

temperature will not affect the reported 

energy of any covered product because 

manufacturers of cases that cannot be 

tested at the prescribed rating 

temperature are currently advised to 

request a waiver, since these cases 

cannot be tested under the existing test 

procedure. 

ACEEE, NEEA, and Earthjustice all 

expressed the view that the test 

procedure effective date should be 

equivalent to that of any amended 

energy conservation standards 

published in the concurrent energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

(Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–STD– 

0003). (ACEEE, No. 12 at p. 3; NEEA, 

No. 31 at p. 2; Earthjustice, No. 11 at p. 

2) Earthjustice also stated that DOE 

must clarify that manufacturers may not 

use night curtains and/or occupancy 

sensors to comply with minimum 

efficiency standards prior to the 

compliance date of amended standards 

that account for those features. 

(Earthjustice, No. 11 at p. 2) Earthjustice 

further commented that EPCA requires 

that, if DOE amends test procedures, it 

must also determine to what extent the 

proposed test procedure would alter 

measured energy use as determined 

under the existing test procedure. If the 

test procedure is found to alter 

measured energy use, DOE must amend 

the energy conservation standard to 

account for this, taking into 

consideration the performance of 

existing minimally compliant 

equipment under the amended test 

procedure. (Earthjustice, No. 11 at 

pp. 2–3) 

DOE understands that, if the amended 

test procedure will affect the measured 

energy consumption of a covered piece 

of equipment, DOE must amend energy 

conservation standards accordingly. 

DOE is pursuing amended standards 

based on the test procedure 

amendments being adopted in this final 

rule. As such, DOE is requiring that the 

use of any amended test procedure not 

be required until the compliance date of 

any amended standards. As these 

amended test procedures will only be 

used with standards that have been set 

based on those amendments, DOE 

believes there is no risk of backsliding, 

but is conscious of and accounting for 

this issue in the associated energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

(Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–STD– 

0003). 

With respect to representations of the 

maximum daily energy consumption of 

covered equipment, it is DOE’s 

understanding that 360 days following 

publication of the test procedure final 

rule, representations of energy 

consumption must be made using the 

amended test procedure. However, this 

could create a situation where 

manufacturers may have to test 

equipment using two different test 

procedures beginning 360 days after 

publication of the test procedure final 

rule (anticipated October 2012) and 

until 3 years after the publication of the 

CRE energy conservation standards final 

rule (anticipated January 2016). DOE 

believes this potentially would be 

confusing and burdensome for 

manufacturers. To simplify testing 

activities, DOE is specifying in this final 

rule that use of the amended test 

procedure for compliance and 

representations of energy use will be 

required on the compliance date of any 

amended energy conservation standards 

resulting from the ongoing rulemaking 

(Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–STD– 

0003). This stance is similar to that 

proposed for walk-in coolers and 

freezers with respect to the testing of 

insulation values and is the most 

practical to implement. 76 FR 48745 

(Aug. 9, 2011). DOE is including a 

clarifying statement in the test 

procedure rule language regarding when 

the amended test procedure must be 

used for purposes of compliance and 

labeling or other representations of 

energy consumption. 

3. Preemption 

At the January 2011 NOPR public 

meeting, California Codes and 

Standards asked DOE to consider which 

features of commercial refrigeration 

equipment should be addressed by DOE, 

as opposed to others that could be left 

uncovered and regulated by State or 

local building efficiency standards and 

codes. Features that could be more 

appropriately covered by State or local 

building regulations, according to the 

comment, could include controls not 

integral to a single unit (centralized, 

storewide controls); liquid-suction heat 

exchangers serving an entire lineup of 

cases; and application-specific devices, 

such as night curtains, which could be 

very valuable in some applications but 

inapplicable in others (such as 24-hour 

stores). California Codes and Standards 

requested that DOE clarify which of 

these types of features would be 

‘‘covered’’ or ‘‘uncovered’’ under the 

current and forthcoming CRE 

regulations (California Codes and 

Standards, No. 13 at pp. 15–16) and 

requested clarification on the ability of 

State or local building standards to 

specify additional prescriptive 

requirements for equipment based on 

building occupancy. (California Codes 

and Standards, No. 19 at p. 75) 

Federal minimum efficiency 

standards for commercial refrigeration 

equipment supersede State or local 

efficiency standards (42 U.S.C. 6297, 

6316(e)(2)), unless such standards are 

contained in a State or local building 

code for new construction that meets 

the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6297(f)(3), 

including the requirement that one 

pathway for compliance under the State 

building code is through the use of 

appliances that meet Federal standards. 

4. Burden of Testing 

DOE understands that amending test 

procedures or including additional 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
10310 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

provisions in those test procedures 

could increase the burden on 

manufacturers to quantify the 

performance of their equipment. EPCA 

requires that the test procedures 

promulgated by DOE be reasonably 

designed to produce test results that 

reflect energy efficiency, energy use, 

and estimated operating costs of the 

covered equipment during a 

representative average use cycle. EPCA 

also requires that the test procedure not 

be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 

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

DOE has analyzed the expected 

incremental cost of the test procedure 

amendments adopted in this final rule 

and its impact on manufacturers. The 

amendments to the DOE test procedure 

for commercial refrigeration equipment 

consist of updating the referenced 

industry test procedures to the most 

current versions; testing requirements 

for units sold with night curtains and 

lighting occupancy sensors or controls 

installed; and provisions for testing 

units at temperatures other than the 

specified rating temperatures of 38 °F, 

0 °F, and ¥15 °F. 

All commercial refrigeration 

equipment for which standards were set 

in EPACT 2005 are currently required to 

be tested using the DOE test procedure 

to show compliance with the EPACT 

2005 standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)– 

(3); 10 CFR 431.66(b)) Manufacturers of 

equipment for which standards were set 

in the January 2009 final rule are 

similarly required to test units using the 

DOE test procedure to show compliance 

with the 2009 standards levels as of 

January 1, 2012. 74 FR 1093 (Jan. 9, 

2009); 10 CFR 431.66(d)). The current 

DOE test procedure references AHRI 

Standard 1200–2006 and AHAM HRF– 

1–2004. This test procedure consists of 

one 24-hour test at standard rating 

conditions to determine daily energy 

consumption. 

The updated versions of AHRI 

Standard 1200–2010 and AHAM HRF– 

1–2008 do not vary substantially from 

the previously referenced versions. 

Aligning the DOE test procedure with 

the most recent industry test procedures 

currently in use—AHRI standard 1200– 

2010 and AHAM HRF–1–2008— 

simplifies testing requirements and 

reduces the burden of testing for both 

small and large manufacturers. 

For equipment that is sold with night 

curtains installed, the current test 

procedure requires one 24-hour test that 

does not account for the energy savings 

associated with night curtain 

deployment. The amended test 

procedure adopted in this final rule 

incorporates provisions to account for 

the energy savings associated with night 

curtain deployment. The night curtain 

test procedure requires the night curtain 

to be pulled down for 6 hours during 

the test. DOE believes the incremental 

burden of pulling down the night 

curtain at a certain time and retracting 

it 6 hours later requires less than half a 

minute each and is not significant 

relative to the burden of conducting the 

test. Thus, DOE has determined that the 

testing costs for CRE models with added 

night curtains are approximately the 

same as those for models without night 

curtains and concludes there are no 

significant incremental costs associated 

with testing models with night curtains. 

For units sold with lighting 

occupancy sensors and scheduled 

controls installed, no additional testing 

or measurements will be required. 

Manufacturers will be permitted to use 

a calculation method to determine the 

energy savings due to lighting 

occupancy sensors and scheduled 

controls. DOE believes that these 

additional calculations will only require 

approximately 30 minutes of additional 

time. These calculations are 

straightforward and similar to the 

calculations for alternate component 

energy consumption, which are part of 

the existing test procedure. When 

compared to the burden associated with 

the physical testing segment of the 

procedure, the additional calculations 

required by the lighting occupancy 

sensor and scheduled control 

requirements will not significantly 

increase the total burden of the test. 

