[6450-01-P] DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [Docket No. EERE-2009-BT-TP-0003] RIN: 1904-AB92
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedures for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers

AGENCY: Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department ofEnergy.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This notice amends the interim final rule for test procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, issued on December 16,2010. Specifically, it amends test procedures at title 10 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart B, appendices A and B, by incorporating changes to the interim final rule that will apply to all measurements of energy consumption ofnewly manufactured products starting September 15,2014.

These amendments modify the required test period for the secondpart ofthe test for products with cycling compressor systems and long-time automatic defrost or variable defrost control and adjust the default values ofmaximum and minimum compressor run time for
1energyuse ofproducts with variable defrost control.

DATES: The amendments described inthis notice are effective [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTERDATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and are required to establish compliance with the applicable energy conservation standards starting on September 15,2014.

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 maybepublicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

A link to the docket web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR%252BPR%252BN%252BO%252BSR;rpp=
, 1

0;po=0;D=EERE-2009-BT

-TP-0003 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, includingpublic comments, in the docket.

For further information onhow to review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586- 2945 orby email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

2FORFURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Lucas Adin, U.S. Department of Energy, Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121, 202-287-1317, e-mail: Lucas.Adin@ee.doe.gov orMr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department ofEnergy, Office ofthe General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. E-mail: Michael.Kido@hg.doe.gov.

Table ofContents

I. Background and Authority II. Summary ofthe Final Rule III. Discussion A. Products Covered bythe Final Rule B. Compliance Dates for the Amended Test Procedures C. Test Procedure Amendments Incorporated in This Final Rule 1. Default Values for CTLand CTM 2. Modification ofLong-Time and Variable Defrost Test Method to Fully Capture Energy Use for Temperature Recovery D. Other Issues 1. Anti-Circumvention Language 2. Refrigeration Products Designed for Sale With or Without Icemakers 3. Wine Storage and Combination Wine Storage Products 4. Multiple Compressor Systems 5. Triangulation E. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements 1. Test Burden 2. Changes in Measured Energy Use IV. Procedural Requirements A. Review UnderExecutive Order 12866 B. Review Under the Regulatory FlexibilityAct C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 D. Review Underthe National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review UnderExecutive Order 12988 G. Review Underthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review UnderExecutive Order 12630 J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Review Under Section 32 oftheFederal Energy Administration Act of 1974 3M. Congressional Notification V. Approval ofthe Office ofthe Secretary

I. Background and Authority Title III oftheEnergyPolicy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; "EPCA" or, "theAct") sets forth a variety ofprovisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (All references to EPCArefer to the statute as amended through the Energy Independence and SecurityAct of2007 (EISA 2007), Pub. L. 110-140 (Dec. 19,2007». Part B oftitle III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309), which was subsequentlyredesignated as PartA for editorial reasons, establishes the "Energy Conservation Program for ConsumerProducts Other Than Automobiles." Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers (collectivelyreferred to below
as "refrigerationproducts") are all treated as "coveredproducts" under this Part. (42 U.S.C. 6291(1)-(2) and 6292(a)(1» Under the Act, this program consists essentially ofthreeparts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, and (3) Federal energy conservation standards. The testing requirements consist oftestprocedures that manufacturers ofcoveredproducts must use (1) as thebasis for certifying to the U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE) that theirproducts comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA, and (2) for making representations about the efficiency ofthoseproducts. Similarly, DOE mustuse these test requirements to determine whether theproducts comply with anyrelevant standards promulgated under EPCA.
Byway ofbackground, the National Appliance Energy ConservationAct of 1987 (NAECA), Pub. L. 100-12, amended EPCAbyincluding, among other things, performance 4standards for refrigeration products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)) On November 17, 1989, DOE amended these performance standards for products manufactured on or after January 1, 1993.54FR 47916. DOE subsequentlypublished a correction to revise these new standards for three product classes. 55 FR42845 (October 24, 1990). DOE again updated theperformance standards for refrigerationproducts on April 28, 1997, for products manufactured on or after July 1, 2001. 62 FR23102.

EISA 2007 amended EPCA byrequiring DOE to publish a final rule determining whether to amend the energy conservation standards for refrigerationproducts manufactured starting in 2014. (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(4)) Consistent with this requirement, DOE issued on September 18, 2008, a framework document that outlined a series ofissues related to its examination of potential amendments to the standards for refrigerationproducts. 73 FR 54089. On September 29, 2008, DOE held a public workshop to discuss the framework document and the issues it raised. The framework document identified several test procedure issues, including: (1) compartment temperature changes; (2) modified volume calculation methods; (3) products that deactivate energy-using features during energy testing; (4) variable anti-sweat heaters; (5) references to the updated AHAM Standard HRF-I-2008, ("HRF-I-2008"), "Energy and Internal Volume ofRefrigerating Appliances (2008)," developed bythe Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), including the "Erratato Energy and Internal Volume ofRefrigerating Appliances, Correction Sheet" issued on November 17, 2009; (6) convertible compartments; and (7) harmonization with international test procedures. ("Energy Conservation Standards RulemakingFramework Document for Residential Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers," RIN 1904-AB79, Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012). DOE conducted analyses 5and developed new energy conservation standards for refrigeration products that led to the eventual publication ofthe final rule adopting new energy conservation standards for refrigerationproducts manufactured starting September 15, 2014. See 76 FR 59516 (Sept. 15, 2011) ("standards final rule") and 76 FR 70865 (Nov. 16,2011) (date correction notice).

DOE initiated the test procedurerulemaking inpart to address the issues identified in the framework document, and published a notice ofproposed rulemaking on May27,2010, hereafter referred to as "the NOPR." 75 FR 29824. In response to issue (3) above, as applied to automatic icemakers, DOE separatelypublished a guidance document addressing various aspects related to the icemaker, including theproper manner in which to render an icemaker inoperative for the energy consumption test. See 75 FR2122 (Jan. 14,2010). DOE held apublic meeting to discuss the NOPRproposals on June 22,2010 and subsequentlypublished the combined final/interimfinal rule onDecember 16,2010. 75 FR 78810. The final rule (or "December2010 final rule") implemented test procedure amendments applicable to products manufactured before the effective date ofthe new energy conservation standards that DOE had been considering, and the interim final rule (or "interim final rule") implemented on an interim basis test procedure amendments applicable to products subject to the new energy conservation standards

-- i.e., those products manufactured starting September 15, 2014. Id. DOE adopted this split approach in response to industryrequests to provide an additional opportunity to comment on final aspects related to the interim final rule. Id. at 78845.

General Test Procedure RulemakingProcess Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow 6when prescribing or amending testprocedures for covered products. EPCAprovides in relevant part that "[a]nytest proceduresprescribed or amended under this section shall bereasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energyuse ... or estimated annual operating cost ofa covered product during a representative average use cycle orperiod of use, as determined bythe Secretary [ofEnergy], and shall not beundulyburdensome to conduct." (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3»

In addition, ifDOE determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it must publishproposed test procedures and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2» When considering amending a test procedure, DOE must determine "to what extent, ifany, the proposed test procedure would alter the
... measured energyuse ... ofany covered product as determined under the existing test procedure." (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1» IfDOE determines that the amended test procedure would alter the measured energy use ofa covered product, DOE must also amend the applicable energy conservation standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2»

With respect to today's mlemaking, DOEhas determined that none ofthe amendments adopted in this finalmle notice is likely to significantly change the measured energy use of refrigeration products when compared to the test procedure set forth in the interim finalmle. In such situations, EPCA does not require a standards mlemaking to address such changes in measured energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2))
Today's mle also fulfills DOE's obligation to periodically review its test procedures 

### 7under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A). DOE anticipates that its next evaluation ofthis test procedure will occur in a manner consistent with the timeline set out in this provision.
Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers DOE's test procedures for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers are found at 10 CFRpart 430, subpart B, appendices Al (currently in effect) and A (required for rating ofproducts starting September 15,2014). DOE initially established its test procedures for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers in a final rule published in the Federal Register on September 14, 1977.42 FR 46140. Industryrepresentatives viewed these testprocedures as too complex and eventually developed alternative test procedures in conjunction with AHAM that were incorporated into the 1979 version ofHRF-1, "Household Refrigerators, CombinationRefrigerator-Freezers, and Household Freezers" (HRF-1-1979). Using this industry-created test procedure, DOE revised its testprocedures onAugust 10, 1982.47FR 34517. OnAugust 31,1989, DOEpublished a final rule establishing test procedures for variable defrost control (a control type in which the time interval between successive defrost cycles is determined by operating conditions indicating the need for defrost rather thanby compressor run time), dual compressorrefrigerator-freezers, and freezers equipped with "quick-freeze" (a manually-initiated feature that bypasses the thermostat and runs the compressor continuouslyuntil terminated). 54 FR 36238. DOE amended the test procedures again onMarch 7, 2003, bymodifying the test period used for products equipped with long-time automatic defrost (a control type in which defrost cycles are separated by 14 hours ormore ofcompressorrun time) or variable defrost. 68 FR 10957. The test procedures includeprovisions for determining the annual energyuse in kilowatt-hours (kWh) and the accompanying annual operating costs. 8DOE further amended the test procedures on December 16,2010.75 FR 78810. These amendments helped clarifyhow to testproducts for compliance with the applicable standards. The amendments clarified certain elements inAppendix Al to ensure that regulated entities fully understand how to apply and implement the test procedure. These changes included clarifying how refrigerationproducts equipped with special compartments and/or more than one fresh food compartment ormore than one freezer compartment should be tested. The amendments also accounted for the various waivers granted byDOE, specifically withregard to variable antisweatheater controls. The final rule also modified the regulatory definition of"electric refrigerator-freezer" to require that storage temperatures inthe fresh food compartmentbe at a level that would effectively exclude coverage ofcombination wine storage-freezerproducts. See 10 CFR 430.2. The definition for "electric refrigerator" was also changed to clarify the characteristics that distinguish it from related products such as wine storageproducts. DOE is consideringmodifyingits product definitions to address wine storageproducts in a separate future rulemaking.

In that samenotice, DOE also established a new Appendix A, via an interim final rule. The new Appendix A included a number ofcomprehensive changes to help improve the measurement ofenergy consumption ofrefrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. These changes included, among otherthings: (1) new compartment temperatures and volume adjustment factors, (2) new methods for measuring compartment volumes, (3) a modification ofthe longtime automatic defrost test procedure to ensure that the test proceduremeasures all energyuse associated with the defrost function, and (4) test procedures for products with a single 9compressor and multiple evaporators with separate active defrost cycles. DOE noted that the compartment temperature changes introduced byAppendix A would significantly impact the measured energy use and affect the calculated adjusted volume and energy factor (i.e. adjusted volume divided by energy use) values. Lastly, the interim final rule also addressed icemaking energy usebyincluding a fixed value for manufacturers to add when calculating the energy consumption ofthoseproducts equipped with an automatic icemaker. DOE may consider revising this approach once a more appropriate means ofaccounting for this feature's energy consumption is developed.

Freezers DOE's test procedures for freezers are found at 10 CFRpart 430, subpart B, appendices B1 (currently in effect) and B (required for the rating ofproducts starting in 2014). DOE established its test procedures for freezers in a final rule published in the Federal Register on September 14, 1977.42 FR 46140. As with DOE's test procedures for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, industryrepresentatives viewed the freezer test procedures as too complex and worked withAHAM to develop alternative test procedures, which were incorporated into the 1979 version ofHRF-l. DOE revised its test procedures for freezers based on this AHAM standard on August 10, 1982. 47 FR 34517. The subsequent August 31, 1989 final rule established test procedures for freezers with variable defrost control and freezers with the quickfreeze feature. 54 FR 36238. A subsequent amendment occurred to correct that rule's effective date. 54 FR 38788 (Sept. 20, 1989). The current test procedures include provisions for determining the annual energyuse in kWh and annual electrical operating costs for freezers.