Thus, DOE believes that the additional 

calculations for lighting occupancy 

sensors and controls will not 

significantly increase the burden of test 

for manufacturers of covered 

equipment. Also, DOE notes that 

manufacturers may optionally 

incorporate the testing of lighting 

occupancy sensors and controls into the 

physical test. In this case, manufacturers 

would be required to turn off and turn 

on the lights once each during the 24- 

hour test. DOE believes these additional 

steps would involve negligible effort in 

comparison to the burden associated 

with conducting the complete test and, 

thus, the incremental increase in burden 

would be negligible. 

For equipment that cannot be tested at 

the specified integrated average rating 

temperature for its respective equipment 

class, manufacturers are currently 

required to test the unit using AHRI 

Standard 1200 at the specified test 

temperature. Under the adopted 

revisions, these manufacturers will be 

allowed to test units that cannot meet 

the specified test temperature for their 

equipment class at the lowest 

application product temperature, with 

the only difference being the integrated 

average temperature. Because the same 

test will be performed for cases that 

cannot be tested at the prescribed rating 

temperature and must be tested at 

lowest application product temperature, 

as compared to cases that are tested at 

DOE’s prescribed rating temperature, 

DOE believes that this method will not 

increase the burden of test for those 

manufacturers and is likely to lead to 

more representative energy 

consumption values. DOE notes that the 

AHRI Standard 1200–2010 test is often 

already performed by manufacturers for 

participation in voluntary programs, 

independent collection of energy 

consumption information, or other 

reasons. 

In this test procedure final rule, DOE 

is also allowing manufacturers to test at 

the internal temperatures and/or 

ambient conditions required for NSF–7 

testing. This could dramatically reduce 

the burden for manufacturers that 

produce equipment for food storage, as 

under the amended test procedure these 

two 24-hour tests can be combined. The 

NSF–7 test is similar in length and 

burden to the DOE test, but is performed 

at slightly different internal and external 

temperatures. Certification of equipment 

tested at NSF–7 test temperatures for the 

purposes of compliance with DOE 

energy conservation standards will only 

be possible for equipment that is able to 

meet the DOE energy conservation 

standard at the more stringent NSF–7 

test conditions. However, DOE believes 

this provision can still potentially 

decrease the burden of test for some 

manufacturers. 

The amendments to the test procedure 

for commercial refrigeration equipment 

were chosen to help minimize the 

impact of additional testing while 

updating the DOE test procedure to 

include the most current versions of 

industry standards, capture new energy 

efficiency technologies, and provide 

more accurate test methods for 

equipment that cannot be tested at the 

currently prescribed integrated average 

rating temperature. Because none of 

these amendments significantly increase 

the burden of a test, DOE believes that 

the test procedure finalized here will 

not be unduly burdensome to conduct. 

For further discussion of the 

economic impact of additional testing 

on small CRE manufacturers, the 

entities that will be the most impacted 

by additional testing requirements, 

please see section IV.B of this final rule. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 10311 

a. Determination of Basic Models in the 

Context of Night Curtain and Lighting 

Occupancy Sensor and Scheduled 

Control Test Provisions 

In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE 

proposed that if a unit is tested and 

demonstrates compliance with the 

relevant energy conservation standard 

without night curtains or lighting 

occupancy sensors installed, that unit 

can also be sold with night curtains or 

lighting occupancy sensors installed 

without additional testing. DOE 

proposed this same provision for 

lighting occupancy sensors and controls 

in order to minimize the testing burden 

on manufacturers and because DOE 

believed that the addition of night 

curtains and lighting occupancy sensors 

and controls would only decrease 

energy consumption. If, however, a 

piece of equipment does not meet DOE’s 

energy conservation standards without 

night curtains (or lighting controls) 

installed, DOE proposed to require the 

unit to be tested with night curtains (or 

lighting controls) installed. In this 

instance, assuming the energy 

conservation standard is met, the 

equipment would also be required to be 

sold with night curtains (or lighting 

controls) installed. 75 FR 71600 (Nov. 

24, 2010). However, if a manufacturer 

wishes to publicize the certified ratings 

of a unit with night curtains (or lighting 

controls) installed, that energy 

consumption value must be determined 

using the DOE test procedure and 

applicable sampling plans. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(d)) In addition, the energy 

consumption of this basic model must 

be certified. 76 FR 12422, 12453 (March 

7, 2011). 

Coca-Cola commented that a 

manufacturer could sell a case with a 

lighting controller installed without 

testing the case to prove the energy 

savings as long as it made no claims 

regarding energy savings. Coca-Cola 

further commented that performing the 

additional tests could be burdensome 

for the manufacturer and should remain 

optional. (Coca-Cola, No. 19 at p. 243) 

However, California Codes and 

Standards commented that the 

additional burden to calculate, or test, 

with and without occupancy sensors 

seemed minimal and that perhaps it 

should be required. (California Codes 

and Standards, No. 19 at p. 250) NRDC 

encouraged DOE to require 

manufacturers of open cases with night 

curtains to test them with the curtains 

deployed for 6 hours as proposed, and 

to require labeling of equipment 

accordingly to explain the relevant 

efficiency features to potential buyers. 

(NRDC, No. 14 at p. 2) Similarly, NEEA 

disagreed with DOE’s proposal to allow 

night curtains to be used to establish 

compliance in units that are 

noncompliant without night curtains. 

(NEEA, No. 8 at p. 4) 

Coca-Cola agreed with DOE’s proposal 

to allow manufacturers the option of 

testing with night curtains. (Coca-Cola, 

No. 19 at p. 243) This provision would 

require that cases be tested with night 

curtains if (1) the case without night 

curtains does not meet the energy 

conservation standard; or (2) the 

manufacturer wishes to publicize the 

energy consumption of the case with 

night curtains installed. In response to 

California Codes and Standards and 

NRDC’s comments regarding the 

requirement of units sold with night 

curtains to be tested with night curtains, 

DOE has adopted the provision to allow 

cases that meet DOE’s energy 

conservation standard without night 

curtains to be sold with and without 

night curtains to minimize burden on 

manufacturers. 

Furthermore, implementation of night 

curtains will only improve energy 

efficiency of the equipment. This is 

consistent with the provisions for 

grouping into basic model families 

established in the certification, 

compliance, and enforcement (CCE) 

final rule. (CCE final rule; 76 FR 12422, 

12423 (March 7, 2011)). These 

provisions allow manufacturers to group 

individual models with essentially 

identical, but not exactly the same, 

energy performance characteristics into 

a basic model to reduce testing burden. 

Under DOE’s certification requirements, 

all the individual models within a basic 

model identified in a certification report 

as being the same basic model must 

have the same certified efficiency rating 

and use the same test data underlying 

the certified rating. The CCE final rule 

also establishes that the efficiency rating 

of a basic model must be based on the 

least efficient or most energy consuming 

individual model, or, put another way, 

all individual models within a basic 

model must be at least as good as the 

certified rating. 76 FR 12428–29 (March 

7, 2011). Because night curtains would 

only serve to decrease energy 

consumption or increase energy 

efficiency of commercial refrigeration 

equipment, DOE believes the provisions 

for optionally testing cases with night 

curtains if the case without night 

curtains meets the energy conservation 

standard for its equipment class ensures 

that all equipment sold meets DOE’s 

energy conservation standards and 

minimizes burden on manufacturers. 

This same argument applies to the 

testing provisions for cases with lighting 

occupancy sensor and/or scheduled 

lighting controls installed. DOE notes 

that manufacturers are free to test a case 

both with and without night curtains (or 

lighting occupancy sensors and/or 

lighting controls) to establish separate 

efficiency ratings and must do so if they 

wish to make representations of both 

values. 