10The December 16,2010 notice also clarified compliance testing requirements for freezers under Appendix B1 and created a newAppendix B, the latter ofwhich would apply in 2014. That newprocedure changed a number ofaspects to the procedure detailed inAppendix B 1, including, among otherthings: (1) the freezer volume adjustment factor, (2) methods for measuring compartment volumes, and (3) the long-time automatic defrost test procedure. In addition, Appendix B also addresses icemaking energyusebyimplementing the sameprocedure
as for refrigerator-freezers in which a fixed energyuse value is applied when calculatingthe energy consumption offreezers with automatic icemakers.

Finalization ofthe Test Procedure Rulemaking for Products Manufactured Starting in 2014 The interim final rule established comprehensive changes to the mannerin which the test procedures are conducted by creatingnew Appendices A and B. In addition to the changes discussed above, these appendices incorporate the recent changes made to Appendices Al and B 1. These new appendices also incorporate the modifications to Appendices Al and B 1 that
were finalized and adopted on December 16,2010.

DOEhad provided an initial comment period on the interim final rule that ended on February 14, 2011. DOE subsequentlyreopened the comment period on September 15,2011 (76 FR 57612) to allow further public feedback in response to thepromulgation ofthe final energy conservation standards that were published on the same day. 76 FR 57516. DOEreopened the commentperiod to permit interestedparties to comment on the interplaybetween the test procedure and the energy conservation standards in orderto permitDOE to make any final changes that maybeneeded to the final test procedure for products that will bemanufactured 11starting in 2014.76 FR 57612-57613 (Sept. 15,2011). The commentperiod ended on October 17,2011.

Three stakeholders submitted comments inresponse to both supplemental comment periods that DOEprovided for additional feedback

-- the Association ofHomeAppliance Manufacturers (AHAM), Sub Zero-Wolf, Inc. (Sub Zero), and Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool). Table I.l below identifies these commenters and their affiliation. No other comments were received.



### Table 1.1

- Stakeholders That Submitted Comments on the Interim FinalRule Name Acronym Type* Association ofHomeApplianceManufacturers AHAM IR Sub Zero-Wolf, Inc Sub Zero M Whirlpool Corporation Whirlpool M *IR: Industry Representative; M: Manufacturer DOE also considered comments related to a petition for a test procedure waiver (RF-018, Samsung) that had a direct bearing on elements ofthe testprocedures used inAppendix A. See 76 FR 16760 (March 25,2011).



### II. Summary ofthe FinalRule Today's notice finalizes the test procedures that manufacturers must follow when certifyingbasic models as compliant with the new energy conservation standards starting in 2014. In finalizing these procedures, DOE made minor changes to theprocedure laid out in the December2010 interim final rule to account for comments from interested parties. The changes 12will not result in a significant change in measured energy use when compared to the procedure detailed inthe interim final rule. The December 2010 amendments for Appendices Al and B1
are unchanged bytoday's notice and continue to apply to products manufactured through September 14, 2014. (Those aspects oftheDecember 2010 notice were not reopened for comment as they were not part ofthe interim final rule. 75 FR at 78813-78815 (Dec. 16,2010).) In addition, other amendments made in the December 2010 final rule, including modified definitions, anti-circumvention language, applying the anti-sweat heater switch credit to energy use measurements, and rounding offenergytest results also were not part ofthe interim final rule and were not reopened for comment. Accordingly, these aspects ofthe December 2010 notice remain unchanged.
Today's notice makes a series ofchanges that include (a) modifying the default values of CTLand CT M, parameters, which represent the minimum and maximum compressorrun time between defrosts, for products with variable defrost that do not have values for these parameters specified in their control algorithms, and (b) modifying the testperiod for products with cycling compressors and long-time orvariable defrost to ensure the procedure accurately captures energy use associated with temperature recovery after defrost. Thenotice also makes changes to clarify how to apply the secondpart ofthe test for products with long-time or variable defrost.

III. Discussion The following section discusses in further detail the various issues addressed bytoday's
13notice. These issues center chiefly on issues raised in commenter submissions. Section A identifies the products covered by the rule; section B specifies the compliance dates for the test procedure amendments made; section C discusses the test procedure amendments; and section D discusses stakeholder comments not associated with new amendments.
A. Products Coveredbythe Final Rule Today's amendments cover thoseproducts that meet the definitions for refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer, as codified in 10 CFR 430.2. The definitions for refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer were amended in the December 2010 final rule on December 16,2010.75 FR 78810, 78817.
Today's notice does not change any ofthe definitions for refrigeration products that DOE amended as part ofthe December 2010 final rule. While DOE appreciates the concerns raised by commenters, these particular issues were not completely vetted through the rulemaking process. DOE may, however, revisit and more closely examine these issues as part ofa future rulemaking activity. Section D.3 discusses the comments related to wine storage and wine storage combinationproducts, including the amended definitions for refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer.
B. Compliance Dates for the Amended Test Procedures Manufacturers will need to use new Appendices A and B to rate refrigeration products
once they are required to comply with the amended energy conservation standards

-- i.e. September 15, 2014. Likewise, Appendices A and B will bemandatory for representations regarding energyuse or operating cost ofthese products starting onthat date. 14C. Test Procedure Amendments Incorporated in This Final Rule Today's notice finalizes Appendices A and B, with some amendments. These amendments are described in greater detail below.

1. Default Values for CTLand CTM Refrigeration products with variable defrost vary the frequency ofdefrost byreducing this frequency to save energywhen the frost accumulation rate on the evaporator drops

-- such as when the number ofdoor openings is reduced or when ambient humidityis low. Defrost frequency is characterized bythe compressorrun time between defrosts, CT, which is expressed in the test procedure inhours rounded to the nearest tenth ofan hour. Variable defrost control algorithms vary CT as the defrost need changes. These algorithms may specify a minimum CT value (CTL) and a maximum CT value (CT

### M), consistent with the minimum and maximum defrost frequencies required for specificproducts to providereliable defrost performance while minimizing energyuse. The DOE test procedure calculates the energyuse ofvariable defrost products using a weighted average ofthe algorithm's CTLand CTM . See 75 FR at 78857, 78865 (Dec. 16,2010) (detailingrequirements ofsection 5.2.1.3 ofnew Appendix A and existing Appendix AI, respectively). To address thoseproducts that mayhave control algorithms that do not use specific maximum and minimum values for the compressorrun time between defrost cycles, the test procedure specifies a CTLvalue of 12 hours and a CTM value of84 hours. See id. These values remained the same for both Appendix Al (final rule) and Appendix A (interim final rule). 15AHAM argued that the default CTLand CTM values for the variable defrost control algorithm should be changed to 6 and 96 hours in order to maintain consistency with HRF-l2008. (AHAM, No. 39 at p. 5) AHAM did not provide any supporting data to show that these values would bemore representative ofthe operation ofrefrigerationproducts with variable defrost control algorithms without specific CT values, nor did it provide anyjustification for the change other than to maintain consistency with HRF-I-2008.

In light ofAHAM's comments, DOE reviewed the certification data submitted by refrigerationproduct manufacturers in August 2011 and specifically examined the submissions ofthose products with variable defrost to determine the prevalence ofdifferent values for CTL and CTM. DOE also investigated whether the certification data showed any evidence ofproducts without specified CT values, since these would be the products whose energyuse measurement would be affected bythe change suggested byAHAM. Of2,674 records in the database, 1,397 products were identified as having variable defrost. None oftherecords for theseproducts included undeclared values for CTLand CTM . Table ilL 1below shows the default CTLand CTM values ofthe current test procedure and ofHRF-I-2008. It also shows the average, mean, and mostprevalent values for CTLand CT M gleaned from available certification records. For each of these CT Land CT M combinations, the calculated CT value is also presented. The summarytable shows that neither the 12 and 84 default values nor the AHAM-suggested values of6 and 96 provide an exact representation oftheproducts in the database. However, the databelow also suggest that using 6 and 96 as default values more closely approximates the recorded values of those refrigeration products from the database than 12 and 84. 16Table 111.1: Values ofCTL, CTM and CT CTL CTM CT Current DOE Test Procedure Default 12.0 84.0 38.2 HRF-1-2008 Default 6.0 96.0 24.0 Database Average 8.0 82.3 28.8* Database Median 8.0 96.0 30.0 Database Most Prevalent Values 8.0 96.0 30.0 *ThlS IS the CT calculated USlllg the average CTM and CTLvalues. The average ofthe CT values calculated individually for each database record is 28.2. Further, the use ofthe default CTLand CTM values is prescribed for those products that do nothave specific values for theseparameters in the product's control algorithm. Since the algorithm for such a productpresumably does not explicitly set a minimum value forthis time period, it is conceivable that the compressorrun time between defrosts could at times be lower than the 6 hours specified inthe test procedure as a minimum for CTL(see section 5.2.1.3 of Appendix Al or A). When operating in this mode, such a product would beusing more energy for defrost than would a product with an algorithm-defined CTLof6 hours, due to the higher defrost frequency. Hence, DOE concludes that to ensure that the test procedureprovides a conservative estimate ofenergy use associated with defrost (i.e. at least as high as the actual energyuse), it is reasonable to require use ofa lower default CTLvalue when calculating energy use for products that do not have algorithm-specified CTL values. Forthis reason, because the HRF-1-2008 default values are more representative ofthe refrigeration products in the database than the current default values, and in orderto maintain consistency with this industry standard, DOE is changing the default values to 6 and 96 in this final rule. This change is beingmade for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers inbothAppendices A and B.

172. Modification ofLong-Time and Variable Defrost Test Method to Fully Capture Energy Use for Temperature Recovery Background The interim final rule amended the test procedure for products with long-time and variable defrost bymodifying the second part ofthe test to better capture energyuse associated with precooling and temperature recovery. 75 FR 78810,78832-78836 (Dec. 16,2010). A test procedure waiverpetition submitted by Samsung (see 76 FR 17670 (March 25,2011)) has raised the question ofwhether DOE should consider further changes to the second part ofthetest procedure for theseproducts.

As described inDOE's December 2010 notice, precooling involves cooling the compartment(s) ofa refrigerator-freezer to temperatures significantly lower than the userselected temperature settings prior to an automatic defrost cycle. Id. at 78832. The document also noted that the two-part test served as a means to reduce the burden ontesting long-time and variable defrostproducts. Id. These products initiate defrost cycles after significantlylonger periods ofcompressorruntime than conventional automatic defrost products. Long-time defrost products initiate defrost after more than 14 hours ofcompressorrun time, and variable defrost products adjust defrost frequencybased on whether defrost is needed, potentially delaying the next defrost up to 96 hours ofcompressorrun time. The second part ofthe test measures the energyuse consumed during a defrost cycle.

The two-part test andprocedures for the second part ofthe test were initially established 18in 1982.47 FR 34521-34522 (Aug. 10, 1982). Since that time, more sophisticated controls have replaced the mechanical defrost timers that were generallyused. 68 FR 10958 (March 7, 2003). Consequently, the initial procedures for the second part ofthe test did not fully capture or consider the high level ofsophistication that is now possible and made available with the use of modern electronic control systems. The defrost controls inuse when the second part ofthe test
was first established consisted ofa mechanical defrost timer energized to advance when the compressoris energized. The initial two-part test specified that the second part starts when the heater energizes, which is coincident with the time the compressorturns offin aproduct using a mechanical timer control. 68 FR 10957-10958 (March 7, 2003). The first adjustment ofthetest procedure considering thepotential for more sophisticated control was made on March 7, 2003. This amendment ofthe test procedure revised the second part ofthetest to allow it to start when the compressor turns offpriorto activation ofthe defrost heater, which is typical ofan approach enabled bymore sophisticated electronic controls. Id.

The interim final rule made additional amendments to the second part ofthe test to address precooling, another defrost control feature requiring more sophisticated control than a mechanical timer. 75 FR 78832-78836 (Dec. 16,2010). The amendments also addressed partial temperature recovery, which refers to a case in which the compartment temperatures ofa refrigeratorpartiallyrecover, but do not reach, their steady-state operating temperatures. For the purposes oftesting, a product is considered to reach a state ofpartial temperature recovery when compartment temperatures do not reach the steady-state operating temperature bythe end ofthe second part ofthetest (as previously specified inthe test procedure) after the rise in compartment temperature associated with defrost. The amendments require, for a system with a 19cycling compressor, that the average compartment temperatures for the compressor cycles occurringimmediatelybefore and after the test period for the secondpart ofthetest be within 0.5 OF ofthe compartment temperature measured for the first part ofthe test. Under the interim final rule's procedure, the modified test period would start at the end ofa compressor "on" cycle and end at the start ofa compressor "on" cycle. Id. at 73885

Additional Issue Identified During Review ofSamsungWaiver Afterpublication oftheinterim final rule, an additional issue associated with the two-part test was raised during the agency's review ofa testprocedure waiverpetition submitted by Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Samsung). That petition sought a waiver from the current test requirements for the company's products that use dual evaporators. 76 FR 16760 (March 25, 2011).1 Theseproducts use a variable defrost strategy that employs multiple defrost cycle types, which the interim final rule's procedure addresses for products starting in 2014.75 FR at 78836- 78838 (Dec. 16,2010). DOE explained in the December 2010 notice that Appendices Al and B1 do not address suchproducts and manufacturers seeking to certify these types ofproducts as compliantprior to 2014 must first obtain a test procedure waiver to enable them to test these products. Id. at 78838. Samsung sought a waiver to permit the company to use the Appendix A procedures for products with multiple defrost cycle types when rating current products. 76 FR at 16763 (March 25,2011).

1 The evaporator is the component ofa refrigeration system that cools the cabinet air. Most conventional refrigerators use a single evaporator that cools the freezer compartment, transferring cold freezer air to the fresh food compartment to cool the latter compartment. Samsung's dual evaporator approach uses separate evaporators in the freezer and fresh food compartments and does not exchange air between the compartments. 20Whirlpool commented in response to Samsung's waiverpetition that applying the second part ofthe test to the fresh food defrost ofone oftheseproducts results in an energy credit. (Whirlpool, Samsung Petition for Test Procedure Waiver, Case No. RF-018, Docket No. EERE2011-BT-WAV-0017, No.4 at p.

# 3i Whirlpool's waiver comments discuss the data from testingperformed bythe Canadian Standards Association that examined the energy consumption ofa Samsung model that uses multiple defrost cycles

-- Samsungmodel No. RFG297AAPN. Whirlpool asserts that the test results are illogical because the energy use contribution ofthe fresh food compartment defrost is negative (i.e. an energy credit), and adds that the energyuse contribution ofthe freezer compartment defrost is underestimated. (Id. at p. 4) Whirlpool recommended that the test period for the second (defrost) part ofthetest for the fresh food defrost should end at the end ofthe second compressor "on" cycle after defrost, and that such a change to the testprocedure only for the fresh food defrost would increase the measured energy use oftheproductby 1.6 percent. (Id. at pp. 5-6)
Samsung's response to Whirlpool's commentpointed out that thepotential energy credit issue had been raised byDOE in its testprocedure NOPRpublic meeting onJune 22, 2010. (Samsung, Samsung Petition for Test Procedure Waiver, Case No. RF-018, Docket No. EERE2011-BT-WAV-0017, No.5 at p. 2) In its view, this issue hadbeenpresentedbyDOE for discussion and considerationby all interested parties

-- including Whirlpool. The company pointed outthat the test procedure DOE ultimately selected had received the support of Whirlpool. Id. See also Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 6.

2 The Samsung waiver docket items have been consolidated and loaded into the docket for this refrigerator test procedure rulemaking, see "Documents Related to Samsung Waiver

- Case No. RF-018, Docket No. EERE-2011- BT-WAV-0017", No. 45. 21DOE's Previous Discussion Regarding the Appropriate End ofthe Test Period As indicated by Samsung, DOE raised this issue ofAppendix AI'spotential inabilityto capture all energyusage during defrost cycles when using the second (defrost) part ofthe test. (NOPR Public Meeting Presentation, No.9 at p. 53) DOE recognized this possibility during its evaluation ofthe energyuse associated with the fresh food compartment defrost ofa Samsung product similar to theproducts addressed in the company's test procedure waiver request. That evaluation indicated that the calculated energyuse contribution from the fresh food defrost was often negative, whichresulted in an energyuse "credit". DOE evaluated alternative testperiods and concluded that more reasonable results are obtained when the test period ends at the end ofa compressor cycle after the defrost cycle. (Id.) DOE sought comment during its public meeting to seek additional information on the issues associated with the long-time defrost test method that
were presented. (Id. at p. 55)

DOE'spresentation also indicated that itprojected that the impact on measured energy use ofthe test procedure change would be an increase ofapproximately 3 percent, ifapplied to both defrosts ofthe Samsungproduct that was the focus ofthe discussion. (Id. at p. 53) This 3 percent impact was determined based onmoving the end ofthetest period for the second part of the test from the second compressor start after defrost to the second compressor stop. DOE again reviewed the same data and concluded that the test procedure change associated with this final rule would reduce this measured energyuse differential byhalf(i.e. 1.5 percent). ("Summary of EnergyUse Measurements for a Refrigerator-Freezer with two Defrost Cycle Types", No. 46) The interim final rule test procedure applied to this product does not allow the second part ofthe 

### 22test to end at the second compressor start after defrost, due to the requirement that the average temperature for the compressor cycle immediately following the testperiod be within 0.5 of of the average temperature measured for the first part ofthe test. (See Appendix A, section 4.2.1.1) Hence, the impact on energyuse measurement associated with testprocedure changes to address the observed negative energyuse measurement associated with fresh-food-only defrost cycles depends on details ofthe compared testperiods.

Stakeholders generally supported the test procedure approach as proposed in the Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (NOPR)

-- and as adopted in the interim final rule

-- and none suggested that the testperiod ofthe second part ofthe test should be changed to address the anomalypresented, i.e. that measurements for a specificproduct showed a negative energyuse contribution associated with the fresh food defrost. Hence, DOE concluded that the anomaly was associated with an insignificant number ofproducts and thus not generally significant to the test procedure for products tested using the two-part test. Consequently, in the interim final rule, DOE did not amend the end ofthetest period for the second part ofthe test to coincide with the end ofa compressor "on" cycle (rather than the start ofthat cycle).

Comment Submitted inResponse to the Reopening ofthe Comment Period After considering Whirlpool's waiverpetition comments suggesting that DOE modifythe secondpart ofthetest, DOE specificallyrequested comment on this topic when it reopened the interim final rule commentperiod. 76 FR 57613-57614 (Sept. 15,2011). DOE received one comment onthis topic, from Whirlpool, which suggested that the end ofthe secondpart ofthe test bemoved so that it coincides with the end ofa compressor "on" cycle. (Whirlpool, No. 44 at 23pp. 1-2) Whirlpool asserted that this change should bemade for all defrosts, whether they are for fresh food compartments or freezer compartments.
Whirlpool indicated that, for at least oneproduct, the impact ofthis testprocedure change
on the measured energy use for a producthaving a separate defrost for the fresh food compartment would be an increase ofapproximately 3 percent. Although Whirlpool did not identifythe manufacturer ofthat product, it mentioned that its concerns are an extension ofthose
concerns itraised earlier in response to a waiver request madeby a competitor

-- i.e. Samsung. The 3 percent impact cited byWhirlpool matches the CSA data presented in Whirlpool's comments regarding the Samsung waiverpetition: the waiver comments indicate that the tested product's energy use increases from 572.5 kWh to 592.1 kWhper year (an increase of3.4 percent) with the modified test procedure, i.e. when ending the second part ofthetest at the end rather than the start ofthe second compressor "on" cycle after the defrost. (Whirlpool, Samsung Petition for Test Procedure Waiver, Case No. RF-018, Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-WAV-0017, No.4 at p. 5) This projected impact onthe measured energyuse is consistent with DOE's own conclusions regarding Samsungproducts withmultiple defrosts. See NOPR Public Meeting Presentation, No.9 at p. 53. However, as discussed above, it overestimates the measurement impact associated with the amendments made in this final rule.

Assessment ofthe Suggested Test Period Modification Whirlpool's interim final rule comments provided little or no explanation ofhow and whythe suggested test period will result in more accurate test results. Instead, the comments indicate that the ''underlyingprinciple when measuring the energy consumption ofanyproduct 24which operates in cycles is to measure from the samepoint in one cycle to the samepoint in a successor cycle," and assert that the testprocedure ofAppendix A measures from a compressor stop to a compressor start for products with cycling compressors. However, Whirlpool did not provide any explanation supportingthe concept ofmeasuring from a point in one cycle to the
samepoint in a successor cycle. (Whirlpool, No. 44 at pp. 1-2) Nevertheless, Whirlpool's waiver comments note the unintended consequences associated with the negative energyuse contribution measured for the fresh food defrost ofthe Samsungproduct when using the interim final rule's version ofthe Appendix A test period as demonstratingthat the test period contained in the interim final rule is inappropriate. (Whirlpool, SamsungPetition for TestProcedure Waiver, Case No. RF-OI8, DocketNo. EERE-2011-BT-WAV-0017, No.4 at p. 5)

DOE hadprovided data in its NOPRpublicmeetingpresentation supporting the use of the modified testperiod, ending when the compressor stops. This situation was illustrated both for the fresh food defrost contribution alone and for the total defrost energyuse contribution, includingboth fresh food and freezer compartment defrosts. The data showed that a test period that both starts and ends when the compressor stops matched the energyexpended bythe defrost heater during a fresh food defrost

-- and provided a closer match ofenergyuse measured from
one initiation ofthe combined defrost cycle (the defrost cycle involvingboth the fresh food and freezer compartments) to the next initiation ofthe combined defrost cycle than the Appendix Al procedure. (NOPRPublic MeetingPresentation, No.9 at p. 53) More recently, DOEprepared an assessment demonstrating that a test period for the secondpart ofthe test both starting and ending at the end ofa compressor "on" cycle is consistent with the full-cycle measurement specified for testing non-variable automatic defrost products. See ("Refrigerator Test Procedure: 

### 25Adjustments to Second Part ofTest", No. 47) This document shows mathematicallythat a calculation ofenergyuse using the "section 4.2" testperiod ("full test period") matches the twopart calculation only when the second part ofthe test ends at the end ofa compressor "on" cycle.