Regarding NEEA’s comment 

criticizing the fact that testing of cases 

with night curtains could be used to 

certify otherwise noncompliant 

equipment, DOE sets performance 

standards, but cannot control or restrict 

what design options or technologies a 

manufacturer chooses to employ to meet 

a certain standard level. Thus, like any 

other design option, manufacturers may 

employ night curtains as a means to 

increase efficiency of a case to meet 

DOE’s energy conservation standards. 

b. Estimates of Burden 

In the initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA), presented in the 

November 2010 NOPR, DOE quantified 

the incremental burden on small 

manufacturers and certified that this 

rulemaking, as proposed, would not 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 75 

FR 71596, 71606–08 (Nov. 24, 2010). In 

the IRFA, DOE presented several 

estimates of the cost of testing and the 

number of small U.S. commercial 

refrigeration equipment manufacturers. 

DOE estimated testing costs to be 

approximately $5,000 per unit to 

conduct the baseline test, as outlined in 

AHRI 1200–2010. 75 FR 71607 (Nov. 24, 

2010). In response to these estimates, 

Southern Store Fixtures, Traulsen, and 

Hussmann all commented that the cost 

of testing is actually much greater than 

$5,000. (Southern Store Fixtures, No. 19 

at p. 237; Traulsen, No. 19 at p. 238; 

Hussmann, No. 19 at p. 238) Traulsen 

stated that an estimate for total cost of 

testing a unit, including shipping, 

product costs, etc., would be $15,000. 

(Traulsen, No. 9 at p. 8) NEEA agreed 

with other interested parties that stated 

that DOE’s estimate of $5,000 for testing 

a unit was likely too low. However, 

NEEA also stated that, based on its own 

experience, the cost of additional testing 

of a model is not nearly double the cost 

of the first test, since the unit is only 

shipped and set up once. Thus, 

according to NEEA, additional tests 

would only slightly add to the burden 

of testing. (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 7) NEEA 

stated that it did not believe DOE’s 

proposal to be overly burdensome, as in 

every instance only one 24-hour test 

should be required for a given piece of 

equipment. (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 7) 

Traulsen stated that it believes DOE’s 

estimate of 22 small businesses in the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
10312 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

CRE manufacturing sector to be too low, 

and that it believes most or even all CRE 

manufacturers employ fewer than 750 

employees if subsidiaries of larger 

companies are considered as 

independent business units. Traulsen 

submitted a list of 39 brands or 

manufacturers of commercial 

refrigeration equipment. (Traulsen, No. 

9 at pp. 4–5) 

Southern Store Fixtures commented 

that the proposed test procedure would 

impact its operation. (Southern Store 

Fixtures, No. 19 at p. 253) Traulsen 

stated that equipment sampling 

provisions and the increasing scope of 

standards are causing testing costs to 

increase significantly and, according to 

Traulsen, the company’s marginal costs 

incurred as a result will be 

approximately $250,000 per year. 

(Traulsen, No. 9 at pp. 1–2) Zero Zone 

commented that applying additional 

tests is only easy if it is known that 

these tests must be performed when the 

unit is originally tested. Re-testing of 

units is much more burdensome than 

adding additional tests to a unit being 

tested, as re-testing requires that the test 

setup be re-installed and calibrated. 

Zero Zone also commented that, while 

the test procedure changes will not have 

a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, the addition of 

DOE regulations to existing regulations 

will create a barrier to entry into the 

market for small start-up companies. 

(Zero Zone, No. 16 at pp. 1–2) 

DOE has attempted to minimize the 

burden on manufacturers by keeping all 

test procedure amendments confined to 

the existing single 24-hour test. Thus, 

the test procedure amendments should 

not significantly increase the burden of 

testing a piece of equipment covered 

under the rule. 

DOE appreciates the information 

related to cost of testing and the number 

of small businesses covered by this rule. 

DOE has considered these new numbers 

in revising the regulatory flexibility 

analysis. However, DOE notes that the 

costs cited by manufacturers represent 

the cost to conduct the AHRI 1200 test, 

which is required by both the existing 

test procedure and the new amended 

test procedure. Thus, the $15,000 test 

burden is not an incremental cost 

associated with this test procedure final 

rule. The incremental cost to test a piece 

of commercial refrigeration equipment 

covered under this rulemaking will not 

increase significantly because the 

amendments in this final rule do not 

significantly impact the time, labor, or 

materials required to conduct a test. 

Because the testing burden will not 

increase significantly as a result of this 

rule, DOE believes the incremental 

impact on small businesses will be 

small. DOE’s revised final regulatory 

flexibility analysis can be found in 

section IV. 

c. Coordination with ENERGY STAR 

Traulsen expressed concern that 

increased requirements for third-party 

testing and compliance with DOE and 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) programs are escalating the 

burden on manufacturers. (Traulsen, 

No. 9 at pp. 1–2) Traulsen also 

commented that the most significant 

improvement DOE could make in terms 

of reducing burden for manufacturers 

would be to align DOE and ENERGY 

STAR testing and reporting 

requirements. (Traulsen, No. 5 at p. 254) 

Traulsen and True commented that 

ENERGY STAR is currently requiring 

equipment to be tested ‘‘out of the box,’’ 

including testing at the product 

temperature at which the unit is 

shipped. (Traulsen, No. 19 at p. 195; 

True, No. 19 at p. 198) Traulsen 

explained how this requirement has 

created issues because it ships its cases 

at an internal temperature set point of 

34 °F for marketing reasons, which may 

create problems when the cases are 

tested at that temperature. Traulsen 

asked if DOE was also going to be 

requiring the testing of cases ‘‘out of the 

box’’ without adjusting the integrated 

average temperature set point. 

(Traulsen, No. 19 at p. 195) NEEA 

commented it had been involved with 

ENERGY STAR since its inception and 

that it is not possible to test units out 

of the box, and that ‘‘out of the box’’ 

simply means that the unit is not 

specially fabricated or adjusted. (NEEA, 

No. 19 at p. 198) Traulsen stated that 

DOE must ensure that the test procedure 

allows for adjustment of the equipment 

to the test set points, as ‘‘out of the box’’ 

set points may not be 38 °F. Traulsen 

further stated that this would differ from 

EPA testing, where units must be tested 

as is, out of the box. (Traulsen, No. 9 at 

p. 7) 

DOE attempts, to the extent possible, 

to minimize duplicative reporting or 

testing requirements. Further, this final 

rule does not require ‘‘out of the box’’ 

testing as interpreted by Traulsen. All 

equipment tested for the purposes of 

compliance with DOE energy 

conservation standards must be tested 

using the DOE test procedure. DOE is 

working with EPA to ensure that the test 

procedures for commercial refrigeration 

equipment for the regulatory program 

and the ENERGY STAR program are the 

same. 

5. Association With Compliance, 

Certification, and Enforcement 

Regulations 

Interested parties inquired as to how 

the provision allowing equipment that 

complies with the energy conservation 

standard to be sold with and without 

night curtains (or lighting controls) 

without being retested relates to the 

concurrent CCE rulemaking. 76 FR 

12422 (March 7, 2011). AHRI 

commented that there was a disconnect 

between what is being proposed in the 

CCE rulemaking and the provisions for 

testing night curtains and lighting 

control devices in the November 2010 

NOPR. (AHRI, No. 19 at p. 254) AHRI 

also commented that because of issues 

related to compliance and claiming 

energy savings from night curtains 

without testing, manufacturers were 

going to be required to test cases twice. 

(AHRI, No. 19 at p. 216) NEEA added 

that utility programs and ENERGY 

STAR will require certified values for 

inclusion in their programs. (NEEA, No. 

19 at p. 162) Coca-Cola inquired 

whether a unit that had been tested 

without night curtains had to be 

certified with night curtains under the 

current CCE requirements. (Coca-Cola, 

No. 19 at p. 161) Heatcraft inquired 

whether the provision for selling 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

with and without night curtains if the 

unit met DOE’s energy conservation 

standards without night curtains 

installed could apply to other 

components, such as a unit that was 

sold with a permanent split capacitor or 

evaporative condensed screw condenser 

fan. (Heatcraft, No. 19 at p. 155) 

In response to AHRI’s comment that 

the proposal for testing and certifying 

units with night curtains may conflict 

with the CCE rulemaking (76 FR 12422 

(March 7, 2011)), DOE notes that testing 

of equipment with or without night 

curtains is not required because there 

are currently no Federal prescriptive 

standards that include night curtains 

and no test procedure to quantify their 

effect on equipment energy 

consumption. DOE believes that the test 

procedure established in this final rule 

for units equipped with night curtains 

and/or lighting occupancy sensors and 

scheduled lighting controls does not 

conflict with the CCE requirements that 

DOE published in the CCE final rule. 76 

FR 12423 (March 7, 2011). Specifically, 

as mentioned above, implementation of 

night curtains (or lighting occupancy 

sensors and/or controls) will only 

reduce the reported energy consumption 

of the equipment and is consistent with 

the basic model provisions, established 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 10313 

in the CCE final rule. 76 FR 12428–29 

(March 7, 2011). 