Part ofthejustification for modifying the test procedure in the manner suggested by Whirlpool is based on the observation that when using the test periodprescribed bythe interim final rule, the average compartment temperature would be warmer at the end ofthetest period than at its start for a system with a cycling compressor. The interim final rule test procedure includes a provision to verifythat theproduct does not employpartial recovery. Using this provision requires examiningthe full compressor cycle immediately after the test period to
ensure that it is a regular compressor cycle, i.e. a compressor cycle associated with steady state operation. However, the test does not account for the additional temperature recovery associated with a regular compressor "on" cycle. The December 2010 notice indicates that the test period T2 starts when the compartment is at its typical minimum temperature associated with steady state cycling operation. This minimum temperature is represented bythe lowerhorizontal line of the temperatureplot inFigure 1 ofAppendix A. 75 FR at 78855 (Dec. 16, 2010) (see temperatureplot ofFigure 1, "Long-timeAutomaticDefrostDiagram for Cycling Compressors").

On the otherhand, the compartment temperature is at its typical steady-state cycling maximum (the higher horizontal line ofthe temperatureplot) when test period T2 ends. Hence, while the compartment temperature has recovered to the range**wit~in** which it varies during steady state operation, it has not recovered to the temperature state associated with the start of 26the test period

-- i.e. the temperature is warmer than at the start ofthe test period. In order to allow recovery to the start-of-test-period temperature, the test period would have to continue till the end ofthe compressor "on" cycle. These arguments illustrate that the test period prescribed bythe interim final rule for the second part ofthetest is unlikely to fully account for energyuse associated with temperature recovery.

DOE concludes that the test period for the second part ofthetest that is specified in the interim final rule for products with cycling compressors and long-time orvariable defrost may not accurately represent energyuse associated with defrost, which necessitates a change to enhance the accuracy ofthemeasurement. DOE received no other comments on this topic. Hence, in light ofthisnew information, and its ownreview, DOE is adopting the approach suggested byWhirlpool to help ensure theprocedure in Appendix A provides a greater level of accuracy.

Four-Hour Time Limit DOE also considered whether to retain the four-hour time limit that the current test imposes onthe second part ofthe test. This limit applies to the elapsed time after the defrost heater is energized. 3 (See Appendix A section 4.2.1.1 or Figure 1) The four-hour limit terminates the test period when recovery from defrost and return to steady-state cycling operation takes an unusually long time. During its review ofthe test period for the second part ofthetest, DOE noticed that for someproducts, the extension ofthe testperiod associated with the test period revision recommended byWhirlpool led to a test period invoking the four-hour limit (i.e. the

3 Note that the elapsed time after the defrost heater is energized is not the same as T2, since the test period generally starts priorto activation ofthe heater for testing in accordance with Appendix A. 

### 27desired end ofthe test period was more than four hours later than activation ofthe defrost heater).

DOE notes that modem data collection is performed almost exclusivelyusing automated data acquisition systems. This approach to recording data significantlyreduces the test burden that couldpotentiallybe associated with extending the test beyond the four-hour limit, allowing a product to fully complete its temperature recovery after defrost during testing. Test technicians do not need to observeproductbehavior during the test from minute to minute to ensure that data
are recorded. Instead, technicians are more likely to periodically check the status ofa given test
once or twice a dayto determine whether a defrost has occurred and whether the test period has been completed. With modem variable-defrost products, a full refrigerator test can take a week to completebecause ofthe duration ofthe time intervals between defrosts. The compressorrun timebetween defrosts can last as long as 96 hours for variable defrost products (see Appendix A, section 5.2.1.3 regarding the maximum allowable duration for CTM, the maximum compressor run time between defrosts). At a typical compressor on-time of50percent, the time involved in waiting for a defrost cycle can be days. Withthe use ofautomated data acquisition equipmentby test labs necessitating onlyperiodic status checks, the need for 24-hour staffing for data recording has been effectively eliminated.4
Further, the continued application ofthe four-hour limit is likelyto reduce measurement accuracy, since the limit could cause a significant portion ofthe compressor "on" cycle to be

4 Personal communication, DetlefWestphalen ofNavigant Consulting, Inc. with TenyDrew, CSAInternational, 12/5/11. 

### 28dropped from the measurement.s In light ofthe more advanced capabilities oftesting labs and the operation ofmodem refrigeration products, DOE believes that the four-hour time limit ofthe second part ofthe test is obsolete as a means to limit test burden and mayin fact prevent the accurate measurement ofenergy consumption ofthese products. Because ofthe impact ofthe four-hour time limit on test measurement accuracy, and because it is no longerneeded to reduce test burden, DOE is eliminating this provision ofthetest procedure for Appendices A and B in this notice. Makingthis change will also fully address the potential problem identified by Whirlpool by eliminating any incentives by some manufacturers to exploit potentlallimitations presentedby aprocedure that artificially limits the overall testing duration without fully capturing that product's energy consumption.
Recovery for Both Compartments ofa Refrigerator or Refrigerator-Freezer The interim final rule requirements for confirming that the second part ofthe test does not include events associated withprecooling and temperature recoveryprovide a means to compare the temperatures of"the compartment" measured during the first part ofthe test with the average temperatures of"the compartment" for compressor cycles preceding and following the second part ofthetest. (See Appendix A, section 4.2.1.1) The language does not specify which compartment mustbe evaluated in this fashion. In order to assure that the testprocedure properly accounts for energyuse associated with precooling and temperature recovery ofthe entireproduct, the language ofsection 4 ofAppendix A is modified to clarify that these requirements apply to both compartments (i.e. the freezer compartment and the fresh food

5For example, suppose the test period criteria for temperature recovery are met at the end ofthe third compressor "on" cycle after the defrost, but the four hour limit ends the test periodjust after the start ofthe third compressor "on" cycle. In this case, a significantportion ofcompressor energy use is eliminated from the measurement for the second part ofthe test. 29compartment), regardless ofwhich compartment's evaporatorundergoes defrost. DOE is making this clarification to assure testing accuracy.

Modification ofFigure 2 ofAppendices A and B The interim final rule includes a figure for bothAppendices A and B that illustrates the second part ofthe test for products with non-cycling compressors. That figure, Figure 2, includes two horizontal lines in the temperature plot that have no meaning. In this final rule, these lines of Figure 2 have been removed. DOE is makingthis change to avoid confusion and to ensure the accuracy ofthe measured test results. This amendmentrepresents no change to the specified test procedure.

Addition ofMinorEdits for Clarification While reviewing the modified new sections 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.1.2 incorporating the changes discussed above, DOE concluded that someminor adjustments to the language would beneeded to clarifythe testprocedure and to ensure the overall consistency oftheprocedure. These adjustments include the following:
• In the first and second lines ofboth sections, changing "
... the secondpart starts .

. ." to "
... the second part ofthetest starts ...".
• In section 4.2.1..1, changing "
... first part's temperature ..." to "
... average temperature for the first part ofthe test ..." These changes are made inparallel sections to both Appendices A and B.

30Impact ofthe Test Procedure Change onMeasured EnergyUse Whirlpool estimated that modifying the test procedure to address the observed negative energyuse associated with fresh food compartment defrosts would increase the measured energy use ofa tested competitor'sproduct by 3 percent. (Whirlpool, No. 44 at p. 2) These results are consistent with the results DOE observed, as reported in the NOPRpublic meeting. (NOPR Public Meeting Presentation, No.9 at p. 53). However, as discussed above, DOE has reexamined the available data and now projects that the increase in energy use for such a product is only 1.5 percent applying the amended procedure made in this final rule. This latter estimate
more accurately reflects the differences in the test period ofthe second part ofthe tests as represented bythe interim final rule and today's final rule. ("Summary ofEnergy Use Measurements for a Refrigerator-Freezer with two Defrost Cycle Types", No. 46) In addition, as discussed further below, DOE has determined that the impact ofthetestprocedure change on energy use measurement for most affected products is near 1percent. DOE also notes that the energyuse impact ofthis change would applyonlyfor those variable defrost products that use cycling compressors.

To assess the potential impact on the measured energy use associated with the test procedure change suggested byWhirlpool, DOE reviewed the data it collected to support the test procedure's development and data collected as part ofits compliance efforts. The analysis DOE conducted drew from two separate sets oftest reports. The first set included tests conducted using the current test procedures ofAppendix AI. Forthis set oftests, the applicable temperature settings did notpermit one to calculate a weighted-average energy use at the Appendix A standardized compartment temperatures of0 of for the freezer compartment, and 39 of for the 31fresh food compartment, because the measured compartment temperatures for the two tests conducted at different temperature control settings (i.e. median setting and either warmest or coldest settings prescribed in the temperature control settingrequirements ofAppendix AI, section 3) did not generallybound these standardized temperatures. The second set oftests, in contrast, included measurements at temperature settings allowing calculation ofresults consistent with the Appendix A standardized compartment temperatures. These tests involved the use of temperature control settings suitable for theAppendix A standardized temperatures.

Forthe first set oftests, DOE evaluated the impact ofthetestprocedure change only for the coldest compartment temperature setting used in the test, which was typically the median setting. The compartment temperatures ofthese tests fell within 3OF ofthe Appendix A standardized temperatures. While this difference represents a deviation from the Appendix A test requirements, DOE still considers these results to be a good predictor ofthe expected operation ofthese products under standardized compartment temperature conditions for two reasons -- (1) the small size ofthe temperature deviations and (2) the measured data demonstrate that the influence ofcompartment temperature on the estimated impact ofthetest procedure change was negligible.

The analysis focused on four keyrefrigerator-freezerproduct classes: class 3 (refrigerator-freezers-automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service), class 5 products without exception relief(refrigerator-freezers-automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service), class 5 with exceptionreliefto account for through-the-door ice service (for the purposes ofthis discussion, designated product 32class 5Aunder the recentlypromulgated standards for 2014), and class 7 (refrigerator-freezersautomatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service). Theseproduct classes were chosenbecause theyrepresent significant market share, have automatic defrost, and
are the most likelyproducts to have variable defrost, thus indicatingthat they would be more likely candidates to be tested using the two-part test. The assessment focused solely onproducts with cycling compressors and variable defrost, since the test procedure change does not affect energyuse measurement for otherproducts.

DOEre-evaluated the test results for both sets ofdata using the modified test period for the second part ofthetest as described in this section, includingboth shifting the end ofthetest period to a compressor stop (rather than a compressor start) and removing the four-hour time limit. Table IIL2 summarizes the results ofthis assessment for both sets ofdata and does not include anydata covering Samsungproducts. The average measurement impact for these 25 products is under 1percent.

Table 111.2: Measured Energy Use Increase First Set ofTests Second Set ofTests Number of Average Number of Average Product Class Units EnergyUse Units EnergyUse Impact Impact 3 6 0.99% 2 0.90% 5 2 1.05% 1 0.89% 5A 3 1.08% 2 1.21% 7 6 0.73% 3 0.85% All Units 17 0.92% 8 0.95%

33DOE also separately evaluated data for six Samsungproducts falling into classes 5A and 7, for which the overall average measured impact was 1.55 percent. DOE believes that the reason for the greater sensitivity ofSamsungproducts to this testprocedure change as compared with otherproducts is that these products have two defrosts (one combined defrost ofboth the freezer and fresh food compartment evaporators and one defrost ofonly the fresh food evaporator) occurring in the same amount oftimethat otherproducts use one defrost.
Shipment-Weighted Impact ofthe Test Procedure Change onMeasured Energy Use DOE developed estimates ofshipment-weighted impacts on the measured energy use of the test procedure change for the four product classes highlighted in Table IIL2. The test procedure amendments apply only to variable defrost products with cycling compressors. Table IIL3 summarizes thepercentage ofmodels with variable defrost for the evaluated refrigeratorfreezer product classes as reported to DOE in August 2011 as part ofthe annual certification data submission. DOEused these percentages ofbasic models as aproxy for shipment-weighted average percentages. Because the certification data do not distinguish between cycling and noncycling compressor systems, thesepercentages includeboth types and for that reason provide a conservative (i.e. larger) estimateregarding the market share ofaffected products. (As discussed above, onlyproducts with variable defrost and cycling compressors will be affected bythe test procedure change.) The table also shows the market share ofSamsungproducts byproduct class based on sales datapurchased from the NPD Group6 for the years 2007 and 2008. DOE calculated the shipment-weighted average impact ofthetest procedure change as follows. 