Thus, in this final rule DOE is 

adopting provisions that allow units 

equipped with night curtains and/or 

lighting occupancy sensors and controls 

to be tested. As described in the CCE 

final rule, DOE allows CRE 

manufacturers to group individual 

models into basic models for the 

purposes of testing and certification. 76 

FR 12428–29 (March 7, 2011). A 

manufacturer may group individual 

models with and without night curtains 

into one basic model provided that the 

certified ratings of all individual models 

in the group are identical and 

representative of the least efficient 

individual model within the basic 

model (i.e., the most consumptive 

model without night curtains). Today’s 

final rule also provides that if 

manufacturers wish to make 

representations regarding reduced 

energy consumption associated with 

any feature, such as night curtains, 

manufacturers must use multiple basic 

models to distinguish between those 

with and without night curtains and the 

certified ratings of energy consumption 

must be developed either through 

testing or calculations as permitted by 

this final rule. 

Regarding Heatcraft’s comment, 

manufacturers have some discretion 

regarding how to rate units with 

permanent split capacitor or evaporative 

condensed screw condenser fans. 

Manufacturers may group individual 

models, with different condenser fans or 

other features, into a single basic model 

to show compliance with DOE’s energy 

conservation standards, provided all 

models identified in a certification 

report as being the same basic model 

must have the same certified efficiency 

rating, which is based on the least 

efficient model. 76 FR 12428–29 (March 

7, 2011). 

a. Test Tolerances 

In comments received during the 

November 2010 NOPR public comment 

period, Traulsen stated that the proposal 

presented by DOE does not address 

tolerances, but that many components 

have tolerances of 10 to 15 percent, and 

that test laboratories recognize 

variations of 5 to 10 percent. Traulsen 

suggested a 20 percent tolerance on 

standards testing. (Traulsen, No. 9 at pp. 

7–8) DOE’s current test tolerances for 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

were established in the CCE final rule 

and are based on a specified sampling 

plan and statistical variances 

approximated with a Student’s 

t-distribution. 76 FR 12430 (March 7, 

2011). Amendment of these tolerances, 

sampling plans, or other items related 

specifically to CCE activities for 

commercial refrigeration equipment are 

not addressed in this test procedure 

final rule. 

6. Alternative Refrigerants 

At the January 2011 NOPR public 

meeting, DOE received several 

comments regarding alternative 

refrigerants. AHRI stated that there is 

proposed legislation (unspecified) that 

would require the phase down of 

hydrofluorocarbons, which would 

require the use of alternative refrigerants 

in commercial refrigeration equipment, 

and suggested that DOE assess the 

performance of different refrigerants. 

(AHRI, No. 19 at p. 22) California Codes 

and Standards commented that DOE 

should address the burden of testing the 

same piece of equipment when different 

refrigerants are used. (California Codes 

and Standards, No. 19 at pp. 16–17) 

True commented that if the refrigerant 

in a case changes, the evaporator coil, 

the expansion valve, and several other 

components would also have to change, 

which would effectively change the 

entire system. (True, No. 19 at pp. 

19–20) Coca-Cola also commented that 

different refrigerants are not used in the 

same case. Coca-Cola further stated that 

different refrigerants work better at 

different temperatures, which is one 

reason the cabinets are treated 

separately. (Coca-Cola, No. 19 at pp. 

20–21) 

DOE agrees with Traulsen and CocaCola that if a different refrigerant were 

used in a case, it would require a new 

case design. Thus, cases with different 

refrigerants should be treated as 

different basic models and will require 

separate tests regardless. The DOE test 

procedure finalized here is capable of 

testing units using any primary 

refrigerant that enters and leaves the 

case as a single phase. However, each 

unit employing a different refrigerant 

would be treated as an individual basic 

model because of the different design 

considerations and performance 

characteristics. DOE acknowledges 

AHRI’s comment suggesting that there 

may be proposed legislation which 

would influence the availability of 

hydroflourocarbon refrigerants; however 

this legislation is not in place and DOE 

does not wish to speculate on the 

specific requirements or impacts of any 

such legislation. 

7. Secondary Coolant Systems 

In the January 2009 final rule, DOE 

determined secondary coolant systems 

to be outside the scope of that 

rulemaking because secondary coolant 

systems constitute a small market share 

and there is no industry test procedure 

that covers all secondary coolant 

systems in the market. 74 FR 1105 (Jan. 

9, 2009). Neither of these factors has 

changed significantly since the January 

2009 final rule and, thus, DOE will 

continue to exclude secondary coolant 

systems from this test procedure and the 

concurrent energy conservation 

standards rulemaking (Docket No. 

EERE–2010–BT–STD–0003). 

Nevertheless, several interested 

parties commented regarding secondary 

coolant systems at both the January 

2011 NOPR public meeting and the 

April 2011 Preliminary Analysis public 

meeting. At the January 2011 NOPR 

public meeting, AHRI stated that 

secondary coolant systems are excluded 

from AHRI 1200, but that AHRI is in the 

process of developing a relevant 

standard that would be issued soon. 

(AHRI, No. 19 at p. 58) True commented 

that secondary coolant systems are very 

difficult to test and are not covered by 

ASHRAE Standard 72. True added that 

the ASHRAE Standard 72 committee is 

reviewing test methods for secondary 

coolant systems, but currently there is 

no definitive, repeatable test method. 

(True, No. 19 at pp. 17–18) True stated 

that the ASHRAE Standard 72 

committee is also working to 

incorporate test methods for secondary 

coolant equipment, but so far has found 

the variability of results in the currently 

available test methods quite large. True 

added that a revised standard would 

probably not be ready for inclusion in 

the DOE test procedure. (True, No. 19 at 

pp. 58–59) Traulsen agreed that it does 

not believe that secondary coolant 

systems can be effectively tested and 

rated. (Traulsen, No. 9 at p. 6) California 

Codes and Standards agreed with DOE’s 

proposed exclusion of secondary 

coolant systems from the test procedure 

because it believed that coverage of 

them by DOE at this time could result 

in a hastily developed regulation, which 

would also pre-empt States from 

regulating such systems themselves. In 

addition, California Codes and 

Standards stated that because there is no 

test method in place and thus no data, 

more data must be collected prior to 

developing any standard levels for this 

equipment. (California Codes and 

Standards, No. 13 at p. 4) NEEA agreed 

with DOE’s plan to exclude secondary 

coolant equipment from this round of 

rulemaking, citing the fact that there is 

currently no industry test procedure for 

this equipment. Instead, NEEA 

encouraged DOE to plan to address this 

equipment in the next rulemaking, 

potentially by including a ‘‘reserved’’ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
10314 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

section in this notice. (NEEA, No. 8 at 

p. 2) 

ACEEE expressed concern about the 

lack of coverage of secondary coolant 

systems, stating that 

hydrochlorfluorocarbon phase-downs 

and other factors are increasing the 

attention paid to these sorts of systems. 

Not regulating these systems, in the 

opinion of ACEEE, will prevent 

customers from being able to fairly 

compare them with existing systems. 