### Percent Change = 1.55 

### x Ss 

## + 1.00 

### x (Sv
- Ss) 

## + 0.00 

### x (1

- 

### Sv)

6 NPD Group, Inc. <http://www.npd.comlcorpServlet?nextpage=corp welcome.h1ml> 34In this equation, Ss is the Samsungmarket share and Sv is the variable defrost market share. DOE assumed that the Samsungproducts all have variable defrost. Table III.3 shows the results ofthis calculation ofweighted average energyuse impact for the four product classes. Thepercentage impact varies from less than 0.5 percent tojust above 1percent. From these projections, DOE concludes that the level ofchange in the measurement does notnecessitate a change in the energy conservation standards, as discussed in section III.E.2.

Table 111.3: Weighted Impact Product Percent ofBasic Percent Samsung Weighted Average Models with Variable Class Defrost Products EnergyUse Impact

3 36% 0% 0.36% 5 90% 18% 1.00% 5A 100% 24% 1.13% 7 95% 6% 0.98%

D. Other Issues This section discusses comments madeby stakeholders regarding items for which DOE has not made corresponding changes in the test procedure.

1. Anti-Circumvention Language In the December 2010 final rule, DOE.added anti-circumvention language to 10 CFR 430.23, in section (a)(10) addressing refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers and in section (b)(7) addressing freezers. 75 FR 78818-78820 (Dec. 16,2010). AHAM commented that the anti35circumvention language has significant differences as compared with the language ofHRF-I2008 and that the exact language ofHRF-I-2008 should be adopted. (AHAM, No. 39 at p. 4) The language identified byAHAM appears in a section that provides general guidance for manufacturers to consider with respect to potential anti-circumvention issues. The specific language changes AHAMrecommended include the following:

1. "Energy saving features that are designed to be activated by a lack ofdoor openings shall not be functional during the energytest." should read "Energy saving features that are designed to operate when there are no door openings for longperiods oftime shall notbe functional during the energytest." 2. "The defrost heater should not either function or tum offdifferently during the energy test than it would when operatingin typical room conditions." should read "The defrost heater shall not either function or tum offdifferently during the energytest than it would when operating in typical room conditions. Also, the product shall not
recover differently during the defrost recoveryperiod than it would in typical room conditions." 3. In "Electricheaters that would nOlmally operate at typical room conditions with door openings should also operate during the energytest." the "should" should be replaced with "shall"

As noted earlier, amendments to 10 CFR 430.23 as part ofthe December 16,2010 notice
were made as part ofthe December 2010 final rule. These issues were not fully vetted as part of the re-openingnotice, which focused on issues related to Appendices A and B. DOE notes, 36however, that it developed this limited guidance inreliance on the 2007 version ofHRF-1. (Compare section HRF-I-2007, section 1.2 with HRF-I-2008, section 1.2). Should DOE need to clarify the application ofthese conditions, it may do so in the future.

2. Refrigeration Products Designed for Sale With or Without Icemakers In the standards final rule, DOE discussed issues raised byAHAMregarding refrigeration products designed for sale with orwithout icemakers ("kitable models"). Such products mayleave the factory with an icemaker installed, but could also leave the factory without an icemaker and instead have an icemaker installed downstream in the distribution chain, bythe retailer, or even by a customer afterpurchase oftheproduct. 76 FR at 57538 (Sept. 15, 2011). Icemakers can also beproduced bythird-partymanufacturers separate from the refrigeration products' manufacturers. (For example, the third partybrand Aquafresh is advertised as a replacement for all major icemakerbrands. See "Aquafresh RIM900 Ice Maker Information," No. 48 at p. 1) AHAM commented in response to the energy standards NOPR that kitable models should be treated as iftheyhave the icemakerinstalled. (AHAM, Refrigeration Products Energy Conservation Standard Rulemaking, Docket NumberEE-2008-BT -STD-0012, No. 73 at p. 6) DOE responded to these claims bynoting that suchproducts could bepurchased either with or without the icemaker, that the field energyuse for products without an icemaker wouldbe less bythe amount ofenergy use associated with icemaking (which is represented by a fixed value of84 kWh in the interim final rule test procedure) and that better consistency with the test procedure would be established ifsuch products were required to be certified both with and without the icemaker. 76 FR at 57538-57539 (Sept. 15,2011).
37AHAM strongly opposed the DOE approach and its comments to DOE stressed that the approach would createunnecessaryburden and cost with no public benefit. AHAM cited the following reasons in support ofits position:
• As far as AHAM is aware, manufacturers typically assign kitable models a single model numberregardless ofwhetherthe icemaker is installed when theproduct leaves the factory. Requiring certification ofthe model with and without the icemaker might require establishing a second model number for each such product, which wouldrepresent a great cost to manufacturers.
• The approach is overlyburdensome because it requires twice the test burden and twice as much reporting.
• Consumers that install an icemaker afterpurchase ofa refrigerator would notbe aware of the additional energyuse associated with icemaking.
• Ifmanufacturers maintain a single model number for the product with and without the icemaker, there might be confusion ifconsumers see two different energyuse values indicated for the same model (i.e. one for the unit with the icemaker and one for the unit without the icemaker).
• The manufacturermaynot have any control overwhether an icemaker is installed in the unit after it leaves the factory, makingit difficult to ensure that the correct energy label is included with the unit.

AHAM's approach would be to treat kitable models as iftheyhave an icemaker. Such an
38,approach would ensure that a purchaser ofa kitable model wouldreceive a product that would have energyuse no more than therated value. This approach would also meanthat there would be only one energyuse value associated with each model number, and would avoid multiple testing and reporting. (AHAM, No. 43 at pp. 6-7)

DOE is declining to adopt AHAM's approach within the context oftoday's notice.

DOE acknowledges, however, that manufacturers mayhave no control ofevents occurring after a product leaves their factory, and, hence, maynotknow which label to ship with
a product, ifthelabel wererequired to accurately reflect whether theproduct has an icemaker installed. Further, although AHAM claims that this approach is burdensome, its claim that such products would have to be tested twice is incorrect

-- a single test would indicateproduct performance with and without the icemaker, because it would include a measurement ofthe product without an icemaker. Calculating the energyuse for an icemaker-equippedproduct would be a matter ofadding a fixed value to calculate this value, as specified bythe Appendix A test procedure (see section 6.2.2.2). Additionally, AHAM did not quantify theburden involved. Without such quantification, or a meaningful explanation as to why a second set oftests would beneeded, DOE has little information with which tojudgethe merits ofAHAM's recommendations or its claims. DOE also notes that product labeling is thejurisdiction ofthe FTC and that any contents ofthose labels lieprimarily within theprovince ofthat agency's rulemaking authority.
Further, DOE notes that any approach eventually adopted for kitable models must ensure 39that both versions ofthe kitable model (i.e. sold either with or without the icemaker) meet their respective energy standards. DOE notes that this goal would automatically be achieved with the
new standards and the newtestprocedures as represented bythe September 2011 standards final rule and this test procedure final rule notice, since both the test procedure and the standards apply a fixed value of84 kWh (to represent icemaker energy consumption) to the measured energyuse ofaproduct when configured without an icemaker

-- this new value represents the energyuse ofan icemaker-equipped version ofthatproduct. This situation will likely change
once a laboratory-based procedure is implemented for measuring icemaking energy use, as is contemplated in a future rulemaking. Consideration ofan approach to address kitable models would, in all likelihood, bemore appropriately addressed as part ofa future rulemaking to decide whether to incorporate such a laboratory-based icemaking energy use measurement. DOE adds that the full rulemakingprocess would allow the issues associated with kitable models to be thoroughly considered and reviewed by stakeholders, thus ensuring that the adopted approach is vetted and acceptable to all affected parties. Accordingly, DOE is declining to adopt AHAM's suggestion.

3. Wine Storage and CombinationWine Storage Products This section addresses issues associated with wine storageproducts and combination wine storageproducts. The latter are refrigerationproducts combining wine storage with fresh food and/or freezer compartments. Definitions for Refrigerator and Refrigerator-Freezer
40DOE amended the definitions for refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer as part ofthe final rulepublished in the December 16, 2010 notice. See 75 FR at 78817. The modified definitions did two things that the previous definitions did not. First, they clarified that products that combine freezer compartments with compartments not designed to be capable of39 of storage temperature (but include no other types ofcompartments) are notrefrigerator-freezers. Second, the definitions clarified therequirements for fresh food compartments ofrefrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. Regarding this second item, the revised definitions clarified that a product is not necessarily disqualified from status as a refrigerator orrefrigerator-freezer ifits fresh food compartments can maintain average temperatures above 39 of for some temperature control settings. Id.

The amendments did not include language specifyingthat products incorporating wine storage compartments -- for the purpose ofthis discussion, compartments that are not designed to be capable ofmaintaining storage temperatures below 39 OF

-- inproducts that would otherwise berefrigerators orrefrigerator-freezers under the definition would be treated as something other than these covered products. Id. at 78817. Wine chillers are typically designed to operate between 50 OF and 60 OF to ensure theproper storage temperature for bottled wine. DOE subsequentlyposted on its website a guidance document explaining its interpretation ofthe amended definitions. ("Guidance on Scope ofCoverage for Hybrid (Wine Storage) Refrigeration Products Issued Feb. 10,2011", No. 49). The Guidance clarified DOE's interpretation ofthe definitions and explained that adding a wine storage compartment to a refrigerator or a refrigerator-freezer does not change its status as a refrigerator orrefrigerator-freezer underthe regulations. 41AHAM objected to this interpretation ofthe testprocedure final rule definitions. (AHAM, No. 43 at ppA-5) It argued that DOE's interpretation is inequitablebecause it treats freezers differently than refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. AHAM also argued that the Guidance was, in its view, inconsistent with the separaterulemaking approach that DOE had 'indicated it was considering applyingto wine chillers. AHAM argued further that establishing coverage through interpretation, which itbelieved was performed bythe Guidance, was inappropriate, and stated that such steps should be taken onlythrough the established rulemaking process.

At the outset, DOE notes that these definitions were established as part oftheDecember 2010 final rule. Because ofthe limited nature ofthe re-opening ofthe comment period, which focused on those issues related to the conduct ofthetest procedures detailed inAppendices A and B, theseparticular issues were not completelyvetted through therulemakingprocess. Hence, DOE mayrevisit and reconsider these issues as part ofa future rulemaking activity.

DOE further notes that AHAM does not contest the validity ofthetext ofthe definitions themselves but onlyhow DOE may choose to apply these definitions to a small group of products that have yet to comprise any significant share ofthe overall refrigerationproduct market. DOE's research was able to identify only seven distinct products that are clearlypart of this product group. ("Wine Storage Combination Products", No. 50)

Withrespect to the definitions, the coverage ofrefrigerationproducts has been clarified 42through guidance to help explain that products that meet a specific set ofperformance criteria would betreated as covered products. Anyproduct meetingthese criteria are subject to the regulations covering theseproducts. These criteria were established through a lengthy notice and commentprocess associated with this test procedure rulemaking that began in May2010 and on which manufacturers had ample opportunity to comment. DOE adds that, consistent with its prior statements, it fully intends to initiate a wine-chiller-specific rulemaking to address potential standards for theseproducts.

DOE also notes that there are somekeytechnical differences between freezers and refrigerators/refrigerator-freezers. These differences require that different approaches be considered when deciding how to treat those refrigeration products that include a wine storage compartment. Inparticular, the standardized temperature for a freezer is 0 of, while the standardized temperature for the fresh food compartment ofa refrigerator-freezer is 45 of under current test procedures and 39 of under test procedures that manufacturers will need to use for compliance purposes in 2014. A wine storage compartment canbe expected to approach a 45 of temperature during testing, but approaching 0 of would be extremelyunlikely given the nature of theproduct

-- specifically, the technical requirements for designing a compartment ofa product to achieve a 0 of temperature differs significantly from those required to achieve the much higher temperature (39 OF) needed for the safe storage offresh food

-- orthe even higher standardized temperature (45 OF) required bythe current test procedure during the testing of these products. These differences not onlyrequire different design considerations, but they also result in very different energy consumption characteristics.

43Moreover, the definitions for these three products (refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer), which DOE adopted with full input from thepublic, including manufacturers, contain clear differences with respect to the inclusion ofseparate compartments. Both the refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer definitions explicitly contemplate the inclusion ofcompartments with
more than one temperature range, while the freezer definition does not. See 10 CFR 430.2. As a result, a freezer-wine chiller combinationproduct does not fall squarely into any ofthese definitions. In contrast, a wine chiller combined with either a refrigerator orrefrigerator-freezer would fall within the definitions for those two products. Treatingthese three products in the exact same manner as suggested byAHAM
-- i.e. to exclude them from any coverage -- would ignore these differences as well as the technical differences noted above. Accordingly, because ofthese differences, a freezer-wine chillerproduct should not be treated in the same manner as a refrigerator-wine chiller orrefrigerator-freezer-wine chillerproducts.

DOE recognizes, however, that some combination wine storageproducts mayhave characteristics that would make attempts at testing them with the wine storage compartment approaching 45 ofprovide non-representative results. For suchproducts, manufacturers may still market such itemsbyfirst petitioningDOE for an appropriate test procedure waiver. DOE highlighted this option when it issued its February 2011 Guidance. Also, in the case ofthose products that maybe unable to comply with the applicable standards, manufacturers have the option ofapplying for exceptionreliefwith the Office ofHearings and Appeals. See 42 U.S.C. 7194 and 10 CFR 1003.

Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Wine Chillers 

### 44In the energy conservation standards NOPR ("standards NOPR"), and again in the standards final rule, DOE explained its interpretation that wine chillers are not covered products under the definition for electric refrigerator, and thus are not covered bythe energy conservation standards for refrigerationproducts. 75 FR 59470,59486 (Sept. 27, 2010) and 76 FR 57516, 57534 (Sept. 15,2011). As noted in the standards final rule, several stakeholders submitted comments favoring the regulation ofwine chiller products. DOE noted that it may consider initiating a rulemaking to establish coverage and energy standards for these products. Id.

In its comments on the interim final rule, AHAMreiterated its support for a rulemaking to regulate wine storage products, and indicated that such a rulemaking should includeproducts in which wine storage compartments are combined with fresh food and/or freezer compartments. (AHAM, No. 43 at p. 4). Sub Zero requested that DOE conduct a comprehensive analysis, with full stakeholder input, leading to a Federal efficiency standard for all wine storage products and combinationlhybrid that include wine chillers. (Sub Zero, No. 42 at p. 2)

Consistent with earlier statements, DOE will consider conductingrulemakings addressing coverage, test procedures, and energy conservation standards for wine chiller and related products. DOE has already taken an initial step in this process bypublishing a coverage determinationproposal to establish coverage for refrigeration products that do not have compressors and condensers integrated with their cabinets

-- many ofwhich include wine chillers. 76 FR 69147 (Nov. 8,2011) Suchproducts cannot be immediately covered under the authority granted to DOE byEPCA to regulate conventional refrigerationproducts, which necessitates a separate coverage determination to address these non-condenser/compressor 45products. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1))
4. Multiple Compressor Systems In the test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to address certain inconsistencies in the test procedure for dual compressor systems. 75 FR at 29841 (May 27,2010). These systems have
, separate refrigeration systems serving the fresh food and freezer compartments. AHAM commented that DOE should simplifythis test procedure and suggested an alternative test procedure addressing suchproducts. (AHAM, No. 16 at p. 7). DOE explained that it could not adopt the AHAMproposal in the interim final rule because the AHAMprocedure represents a significant departure from theproposal that was presented in the NOPR, and that stakeholders
were not provided an adequate opportunity to comment on theprocedure to allow its adoption. 75 FR at 78831 (Dec. 16, 2010). DOE noted, however, that it may consider this approach in a future rulemaking that would more fully revise the testprocedure. See id.

AHAMraised this issue in all three ofits written comments submitted in response to the interim final rule. (AHAM, No. 39 at p. 4; AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 1-2; AHAM, No. 43 at pp. 2-3) AHAM's recommendations regarding how this test procedure should measure the energy consumption ofmultiple compressor-based systems has changed each time it has provided specific test procedure recommendations. See AHAM, No. 16 at p. 7 (Aug. 10,2010), AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 1-2 (March 4,2011), and AHAM, No. 43 at pp. 2-3 (Oct. 17,2011). In spite ofits continually evolvingposition, AHAM urged DOE to modify the dual compressor testprocedure because, in its view, the DOE test procedure contains specific problems that relate to its

46requirement that a manufacturer separatelymeasure the energyuse ofthe two separate systems. 7 The group made two assertions in support ofits view. First, AHAM argued that this requirement posed a significant test burden. Second, AHAM asserted that many dual compressorproducts do not work inthe manner that the test procedure assumes they do

-- i.e. as separate independent systems. Instead, AHAM argued that many ofthese products use shared systems. (AHAM, No. 40 at p. 2) Sub-Zero supported the alternative approach incorporated in AHAM's October 17, 2011 comments and asserted that itprovided a practical, accurate, and repeatable test procedure that should beincorporated into the final rule. 8 (Sub Zero, No. 42 at pp. 1-2)

AHAM added that Appendix Al should bemodified to include the revised test procedure for dual compressor system products it suggested that DOE adopt. (AHAM, No. 43 at p. 2)

DOE notes that modifications to the Appendix Al test procedure for dual compressor systems implemented in the December 16,2010notice were made as part ofthe final rule. Because ofthe limited nature ofthe reopening notice, which focused on issues related to Appendices A and B, these suggested changes to Appendix Al were not fully vetted for consideration in this rulemaking.

DOE further notes that the current procedwe'srequirement that each compressor system ofa dual compressor systembe separatelymeasured was first established in 1989. See 54 FR
7DOE notes that the requirement for separate measurement ofthe two systems for dual compressorproducts is not new. It was initially established in the testprocedure on August 31, 1989. 54 FR 36238. 8 Sub Zero's comments mention that theyhave submitted a petition for a testprocedure waiverto obtain relieffor their dual-compressorproducts from use ofthe current testprocedure (see 76 FR 71335 (Nov. 17,2011», which they claim are difficult or impossible to conduct. (Sub Zero, No. 44 atpp. 1-2) The waiverprocess is the appropriate step in addressing suchproducts that cannot properlybe tested using the DOE testprocedures. 4736238,36241 (Aug. 31, 1989). Manufacturers are, bynow, very familiar with this procedure and how to most efficiently and accuratelyperform it. The issues that AHAM initiallyraised inits August 10, 2010, comments regarding the burden associated with this test (which AHAM did not detail) require additional consideration and a more fulsome evaluation. Additionally, the constantly changing nature ofAHAM's recommended approach highlights the unsettled nature ofthat approach and underscores the complexityofthis issue. InDOE's view, these facts tend to indicate that the adoption ofanyone ofAHAM's three suggested alternatives would likelybe premature, particularly without further public input. Hence, DOE is declining to adopt any of AHAM's suggestions at this time.

DOE notes that AHAM did not indicate that its approach will be applicable to freezers. Consequently, DOE did not evaluate the appropriateness ofthis approach for thoseproducts. DOE is unaware ofany freezer products that employ a dual compressor system.

5. Triangulation During the testprocedure NOPRpublic meeting, stakeholders introduced the concept of triangulation in the context ofsetting a refrigerationproduct's temperature controls for testing. The triangulation approach involves conductingtests at three temperature control setting combinations as opposed to the two settings generallyrequired inthe current testprocedures. By properly setting the controls for the three tests and calculating the appropriate weighted average ofthe energyuse measurements ofthose tests, triangulation allows one to calculate theprojected level ofenergyuse ifboththe fresh food and freezer compartment temperatures matched their
48standardized temperatures (i.e. 0 of in the freezer compartment and 39 of in the fresh food compartment for arefrigerator-freezer tested according to Appendix A). In comparison, the current DOE test procedureprovides a more conservative measurement (i.e. potentiallyhigher value) ofenergy use at the standardized temperatures that reduces the overall testingburdens by limiting the number ofrequired tests from three under the triangulation approach to two. 9

Stakeholders suggested in oral and written comments on the NOPR that triangulation should be introduced into the DOE test procedures. See 75 FR at 78822 (Dec. 16,2010). DOE indicated in the interim final rule that this testprocedure approach has not been subject to stakeholder evaluation and comment and that it could not be adopted at the time for that reason.

AHAM commented again that triangulation should be adopted in the test procedures, indicating that it should beintroduced as an optional approach for setting temperature controls for testing. AHAM also indicated that DOE could haveput this topic up for stakeholder comment inthe interim final rule, and added that ifthe DOE adopts triangulation for certification purposes, it should also berequired for enforcement purposes. (AHAM, No. 39 at pp. 3-4)
DOEbelieves the triangulation approach departs enough from current procedures for settingtemperature controls that it would have been inappropriate for DOE to incorporate it

9 A more conservative (i.e. larger) estimate ofenergy usage is most likely to occur in situations where a tested product's temperature controls have not been tuned-without such tuning, the two calculations ofenergy use of Appendix A, section 6.2.2.2 using the fresh food compartment temperature for one calculation and the freezer compartment temperature for the other can differ significantly from each other. For such a product, the two compartments attain their standardized temperatures at very different positions within the range oftheir temperature controls (e.g. the fresh food compartment may attain 39 OF with its control at the mid setting while the freezer compartment control may have to be in its coldest position to achieve 0 OF in the compartment). 49based solely on the strength ofthe NOPR comments, which were sparse and contained little to
no supporting data. Those technical differences, coupled with the lack ofany opportunity for all interested parties to fully evaluate this issue, weigh in favor ofnot incorporating the triangulation approach into DOE's test procedure at this time. Consequently, DOE did not adopt it in either the December 2010 final rule orthe interim final rule. Additionally, introducing triangulation could have unforeseen implications, as alluded to in AHAM's comments, which suggested that, ifadopted, it should also be used for enforcement purposes. (Id. at p. 4) Testing using triangulation could, in certain circumstances, yield different results as compared with the approach ofthe current DOE test procedure. Those differences could be significant enough to affect whether a givenproduct complies with an applicable standard. This complication alone merits a more thorough consideration by the agency before the triangulation approach is adopted. For these reasons, DOE is declining to adopt the triangulation method into the test procedures ofAppendix A at this time. DOE, may, however, consider the incorporation ofthis method when it considers potential changes to the test procedure as periodicallyrequired under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b).