However, ACEEE conceded that it is not 

clear how to make accommodations in 

the test procedure to cover such 

equipment. At a minimum, ACEEE 

agreed with NEEA that placeholders for 

the systems should be inserted into the 

rule. (ACEEE, No. 12 at p. 3) True 

similarly expressed that secondary loop 

systems, often with carbon dioxide 

(CO2), are becoming more common, 

which offers an environmental 

emissions improvement but can result 

in decreased energy efficiency. (True, 

No. 19 at pp. 17–18) 

California Codes and Standards stated 

that the State of California is 

considering incorporating secondary 

loop CO2 systems as part of its building 

standards, and will be addressing both 

energy efficiency and greenhouse gas 

emissions. (California Codes and 

Standards, No. 19 at pp. 18–19) ACEEE 

stated that manufacturers would likely 

prefer that secondary coolant systems be 

covered by a DOE rule, as excluding 

them would allow States to publish 

their own standards. (ACEEE, No. 12 at 

p. 3) 

At the April 2011 Preliminary 

Analysis public meeting, interested 

parties also commented regarding the 

lack of an industry-accepted test 

procedure for secondary coolant 

systems. True stated that existing test 

methods for secondary coolant systems 

work only for systems for which there 

is not a phase change and test methods 

for transcritical or slurry systems have 

yet to be developed or verified. (Docket 

No. EERE–2010–BT–STD–0003, True, 

No. 31 at p. 162–63) Southern Store 

Fixtures stated that AHRI has recently 

developed a test procedure for 

secondary coolant systems, but that it is 

only applicable to fully liquid systems 

and does not accommodate two-phase 

flow. (Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–STD– 

0003, Southern Store Fixtures, No. 31 at 

p. 165) AHRI added that its work with 

secondary coolant applications is linked 

to ASHRAE’s work, and that it too 

would have to wait for ASHRAE to 

produce a method of test (Docket No. 

EERE–2010–BT–STD–0003, AHRI, No. 

31 at pp. 165–66) Traulsen agreed with 

DOE that secondary coolant 

technologies have not matured to the 

point where regulatory oversight would 

be required or beneficial. (Docket No. 

EERE–2010–BT–STD–0003, Traulsen, 

No. 31 at p. 5) 

DOE previously excluded secondary 

coolant systems in the January 2009 

final rule, in part, because there were no 

established test procedures to evaluate 

their energy consumption. As AHRI 

mentioned, secondary coolant systems 

are still excluded from AHRI 1200– 

2010. In December 2011, AHRI 

published AHRI Standard 1320 (I–P)– 

2011, ‘‘Performance Rating of 

Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets for 

Use with Secondary Refrigerants.’’ 

However, as interested parties noted, 

this new standard specifies a reference 

working fluid and is applicable only to 

the portion of secondary coolant 

systems that use secondary coolants 

with similar characteristics. 

Specifically, this standard will not be 

applicable to transcritical CO2, brine, or 

ammonia secondary coolant systems. 

The ASHRAE Standard 72 committee is 

also considering a method of testing to 

evaluate secondary coolant systems, 

including transcritical CO2 systems; 

however, this standard was not 

available in time for this rulemaking. 

DOE agrees with many of the 

interested parties that testing secondary 

coolant systems accurately will be 

difficult and an accepted and vetted 

method to do so does not yet exist. 

Given this uncertainty and the small 

market share of this equipment, DOE 

believes it best to continue to exclude 

secondary coolant systems from the 

DOE test procedure; however, DOE will 

continue to consult with ASHRAE and 

AHRI regarding the development of a 

future test procedure for secondary 

coolant systems. In the next DOE test 

procedure revision, DOE will reassess 

the status and accuracy of industry test 

procedures for secondary coolant 

systems and, if available, could include 

the test procedures in the DOE test 

procedure at that time. Since it is not 

clear when a reliable and vetted test 

procedure for transcritical secondary 

coolant systems will be available, DOE 

does not wish to reserve a section in this 

test procedure final rule. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that test 

procedure rulemakings do not constitute 

‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ 58 

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

this action was not subject to review 

under the Executive Order by the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the OMB. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

of an IRFA whenever an agency is 

required to publish a general notice of 

proposed rulemaking. When an agency 

promulgates a final rule after being 

required to publish a general notice of 

proposed rulemaking, the agency must 

prepare a final regulatory flexibility 

analysis (FRFA). The requirement to 

prepare these analyses does not apply to 

any proposed or final rule if the agency 

certifies that the rule will not, if 

promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. If the agency 

makes such a certification, the agency 

must publish the certification in the 

Federal Register along with the factual 

basis for such certification. 

As required by Executive Order 

13272, ‘‘Proper Consideration of Small 

Entities in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 

53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, so that the potential impacts of its 

rules on small entities are properly 

considered during the rulemaking 

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

DOE has made its procedures and 

policies available on the Office of the 

General Counsel’s Web site at 

www.gc.doe.gov. 

In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE 

reviewed the proposed rule to amend 

the test procedure for commercial 

refrigeration equipment, under the 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act and the procedures and policies 

published on February 19, 2003. DOE 

certified that the proposed rule, if 

adopted, would not result in a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. DOE received 

comments on its certification and the 

economic impacts of the test procedure, 

and has responded to these comments 

in section III.B.4. After consideration of 

these comments, DOE certifies that the 

test procedure amendments set forth in 

this final rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The factual basis for this 

certification is set forth below. 

For the CRE manufacturing industry, 

the Small Business Administration 

(SBA) has set a size threshold, which 

defines those entities classified as 

‘‘small businesses’’ for the purpose of 

the statute. DOE used the SBA’s size 

standards to determine whether any 

small entities would be required to 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 10315 

comply with the rule. The size 

standards are codified at 13 CFR part 

121. The standards are listed by North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code and industry 

description and are available at 

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

Size_Standards_Table.pdf. CRE 

manufacturers are classified under 

NAICS 333415, ‘‘Air-Conditioning and 

Warm Air Heating Equipment and 

Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration 

Equipment Manufacturing.’’ The SBA 

sets a threshold of 750 employees or less 

for an entity to be considered as a small 

business for this category. 

DOE conducted a focused inquiry into 

small business manufacturers of 

equipment covered by this rulemaking. 

During its market survey, DOE used all 

available public information to identify 

potential small manufacturers. DOE’s 

research involved the review of industry 

trade association membership 

directories (including AHRI), equipment 

databases (e.g., Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC), the Thomas 

Register, California Energy Commission 

(CEC), and ENERGY STAR databases), 

individual company Web sites, and 

marketing research tools (e.g., Dunn and 

Bradstreet reports, Manta) to create a list 

of companies that manufacture or sell 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

covered by this rulemaking. DOE also 

referred to a list of small businesses that 

manufacture commercial refrigeration 

equipment, supplied by Traulsen in a 

written comment. (Traulsen, No. 9 at 

pp. 4–5) Using these sources, DOE 

identified 61 manufacturers of 

commercial refrigeration equipment. 

DOE then reviewed this data to 

determine whether the entities met the 

SBA’s definition of a small business 

manufacturer of commercial 

refrigeration equipment and screened 

out companies that do not offer 

equipment covered by this rulemaking, 

do not meet the definition of a ‘‘small 

business,’’ or are foreign owned and 

operated. Based on this review, DOE has 

identified 26 companies that would be 

considered small manufacturers. DOE 

had originally identified 22 

manufacturers of commercial 

refrigeration equipment. 75 FR 71596, 

71606–07 (Nov. 24, 2010). DOE referred 

to the list supplied by Traulsen to revise 

its estimate of the number of small 

entities considered in this rule. 

(Traulsen, No. 9 at pp. 4–5) 

Table IV.1 stratifies the small 

businesses according to their number of 

employees. The smallest company has 6 

employees and the largest company has 

400 employees. The majority of the 

small businesses affected by this 

rulemaking (85 percent) have fewer than 

200 employees. Annual revenues 

associated with these small 

manufacturers were estimated at $569.3 

million ($21.9 million average annual 

sales per small manufacturer). 

According to DOE’s analysis, small 

entities comprise 43 percent of the 

entire commercial refrigeration 

equipment manufacturing industry. 