E. Compliance With OtherEPCA Requirements In addition to the issues discussed above, DOE examined its other obligations under EPCA in developingthe amendments in today's notice. These requirements are addressed in greater detail below.

501. Test Burden EPCA requires that the test procedures DOE prescribes or amends bereasonably designed to produce test results which measure the energy efficiency, energyuse, or estimated annual operating cost ofa covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of
use. Theseprocedures must also notbeundulyburdensome to conduct. See 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3). DOE has concluded that the amendments being adopted today satisfythis requirement. In largepart, today's rule simply finalizes the interim final rule ofDecember 16, 2010. Where the interim final rule has been modified, the amendments require no changes to the current requirements for equipment and instrumentation for testing.

While the amendments adopted todayhave the potential to slightly extend the testing time for some products that use long-time or variable defrost, this extended duration is likelyto represent an insignificant impact on the overall test burden. Inparticular, while the duration of the second part ofthe test will extend for thoseproducts that use cycling compressors - the test period will be extended typically for the duration ofa compressor "on" cycle, but maybe longer in the limited number ofcases where the four-hour time limit between defrost heater activation and the end ofthe testperiod under the current test procedure applies. The amended procedure will, in the vast majority ofcases, not extend the testing duration for products. DOE estimates that anyproducts that would be affected bythese changes would have an extended testing duration ofbetween 1 and 2 hours. Given that most, ifnot all, modemtestingis conducted using automated data acquisition equipment and that these tests typically last a full week for a typical product, the addition ofthis amount oftime is unlikelyto result in any significant added burden.
51As described in section C.2, intests conducted using automated data acquisition, a test technician does not activelymonitor the test minute to minute. Instead, the test status is checked periodically during the test, perhaps once or twice per day. At the time ofsuch a check, the test generally would have completed the next defrost cycle to be measured, or alternatively, the next defrost cycle would not yet have started, in which case the test would be checked again later. In few, ifany, cases would extension ofthe defrostpart ofthetest by 1 or 2 hours significantly lengthen the overall test time. The extension ofthe testperiod ofthe second part ofthe test would cause delay onlyif, during such status check, the latest defrost cycle has startedbut not ended. Also, for such a case, a two-hour extension ofthetest, ifit did occur, would represent about a 1percent increase in test time, assuming a one-week average test duration. Consequently, DOE concludes that the possible small increase in test time is more than outweighedbythe improved accuracy ofthetest represented bythe test procedure amendment.

Thetest procedure changes modifying the default values for CTLand CTM and revising the reference to the test data records requirements impose no changes in test burden.

2. Changes in Measured EnergyUse In this final rule, DOE is amending the test period for the second part ofthetest. This test is conducted as part ofthetwo-part test for products with long-time or variable-defrost and cycling compressor systems. DOE estimates that this test procedure change will increase measured energy use roughly 1percent for affected standard-sizerefrigerator-freezers. The other
52test procedure amendments made in this final rule will not affect energy use measurement.

WhenDOE modifies testprocedures, it must determine to what extent, ifany, the new test procedure would alter the measured energyuse ofcoveredproducts. (42 U.S.c. 6293(e)(1» In this case, DOE has determined that theprojected impact on the measured energyuse of covered products that are affected would be altered by approximately 1percent. DOE considers this an insignificant impact onmeasured energy use. Accordingly, DOEhas determined that an adjustment to the applicable standard is not required.

IV. Procedural Requirements A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 The Office ofManagement and Budget has determined that test procedure rulemakings do not constitute "significant regulatory actions" under section 3(f) ofExecutive Order 12866, RegulatoryPlanning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the Executive Orderbythe Office oflnformation and RegulatoryAffairs (OIRA) in the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB).

B. Review Under the Regulatory FlexibilityAct The RegulatoryFlexibilityAct (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires preparation ofan initial regulatory flexibility analysis for anyrule that bylaw mustbeproposed for public comment,

53unless the agency certifies that the proposed rule, ifpromulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities. As required by Executive Order 13272, "Proper Consideration ofSmall Entities in Agency Rulemaking," 67 FR 53461 (August 16,2002), DOE publishedprocedures and policies on February 19,2003, to ensure that the potential impacts ofits rules on small entities areproperly considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office ofthe General Counsel's website (http://www.gc.doe.gov).

DOE reviewed the test procedures in today's final rule under the provisions ofthe Regulatory FlexibilityAct and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. This final rule prescribes test procedures that will beused to test compliance with energy conservation standards for the products that are the subject ofthisrulemaking.

The Small Business Administration (SBA) considers an entity to be a small business if, together with its affiliates, it employs less than a threshold number ofworkers specified in 13 CFRpart 121, which relies on size standards and codes established bythe North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Thethreshold number for NAICS code 335222, which applies to Household Refrigerator and Home FreezerManufacturing, is 1,000 employees.

DOE searched the SBA website (http://dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/dsp dsbs.cfm) to identify manufacturers within this NAICS code that producerefrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and/or freezers. Most ofthemanufacturers supplying these products are large multinational corporations with more than 1,000 employees. There are several small businesses involved in the 54sale ofrefrigerationproducts that are listed onthe SBA website under the NAICS code for this industry. However, DOE believes that only V-Line Corporation ofMilwaukee, Wisconsin is a small business that manufactures theseproducts. V-Line primarilymanufactures compact refrigerators and related compact products such as wine chillers and stand-alone icemakers these icemakers differ from the automatic icemakers installed inmanyrefrigerationproducts in that they are complete icemaking appliances designed solely for the production and storage of ice, using either typical residential icemaking technology or a reduced-scale version ofthe icemaking technology used extensively in commercial icemakers.

DOE had initially concluded in its December 2010 notice that the final rule will not have
a significant impact on small manufacturers under theprovisions ofthe Regulatory Flexibility Act. DOE received no comments objecting to this conclusion.

DOE concludes also that the test procedure amendments of today's notice will not have a significant impact on small manufacturers under theprovisions ofthe Act. These amendments do not require use oftest facilities or test equipment that differ in any substantive way from the test facilities or test equipment that manufacturers currently use to evaluate the energy efficiency of these products. Further, the amended test procedures will not be significantlymore difficult or time-consuming to conduct than current DOE energytest procedures.

Forthese reasons, DOE concludes and certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. DOE has transmitted the certification and 55supporting statement offactual basis to the ChiefCounsel for Advocacy ofthe SBA for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Manufacturers ofrefrigerationproducts must certifyto DOE that theirproducts comply with any applicable energy conservation standard. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according to the DOE test procedure for refrigeration products, including any amendments adopted for that test procedure. The collection-of-informationrequirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval. DOEreceived OMB approval to collect this information and has established regulations for the certification and recordkeepingrequirements for all covered consumerproducts and commercial equipment, including the refrigerationproducts addressed bytoday's final rule. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). The public reportingburden 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 otherprovision ofthelaw, no person is required to respond to, nor shall anypersonbe subject to a penalty for failure to complywith, a collection ofinformation subject to the requirements ofthe PRA, unless that collection ofinformation displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
56D. Review Under the National Environmental PolicyAct of 1969 In this notice, DOE amends its testprocedure for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. These amendments will improve the ability ofDOE'sprocedures to more accurately account for the energy consumption ofproducts that incorporate a variety ofnew technologies that were not contemplated when the current procedure was promulgated. The amendments also will beused to develop and implement future energy conservation standards for refrigeration products. DOE has determined that this final rule falls into a class ofactions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementingregulations at 10 CFRpart 1021. Specifically, this rule amends an existingrule without changing its environmental effect, and, therefore, is covered bythe Categorical Exclusion in 10 CFRpart 1021, subpart D, appendix A6. See 76 FR 63764, 63788 (Oct. 13,2011). The exclusion applies because this rule establishes a strictlyprocedural requirement byrevising existing testprocedures. These revisions will not affect the amount, q:uality, or distribution ofenergyusage, and, therefore, will not result in anyenvironmental impacts. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 Executive Order 13132, "Federalism," imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementingpolicies orregulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. 64 FR43255 (Aug. 10, 1999). The Executive Orderrequires agencies
57to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion ofthe 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 ofregulatorypolicies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOEpublished a statement ofpolicydescribing the intergovernmental consultationprocess that it will follow in developing such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final rule and determined that it will nothave a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption ofState regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject oftoday's final rule. States canpetition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No further action is required byExecutive Order 13132.

F. ReviewUnder Executive Order 12988 Regarding the review ofexistingregulations and thepromulgation ofnewregulations, section 3(a) ofExecutive Order 12988, "Civil Justice Reform," 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes onFederal 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 clearlegal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burdenreduction. Section 3(b) ofExecutive Order 12988 specificallyrequires that Executive agencies make everyreasonable effort to ensure that the regulation specifies the
58,following: (1) the preemptive effect, ifany; (2) any effect on existing Federal law orregulation; (3) a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) the retroactive effect, ifany; (5) definitions ofkeyterms; and (6) other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued bythe Attorney General. Section 3(c) ofExecutive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light ofapplicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they
are met or whether it is unreasonable to meet one or more ofthem. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted bylaw, this final rule meets the relevant standards ofExecutive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Title IIofthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects ofFederal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. For a regulatory actIon resulting in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, orbythe private sector of$100 million or more in anyone year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 ofUMRArequires a Federal agency to publish estimates oftheresulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a)-(b» UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timelyinput by elected officers ofState, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed "significant intergovernmental mandate," and requires an agencyplan for giving notice and opportunityfor timely input to potentially-affected small governments before establishing anyrequirements that might
59significantly oruniquely affect such governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement ofpolicy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. (The policyis also available at www.gc.doe.gov). Today's final rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate nor a mandate that mayresult in an expenditure of$100 million or more in any year, so these requirements do not apply.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 Section 654 ofthe Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a FamilyPolicymakingAssessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. Today's final rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity ofthe family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a FamilyPolicymakingAssessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, "Governmental Actions and Interference with ConstitutionallyProtected Property Rights," 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the FifthAmendment to the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 Section 515 ofthe Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations ofinformation to the 60public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines werepublished at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines
werepublished at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOEhas reviewed today's rule under OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That SignificantlyAffect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use," 66 FR 28355 (May 22,2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA a Statement ofEnergy Effects for any significant energy action. A "significant energy action" is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation ofa 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, oruse ofenergy; or (3) is designated bythe Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement ofany adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, oruse iftheregulation is implemented, and ofreasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. Today's regulatory action is not 

### a' significantregulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Ithas likewise not been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator ofOIRA. Moreover, it would nothave a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use ofenergy. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has notprepared a Statement ofEnergyEffects.
61L. Review Under Section 32 ofthe Federal EnergyAdministration Act of 1974 Under section 301 oftheDOE Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), DOE must comply with section 32 ofthe Federal EnergyAdministration Act of 1974, as amended bythe Federal EnergyAdministration Authorization Act of 1977 (FEAA). (15 U.S.C. 788) Section 32 essentiallyprovides inpart that, where a rule authorizes orrequires use of commercial standards, therulemakingmust inform thepublic ofthe use and background ofsuch standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman ofthe Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerningthe impact ofthe commercial or industry standards on competition.
Today's action does not incorporate testing methods contained in any new commercial standards not alreadyreferenced bythe current regulations on which the Attorney General and FTC have not already beenpreviously consulted earlier during this rulemakingprocess.