TABLE IV.1—SMALL BUSINESS SIZE BY NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

Number of employees 

Number of 

small 

businesses 

Percentage of 

small 

businesses 

Cumulative 

percentage 

1–10 ............................................................................................................................................. 4 15.4 15.4 

11–20 ........................................................................................................................................... 3 11.5 26.9 

21–30 ........................................................................................................................................... 2 7.7 34.6 

31–40 ........................................................................................................................................... 1 3.8 38.5 

41–50 ........................................................................................................................................... 2 7.7 46.2 

51–60 ........................................................................................................................................... 1 3.8 50.0 

61–70 ........................................................................................................................................... 1 3.8 53.8 

71–80 ........................................................................................................................................... 2 7.7 61.5 

81–90 ........................................................................................................................................... 0 0.0 61.5 

91–100 ......................................................................................................................................... 1 3.8 65.4 

101–110 ....................................................................................................................................... 1 3.8 69.2 

111–120 ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0.0 69.2 

121–130 ....................................................................................................................................... 2 7.7 76.9 

131–140 ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0.0 76.9 

141–150 ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0.0 76.9 

151–200 ....................................................................................................................................... 2 7.7 84.6 

201–300 ....................................................................................................................................... 3 11.5 96.2 

301–400 ....................................................................................................................................... 1 3.8 100.0 

401–750 ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0.0 100.0 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 26 ........................ ........................

All commercial refrigeration 

equipment for which standards were set 

in EPACT 2005 are currently required to 

be tested using the DOE test procedure 

to show compliance with the EPACT 

2005 standard levels. Manufacturers of 

equipment for which standards were set 

in the January 2009 final rule will 

similarly be required to test units using 

the DOE test procedure to show 

compliance with the 2009 standards 

levels beginning January 1, 2012. The 

current DOE test procedure references 

AHRI Standard 1200–2006 and AHAM 

HRF–1–2004. This test procedure 

consists of one 24-hour test at standard 

rating conditions to determine daily 

energy consumption. 

In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE 

estimated the cost of conducting the 

DOE test procedure as $5,000 per 

24-hour test. 75 FR 71607 (Nov. 24, 

2010). DOE received comments from 

interested parties presenting cost 

estimates of $15,000 per test. (Southern 

Store Fixtures, No. 19 at p. 237; 

Hussmann, No. 19 at p. 238; Traulsen, 

No. 9 at p. 8; NEEA, No. 8 at p. 7) DOE 

revised its analysis using a cost of 

$15,000 per 24-hour test, as suggested 

by interested parties. DOE notes that 

$15,000 represents the cost of 

conducting the current DOE test 

procedure, not the incremental cost 

associated with the amendments in this 

final rule. 

In this final rule, DOE is adopting 

amendments that align the DOE test 

procedure with the most recent industry 

test procedures currently in use (AHRI 

Standard 1200–2010 and AHAM HRF– 

1–2008); incorporate provisions for 

testing certain energy efficiency 

features, including night curtains and 

lighting occupancy sensor and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
10316 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

25U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. 2009. National Occupational 

Employment and Wage Estimates. Washington, DC. 

26U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. 2010. Employer Costs for Employee 

Compensation—Management, Professional, and 

Related Employees. Washington, DC. 

scheduled controls; and provide a test 

procedure for specialty equipment that 

cannot be tested at the prescribed rating 

temperature. The updated standards 

referenced in this test procedure final 

rule, namely AHRI Standard 1200–2010 

and AHAM HRF–1–2008, are not 

substantially different from those 

referenced in the current DOE test 

procedure. DOE estimates that the 

amended test procedure will still 

require 24 hours to conduct and cost 

approximately $15,000 per test. 

For cases with night curtains 

installed, manufacturers can now take 

advantage of the reduced energy 

consumption associated with night 

curtains in the DOE test procedure. The 

night curtain provisions in the test 

procedure require the night curtain to be 

pulled down for 6 hours during the test. 

DOE believes the incremental burden of 

pulling down the night curtain at a 

certain time and retracting it 6 hours 

later requires less than half a minute 

each and is not significant relative to the 

burden of conducting the test. Although 

there is a small labor requirement 

associated with pulling down night 

curtains, DOE believes this is not an 

incremental burden because conducting 

the test already requires personnel to be 

present to check temperature probes and 

monitor the status of the test. Thus, DOE 

has determined that the testing costs for 

CRE models with added night curtains 

are approximately the same as those for 

models without night curtains and 

therefore concludes there are no 

significant incremental costs associated 

with testing models with night curtains. 

The amendments in this final rule 

allowing calculations to quantify the 

energy savings associated with lighting 

occupancy sensors and controls will not 

lead to significant additional testing 

burden. DOE estimates the minimal 

costs associated with conducting the 

necessary calculations as $26.67 per 

test. DOE bases its estimate on the 

assumption that it would take an 

engineer 30 minutes to perform the 

calculation. The average hourly salary 

for an engineer completing this task is 

estimated at $38.74.25 Fringe benefits 

are estimated at 30 percent of total 

compensation, which brings the hourly 

costs to employers to $55.34.26 As this 

incremental cost represents 0.4 percent 

of the total testing cost for a unit, DOE 

believes this increase is not significant. 

For equipment that cannot be tested at 

the prescribed integrated average 

product temperature, manufacturers 

currently are required to test the unit 

using AHRI Standard 1200 at the 

integrated average temperature 

associated with their respective 

equipment class. Under the revisions 

adopted in this final rule, these 

manufacturers will be allowed to test 

units that cannot meet the prescribed 

rating temperature at the lowest 

application product temperature, with 

the only difference being the integrated 

average product temperature. Since the 

same test is performed in both cases, 

DOE believes that this amendment to 

the test procedure will not increase the 

burden of test for those manufacturers. 

In addition, the provision for testing 

units that cannot operate at the 

specified integrated average product 

temperature will affect only a small 

percentage of units. DOE believes there 

would not be an incremental increase in 

testing burden, for small or large 

manufacturers, due to this provision. 

DOE also notes that, if a unit is tested 

and shows compliance with the relevant 

energy conservation standard without 

night curtains or lighting occupancy 

sensors and scheduled controls 

installed, that unit can also be sold with 

these efficiency features installed 

without additional testing. DOE believes 

this provision will reduce burden on 

manufacturers. 

Because there is not a significant 

incremental burden associated with any 

of the individual amendments adopted 

in this final rule, DOE concludes that 

there is not a significant incremental 

burden associated with the test 

procedure amendments in this final 

rule. In fact, the burden of conducting 

the amended test procedure is almost 

identical to the burden of conducting 

the existing DOE test procedure. Since 

there is no incremental burden 

associated with the amended test 

procedure, DOE has determined that 

this test procedure final rule does not 

impose negative economic impacts on 

manufacturers, including small entities. 

Thus, DOE continues to certify that this 

rule will not have a ‘‘significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities,’’ and the 

preparation of a regulatory flexibility 

analysis is not warranted. DOE has 

transmitted the certification and 

supporting statement of factual basis to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration for 

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

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

Manufacturers of commercial 

refrigeration equipment must certify to 

DOE that their equipment complies with 

any applicable energy conservation 

standards. In certifying compliance, 

manufacturers must test their 

equipment according to the DOE test 

procedure for commercial refrigeration 

equipment, including any amendments 

adopted for the test procedure. DOE has 

established regulations for the 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial equipment, 

including commercial refrigeration 

equipment. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 

2011). The collection-of-information 

requirement for the certification and 

recordkeeping is subject to review and 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement 

has been approved by OMB under OMB 

Control Number 1910–1400. Public 

reporting burden for the certification is 

estimated to average 20 hours per 

response, including the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

In this final rule, DOE amends its test 

procedure for commercial refrigeration 

equipment. DOE has determined that 

this rule falls into a class of actions that 

are categorically excluded from review 

under the National Environmental 

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

seq.) and DOE’s implementing 

regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. 

Specifically, this rule amends an 

existing rule without affecting the 

amount, quality, or distribution of 

energy usage, and therefore will not 

result in any environmental impacts. 