M. Congressional Notification As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress onthepromulgation oftoday's rule before its effective date. The report will state that ithas been determined that the rule is not a "major rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

62

## v. Approval ofthe Office ofthe Secretary The Secretary ofEnergyhas approved publication ofthese final rules.

List ofSubjects in 10 CFRpart 430 Administrativepractice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporationbyreference, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.

Issued in Washington, DC, on

Kathleen B. Hogan DeputyAssistant Secretary Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

63Forthe reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends part 430 ofchapter II oftitle 10, ofthe Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 430 -- ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMERPRODUCTS

1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

2. Appendix A to subpart B ofpart 430 is amended by:
a. In section 4. Test Period, by: 1. Revising sections 4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.2, and 4.2.4; 2. Revising figures 1 and 2; b. In section 5. Test Measurements, byrevising sections 5.2.1.3 and 5.2.1.5.

The revisions read as follows:

ApPENDIX A TO SUBPART B OF PART430--UNIFORM TESTMETHOD FOR MEASURING THE ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRIC REFRIGERATORS AND ELECTRIC REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS 

## * * * * * 4. Test Period 

## * * * * * 4.2.1.1 Cycling Compressor System. For a system with a cycling compressor, the second 64part ofthetest starts at the tennination ofthelast regular compressor "on" cycle. The average temperatures ofthe fresh food and freezer compartments measured from the tennination ofthe previous compressor "on" cycle to the tennination ofthe last regular compressor "on" cycle must both be within 0.5 OF (0.3 DC) oftheir average temperatures measured for the first part ofthetest. Ifany compressor cycles occurpriorto the defrost heater being energized that cause the average temperature in either compartment to deviate from its average temperature for the first part of the test bymore than 0.5 OF (0.3 DC), these compressor cycles are not considered regular compressor cycles and mustbe included in the second part ofthetest. As an example, a "precooling" cycle, which is an extended compressor cycle that lowers the temperature(s) ofone orboth compartments prior to energizing the defrost heater, must be included in the second part ofthe test. The test period for the second part ofthe test ends at the tennination ofthe first regular compressor "on" cycle after both compartment temperatures have fully recovered to their stable conditions. The average temperatures ofthe compartments measured from this tennination ofthe first regular compressor "on" cycle until the tennination ofthe next regular compressor "on" cycle must both be within 0.5 OF (0.3 DC) oftheir average temperatures measured for the first part ofthe test. See Figure 1. Figure 1 Long-time Automatic Defrost Diagram for Cycling Compressors

65CycleA*

STARTSECOND PARTOFTEST CycleB***T2------------------~** ENDSECOND PARTOFTEST *

Averagecompartmenttemperature(s)duringcyclesA & B mustbe within0.5 'F of the averagetemperature(s)forthe first partofthetest.

4.2.1.2 Non-cycling Compressor System. For a system with a non-cycling compressor, the secondpart ofthe test starts at a time before defrost during stable operation when the temperatures ofboth fresh food and freezer compartments are within 0.5 of (0.3 DC) oftheir average temperatures measured for the first part ofthetest. The second part stops at a time after defrost during stable operation when the temperatures ofboth compartments are within 0.5 of (0.3 °C) oftheir average temperatures measured for the first part ofthetest. See Figure 2. Figure 2 Long-time Automatic Defrost Diagram for Non-Cycling Compressors 

### 66**~**

## ~ 0**~**



## ***~** Oz rflO

# ~~~**§~~ ~o~**  uO**~** Sf-;**~rfl ~O** **~~ ~** **~**

### ~~**O~ ~** **~~'** 00

### ~**>~ u~** 

### ~**O~**

### ~~ Uf-; f-;

## ~~**~~** rfl 0**~ ~** **~ ~** **~-----** T2 ----------.1 START SECOND PARTOFTEST END SECOND PARTOFTEST**~** Oz rflO

# j~~**8~~ ~o~**  uO

*Averagecompartmenttemperature(s)attimesA& B mustbewithin 0.5 of of the averagetemperature(s) forthe firstpartofthe test. 

## * * * *

4.2.4 Systems withMultiple Defrost Frequencies. This'section applies to models with long-time automatic orvariable defrost control with multiple defrost cycle types, such as models with single compressors and multiple evaporators in which the evaporators have different defrost frequencies. The two-part method in 4.2.1 shall beused. The second part ofthe method will be conducted separately for each distinct defrost cycle type.

67

## * * * * *

5. TestMeasurements 

## * * * * * 5.2.1.3 Variable Defrost Control. The energy consumption inkilowatt-hours per day shall be calculated equivalent to:

ET = (1440 x EPI/Tl) 

### + (EP2

- (EPI x T2/Tl» x (12ICT), where: 1440 is defined in 5.2.1.1 and EPl, EP2, Tl, T2, and 12 are defined in 5.2.1.2;

CTL= least or shortest compressorruntime between defrosts inhours rounded to the nearest tenth ofan hour (greater than or equal to 6 but less than or equal to 12 hours); CT M = maximum compressorrun timebetween defrosts inhours rounded to the nearest tenth of
anhour (greater than CTLbut not more than 96 hours); F 

### = ratio ofper day energy consumption in excess ofthe least energy and the maximum \, difference inper-day energy consumption and is equal to 0.20 For variable defrost models withno values for CTLand CT M in the algorithm, the default values of6 and 96 shall be used, respectively.

68

## * * * * *

5.2.1.5 Long-time or Variable Defrost Control for Systems with Multiple Defrost cycle Types. The energy consumption in kilowatt-hours per day shall be calculated equivalent to:
D 

### ET

## =(I440x 

### EPlITl) + 

### L:[(EP2; - (EPl x 

### T2;1Tl)) x 

### (12ICI;)] ;=1 where: 1440 is defined in 5.2.1.1 and EPl, Tl, and 12 are defined in 5.2.1.2; i is a variable that can equal 1 , 2, or more that identifies the distinct defrost cycle types applicable for the refrigerator orrefrigerator-freezer; EP2i = energy expended inkilowatt-hours during the second part ofthe test for defrost cycle type 

### i'



### , T2i 

### = length oftime in minutes ofthe second part ofthe test for defrost cycle type i; CTi is the compressor run timebetween instances ofdefrost cycle type i, for long-time automatic defrost control equal to a fixed time in hours rounded to the nearest tenth ofan hour, and for variable defrost control equal to

CTLi 

### = least or shortest compressorrun timebetween instances ofdefrost cycle type i inhours rounded to the nearest tenth ofan hour (CTL for the defrost cycle type with the longest compressorrun time between defrosts mustbe greater than or equal to 6 but less than or equal to 12 hours); CT Mi 

### = maximum compressorrun time between instances ofdefrost cycle type i inhours rounded to the nearest tenth ofan hour (greater than CTLi butnot more than 96 hours); 69For cases in which there are more than one fixed CT value (for long-time defrost models) or
morethan one CTMand/or CTL value (for variable defrost models) for a given defrost cycle type, an average fixed CT value or average CT Mand CTL values shall be selected for this cycle type so that 12 divided bythis value or values is the frequency of
occurrence ofthe defrost cycle type in a 24 hourperiod, assuming 50% compressorrun time. F 

### = default defrost energy consumption factor, equal to 0.20. For variable defrost models with no values for CT Li and CTMi inthe algorithm, the default values of6 and 96 shall beused, respectively. D is thetotal number ofdistinct defrost cycletypes.

3. Appendix B to subpart B ofpart 430 is amended by:
a. In section 4. Test Period, by: 1. Revising sections 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.1.2; 2. Revising figures 1 and 2; b. In section 5. TestMeasurements, byrevising section 5.2.1.3.

Therevisions read as follows: ApPENDIX B TO SUBPART B OF PART 430--UNIFORM TEST METHOD FOR MEASURING THE ENERGY CONSUMPTION OFFREEZERS 

## * * * * * 4. Test Period. 

## * * * * * 704.2.1.1 Cycling Compressor System. For a system with a cycling compressor, the second part ofthetest starts at the termination ofthe last regular compressor "on" cycle. The average temperature ofthe compartment measured from the termination oftheprevious compressor "on" cycle to the termination ofthelastregular compressor "on" cycle mustbe within 0.5 of (0.3 °C) ofthe average temperature ofthe compartment measured for the first part ofthe test. Ifany compressor cycles occurpriorto the defrost heater being energized that cause the average temperature in the compartment to deviate from the average temperature for the first part ofthe test bymore than 0.5 of (0.3 DC), these compressor cycles are not considered regular compressor cycles and must be included in the second part ofthe test. As an example, a "precooling" cycle, which is an extended compressor cycle that lowers the compartment temperature priorto energizing the defrost heater, mustbe included in the second part ofthe test. The testperiod for the second part ofthe test ends at the termination ofthe first regular compressor "on" cycle after the compartment temperatures have fully recovered to their stable conditions. The average temperature ofthe compartment measured from this termination ofthe first regular compressor "on" cycle until the termination ofthenext regular compressor "on" cycle mustbe within 0.5 of (0.3 DC) ofthe average temperature ofthe compartment measured for the first part ofthe test. See Figure 1.

71Figure 1 Long-time Automatic Defrost Diagram for Cycling Compressors

CycleA*

STARTSECOND PARTOFTEST CycleB* T2**----------~** ENDSECOND PARTOFTEST *AveragecompartmenttemperatureduringcyclesA& B mustbewithin 0.5 'F of the averagetemperatureforthe first partofthe test.

4.2.1.2 Non-cycling Compressor System. For a system with a non-cycling compressor, the secondpart ofthe test starts at a timebefore defrost during stable operation when the compartment temperature is within 0.5 of (0.3 °C) ofthe average temperature ofthe compartment measured for the first part ofthe test. The second part stops at a time after defrost during stable operation when the compartment temperature is within 0.5 OF (0.3 °C) ofthe average temperature ofthe compartment measured for the first part ofthe test. See Figure 2. 72

## * * Figure 2

P::

## ~ 0**~** Long-timeAutomatic Defrost Diagram for Non-cycling Compressors

P:: Oz

### ~~9

## ~~~**g~~ ~o~**  u O 

## §



## ....**~** P::OO**~O ~P::** **~** P::

### ~~**O~**

# ~**\~ ~**  00**u~** 

### Etl**O~**

### ~~**u~ ~** 

### ~~**~~** 00 0 P::**~ ~** **~**

1+------ T2 ---------.l START SECOND PARTOFTEST END SECOND PARTOFTEST *AveragecompartmenttemperatureattimesA & B mustbewithin 0.5 of of the averagetemperatureforthe first partofthe test.


## * * * * 5. Test Measurements. 

## * * * * P:: OZ 000

# ~~~**§~~ ~o~**  u O

5.2.1.3 Variable Defrost Control. The energy consumptionin kilowatt-hours per day shall
73be calculated equivalent to:

ET = (1440 x K x 

### EPlITl) 

### + (EP2

- (EP1 x T2/T1)) x K x (12/CT), where: ET, K, and 1440 are defined in section 5.2.1.1; EP1, EP2, T1, T2, and 12 are defined in section 5.2.1.2; CT = (CTLx CTM)/(F x (CTM - CTd 

### + CTd where: CTL

### = least or shortest compressorrun time between defrosts inhours rounded to the nearest tenth ofanhour (greater than or equal to 6 hours but less than or equal to 12 hours); CT M= maximum compressorrun time between defrosts in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of
an hour (greater than CTLbut not more than 96 hours); F = ratio ofper day energy consumption in excess oftheleast energy and the maximum difference inper-day energy consumption and is equal to 0.20. For variable defrost models with no values for CTLand CTM in the algorithm, the default values of6 and 96 shall beused, respectively. 

## * * * * *

74