Thus, this rulemaking is covered by 

Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR 

part 1021, subpart D, which applies to 

any rulemaking that interprets or 

amends an existing rule without 

changing the environmental effect of 

that rule. Accordingly, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 10317 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

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

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 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 equipment 

that is 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.gc.doe.gov. 

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. 

Today’s 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). 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 reasonable 

alternatives to the action and their 

expected benefits on energy supply, 

distribution, and use. 

Today’s 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
10318 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 NOPR 

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 FTC concerning the 

impact of the commercial or industry 

standards on competition. 

The proposed rule incorporates 

testing methods contained in the 

following commercial standards: (1) 

AHAM HRF–1–2008, which supersedes 

ANSI/AHAM HRF–1–2004, ‘‘Energy and 

Internal Volume of Refrigerating 

Appliances,’’ including errata issued 

November 17, 2009, section 3.30, 

‘‘Volume,’’ and sections 4.1 through 4.3, 

‘‘Method for Computing Refrigerated 

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

in 10 CFR 431.64(b)(3) and 431.66(a)(1); 

and (2) AHRI Standard 1200–2010, 

which supersedes ARI Standard 1200– 

2006, ‘‘Performance Rating of 

Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets,’’ 

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

Requirements,’’ and section 7, ‘‘Symbols 

and Subscripts,’’ in 10 CFR 431.64(b)(1), 

(b)(2), (b)(4)(i), and (b)(4)(ii), and 

431.66(a)(3), (d)(2) and (3). As stated in 

the November 2010 NOPR, DOE has 

evaluated these standards and is unable 

to conclude whether they fully comply 

with the requirements of section 323(b) 

of the Federal Energy Administration 

Act (i.e., determine that they were 

developed in a manner that fully 

provides for public participation, 

comment, and review). 75 FR 71596, 

71609 (Nov. 24, 2010). 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). 

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this final rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation test 

procedures, Incorporation by reference. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 31, 

2012. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE amends part 431 of 

Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal 

Regulations as set forth below: 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 2. Section 431.62 is amended by 

adding in alphabetical order the 

definitions of ‘‘lighting occupancy 

sensor,’’ ‘‘lowest application product 

temperature,’’ ‘‘night curtain,’’ and 

‘‘scheduled lighting control’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.62 Definitions concerning 

commercial refrigerators, freezers, and 

refrigerator-freezers. 

* * * * * 

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 closest to the 

specified rating temperature for a given 

piece of equipment achievable and 

repeatable, such that the integrated 

average temperature of a given unit is 

within ±2 °F of the average of all 

integrated average temperature values 

for that basic model. 

Night curtain means a device which is 

temporarily deployed to decrease air 

exchange and heat transfer between the 

refrigerated case and the surrounding 

environment. 

* * * * * 

Scheduled lighting control means a 

device which automatically shuts off or 

dims the lighting in a display case at 

scheduled times throughout the day. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 431.63 is amended by 

adding paragraph (b)(2) and revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 431.63 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) AHAM HRF–1–2008 (‘‘HRF–1– 

2008’’), Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers, Energy and Internal 

Volume of Refrigerating Appliances 

(2008) including Errata to Energy and 

Internal Volume of Refrigerating 

Appliances, Correction Sheet issued 

November 17, 2009, IBR approved for 

§ 431.64. 

(c) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating, 

and Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson 

Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, 

(703) 524–8800, ahri@ahrinet.org, or 

http://www.ahrinet.org/Content/ 

StandardsProgram_20.aspx. 

(1) ARI Standard 1200–2006, 

Performance Rating of Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 

Storage Cabinets, 2006, IBR approved 

for §§ 431.64 and 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 § 431.64. 

■ 4. Section 431.64 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 431.64 Uniform test method for the 

measurement of energy consumption of 

commercial refrigerators, freezers, and 

refrigerator-freezers. 

* * * * * 

(b) Testing and calculations. 

Manufacturers shall use this paragraph 

(b) for the purposes of certifying 

compliance with the applicable energy 

conservation standards and for all 

representations of energy efficiency/ 

energy use. For equipment 

manufactured prior to January 1, 2016, 

determine the daily energy consumption 

of each covered commercial refrigerator, 

freezer, or refrigerator-freezer by 

conducting the test procedure set forth 

in the Air-Conditioning and 

Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Standard 

1200–2006, ‘‘Performance Rating of 

Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets,’’ 

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


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 10319 

Requirements,’’ and section 7, ‘‘Symbols 

and Subscripts’’ (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.63). For each 

commercial refrigerator, freezer, or 

refrigerator-freezer with a self-contained 

condensing unit, also use ARI Standard 

1200–2006, section 6, ‘‘Rating 

Requirements for Self-contained 

Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets.’’ 

For each commercial refrigerator, 

freezer, or refrigerator-freezer with a 

remote condensing unit, also use ARI 

Standard 1200–2006, section 5, ‘‘Rating 

Requirements for Remote Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 

Storage Cabinets.’’ For equipment 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2016, determine the daily energy 

consumption of each covered 

commercial refrigerator, freezer, 

refrigerator-freezer or ice-cream freezer 

by conducting the test procedure set 

forth in the AHRI Standard 1200 (I–P)– 

2010, section 3, ‘‘Definitions,’’ section 4, 

‘‘Test Requirements,’’ and section 7, 

‘‘Symbols and Subscripts’’ (incorporated 

by reference, see § 431.63). For each 

commercial refrigerator, freezer, or 

refrigerator-freezer with a self-contained 

condensing unit, also use AHRI 

Standard 1200 (I–P)–2010, section 6, 

‘‘Rating Requirements for Self-contained 

Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets.’’ 

For each commercial refrigerator, 

freezer, or refrigerator-freezer with a 

remote condensing unit, also use AHRI 

Standard 1200 (I–P)–2010, section 5, 

‘‘Rating Requirements for Remote 

Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets.’’ 

(1) For display cases manufactured 

after January 1, 2016 and sold with 

night curtains installed, the night 

curtain shall be employed for 6 hours; 

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. 

(2) For commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers 

manufactured after January 1, 2016 and 

sold with lighting occupancy sensors, 

scheduled lighting controls, or lighting 

occupancy sensors and scheduled 

lighting controls installed on the unit, 

the effect on daily energy consumption 

will be determined by either a physical 

test or a calculation method and using 

the variables that are defined as: 

CECA is the Alternate Compressor Energy 

Consumption (kilowatt-hours); 

LECsc is the lighting energy consumption of 

internal case lights with lighting occupancy 

sensors and controls deployed (kilowatthours); 

Pli is the rated power of lights when they 

are fully on (watts); 

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

off (watts); 

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

dimmed (watts); 

TDECo is the total daily energy 

consumption with lights fully on, as 

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

(kilowatt-hours); 

tdim is the time period which the lights are 

dimmed due to the use of lighting occupancy 

sensors or scheduled lighting controls 

(hours); 

tdim,controls is the time case lighting is 

dimmed due to the use of lighting controls 

(hours); 

tdim,sensors is the time case lighting is 

dimmed due to the use of lighting occupancy 

sensors (hours); 

tl is the time period when lights would be 

on without lighting occupancy sensors and/ 

or scheduled lighting controls (24 hours); 

toff is the time period which the lights are 

off due to the use of lighting occupancy 

sensors and/or scheduled lighting controls 

(hours); 

toff,controls is the time case lighting is off due 

to the use of scheduled lighting controls 

(hours); 

toff,sensors is the time case lighting is off due 

to the use of lighting occupancy sensors 

(hours); and 

tsc is the time period when lighting is fully 

on with lighting occupancy sensors and 

scheduled lighting controls enabled (hours). 

(i) For both a physical test and a 

calculation method, determine the estimated 

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

of contributions from lighting occupancy 

sensors and scheduled lighting controls 

which dim or turn off lighting, respectively, 

as shown in the following equation: 

The sum of tsc, toff, and tdim should equal 

24 hours and the total time period during 

which the lights are off or dimmed shall not 

exceed 10.8 hours. For cases with scheduled 

lighting controls, the time the case lighting is 

off and/or dimmed due to scheduled lighting 

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

applicable) shall not exceed 8 hours. For 

cases with lighting occupancy sensors 

installed, the time the case lighting is off 

and/or dimmed due to lighting occupancy 

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

applicable) shall not exceed 10.8 hours. For 

cases with lighting occupancy sensors and 

scheduled lighting controls installed, the 

time the case lighting is off and/or dimmed 

due to lighting occupancy sensors (toff,sensors

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

exceed 2.8 hours and the time the case 

lighting is off and/or dimmed due to 

scheduled lighting controls (toff,controls and/or 

tdim,controls, as applicable) shall not exceed 8 

hours. 

(ii) If using a physical test to determine the 

daily energy consumption of a commercial 

refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-freezer 

sold with lighting occupancy sensors, 

scheduled lighting controls, or lighting 

occupancy sensors and scheduled lighting 

controls installed on the unit, turn off the 

lights for a time period equivalent to toff and 

dim the lights for a time period equal to tdim. 

If night curtains are also being tested on the 

case, the period of lights off and/or dimmed 

shall begin at the same time that the night 

curtain is being deployed and shall continue 

consecutively, in that order, for the 

appropriate number of hours. 

(iii) If using a calculation method to 

determine the daily energy consumption of a 

commercial refrigerator, freezer, or 

refrigerator-freezer sold with lighting 

occupancy sensors, scheduled lighting 

controls, or lighting occupancy sensors and 

scheduled lighting controls installed on the 

unit— 

(A) Calculate the LECsc using the following 

equation: 

(B) Calculate the CECA using the following 

equation: 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER21FE12.001</GPH> ER21FE12.002</GPH>
10320 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Where EER represents the energy efficiency 

ratio from Table 1 in AHRI Standard 1200 

(I–P)-2010 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.63) for remote condensing equipment 

or the values shown in the following table for 

self-contained equipment: 

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

Operating temperature class EER 

Btu/W 

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

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

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

(C) For remote condensing 

commercial refrigerators, freezers, and 

refrigerator-freezers with lighting 

occupancy sensors, scheduled lighting 

controls, or lighting occupancy sensors 

and scheduled lighting controls 

installed, the revised compressor energy 

consumption (CECR) shall be the CECA

added to the compressor energy 

consumption (CEC) measured in AHRI 

Standard 1200 (I–P)-2010 (incorporated 

by reference, see § 431.63). The CDEC 

for the entire case shall be the sum of 

the CECR and LECsc (as calculated 

above) and the fan energy consumption 

(FEC), anti-condensate energy 

consumption (AEC), defrost energy 

consumption (DEC), and condensate 

evaporator pan energy consumption 

(PEC) (as measured in AHRI Standard 

1200 (I–P)-2010). 

(D) For self-contained commercial 

refrigerators, freezers, and refrigeratorfreezers with lighting occupancy 

sensors, scheduled lighting controls, or 

lighting occupancy sensors and 

scheduled lighting controls installed, 

the TDEC for the entire case shall be the 

sum of total daily energy consumption 

as measured by the AHRI Standard 1200 

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

see § 431.63) test with the lights fully on 

(TDECo) and CECA, less the decrease in 

lighting energy use due to lighting 

occupancy sensors and scheduled 

lighting controls, as shown in following 

equation. 

(3) Conduct the testing required in 

paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(1), 

and (2) of this section, and determine 

the daily energy consumption, at the 

applicable integrated average 

temperature in the following table. The 

integrated average temperature is 

determined using the required test 

method. 

Category Test procedure prior to 

January 1, 2016 

Test procedure on or 

after January 1, 2016 Integrated average temperatures 

(i) Refrigerator with Solid Door(s) ............................ ARI Standard 1200– 

2006.

AHRI Standard 1200 .....

(I–P)–2010 .....................

38 °F (±2 °F). 

(ii) Refrigerator with Transparent Door(s) ............... ARI Standard 1200– 

2006.

AHRI Standard 1200 .....

(I–P)–2010 .....................

38 °F (±2 °F). 

(iii) Freezer with Solid Door(s) ................................. ARI Standard 1200– 

2006.

AHRI Standard 1200 .....

(I–P)–2010 .....................

0 °F (±2 °F). 

(iv) Freezer with Transparent Door(s) ..................... ARI Standard 1200– 

2006.

AHRI Standard 1200 .....

(I–P)–2010 .....................

0 °F (±2 °F). 

(v) Refrigerator-Freezer with Solid Door(s) ............. ARI Standard 1200– 

2006.

AHRI Standard 1200 .....

(I–P)–2010 .....................

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

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

(vi) Commercial Refrigerator with a Self-Contained 

Condensing Unit Designed for Pull-Down Temperature Applications and Transparent Doors.

ARI Standard 1200– 

2006.

AHRI Standard 1200 .....

(I–P)–2010 .....................

38 °F (±2 °F). 

(vii) Ice-Cream Freezer ............................................ ARI Standard 1200– 

2006.

AHRI Standard 1200 .....

(I–P)–2010 .....................

¥15.0 °F (±2 °F). 

(viii) Commercial Refrigerator, Freezer, and Refrigerator-Freezer with a Self-Contained Condensing Unit and without Doors.ARI Standard 1200– 

2006.

AHRI Standard 1200 .....

(I–P)–2010 .....................

(A) 0 °F (±2 °F) for low temperature 

applications. 

(B) 38.0 °F (±2 °F) for medium temperature applications. 

(ix) Commercial Refrigerator, Freezer, and Refrigerator-Freezer with a Remote Condensing Unit.ARI Standard 1200– 

2006.

AHRI Standard 1200 .....

(I–P)–2010 .....................

(A) 0 °F (±2 °F) for low temperature 

applications. 

(B) 38.0 °F (±2 °F) for medium temperature applications. 

(A) If a piece of commercial 

refrigeration equipment is not able to be 

tested at the specified integrated average 

temperatures of 38 °F (±2 °F), 0 °F (±2 

°F), or ¥15 °F (±2 °F) for refrigerators, 

freezers, and ice-cream freezers, 

respectively, the unit may be tested at 

the lowest application product 

temperature, as defined in § 431.62. For 

many pieces of equipment, this will be 

the lowest thermostat setting. For 

remote condensing equipment without a 

thermostat or other means of controlling 

temperature at the case, the lowest 

application product temperature shall 

be that achieved with the adjusted dew 

point temperature (as defined in AHRI 

1200 (I–P)–2010) set to 5 degrees colder 

than that required to maintain the 

manufacturer’s lowest specified 

application temperature. 

(B) For commercial refrigeration 

equipment that is also tested in 

accordance with NSF test procedures 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULESER21FE12.003</GPH> ER21FE12.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 10321 

(Type I and Type II), integrated average 

temperatures and ambient conditions 

used for NSF testing may be used in 

place of 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, 

will 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 rating temperature 

specifications, provided in paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section, 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. 

(4) For equipment manufactured prior 

to January 1, 2016, determine the 

volume of each covered commercial 

refrigerator, freezer, or refrigeratorfreezer using the methodology set forth 

in the ANSI/AHAM HRF–1–2004, 

‘‘Energy, Performance and Capacity of 

Household Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers and Freezers’’ (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.63), section 3.21, 

‘‘Volume,’’ sections 4.1 through 4.3, 

‘‘Method for Computing Total 

Refrigerated Volume and Total Shelf 

Area of Household Refrigerators and 

Household Wine Chillers,’’ and sections 

5.1 through 5.3, ‘‘Method for Computing 

Total Refrigerated Volume and Total 

Shelf Area of Household Freezers.’’ For 

equipment manufactured on or after 

January 1, 2016, determine the volume 

of any covered commercial refrigerator, 

freezer, refrigerator-freezer, or ice-cream 

freezer using the method set forth in the 

HRF–1–2008 (incorporated by reference, 

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

and sections 4.1 through 4.3, ‘‘Method 

for Computing Refrigerated Volume of 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, 

Wine Chillers and Freezers.’’ 

[FR Doc. 2012–3201 Filed 2–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES