[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 of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. 

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 of the Code of Federal 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 of newly manufactured products starting September 15,2014. 

These amendments modify the required test period for the second part of the test for 

products with cycling compressor systems and long-time automatic defrost or variable defrost 

control and adjust the default values of maximum and minimum compressor run time for 

1 
energy use of products with variable defrost control. 

DATES: The amendments described in this notice are effective [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS 

AFTER DATE 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 may be publicly 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, 

including public comments, in the docket. 

For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-

2945 or by email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

2 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Lucas Adin, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, 

EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121, 202-287-1317, e-mail: 

Lucas.Adin@ee.doe.gov or Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 

Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 

(202) 586-8145. E-mail: Michael.Kido@hg.doe.gov. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Authority 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

III. Discussion 

A. Products Covered by the Final Rule 

B. Compliance Dates for the Amended Test Procedures 

C. Test Procedure Amendments Incorporated in This Final Rule 

1. Default Values for CT Land CT M 

2. Modification of Long-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 Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 ofthe Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 

3 
M. Congressional Notification 

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Background and Authority 

Title III ofthe Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; "EPCA" or, 

"the Act") sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (All 

references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Independence and 

Security Act of2007 (EISA 2007), Pub. L. 110-140 (Dec. 19,2007». Part B oftitle III (42 

U.S.C. 6291-6309), which was subsequently redesignated as Part A for editorial reasons, 

establishes the "Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles." Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers (collectively referred to below 

as "refrigeration products") are all treated as "covered products" under this Part. (42 U.S.C. 

6291(1)-(2) and 6292(a)(1» Under the Act, this program consists essentially ofthree parts: (1) 

testing, (2) labeling, and (3) Federal energy conservation standards. The testing requirements 

consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use (1) as the basis for 

certifying to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) that their products comply with the 

applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA, and (2) for making 

representations about the efficiency ofthose products. Similarly, DOE must use these test 

requirements to determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards promulgated 

under EPCA. 

By way of background, the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 

(NAECA), Pub. L. 100-12, amended EPCA by including, among other things, performance 

4 
standards 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, 1993.54 FR 

47916. DOE subsequently published a correction to revise these new standards for three product 

classes. 55 FR 42845 (October 24, 1990). DOE again updated the performance standards for 

refrigeration products on April 28, 1997, for products manufactured on or after July 1, 2001. 62 

FR 23102. 

EISA 2007 amended EPCA by requiring DOE to publish a final rule determining whether 

to amend the energy conservation standards for refrigeration products 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 of issues related to its examination of 

potential amendments to the standards for refrigeration products. 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 of Refrigerating Appliances (2008)," developed by the Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM), including the "Errata to Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating 

Appliances, Correction Sheet" issued on November 17, 2009; (6) convertible compartments; and 

(7) harmonization with international test procedures. ("Energy Conservation Standards 

Rulemaking Framework Document for Residential Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Freezers," RIN 1904-AB79, Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012). DOE conducted analyses 

5 
and developed new energy conservation standards for refrigeration products that led to the 

eventual publication ofthe final rule adopting new energy conservation standards for 

refrigeration products 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 procedure rulemaking in part to address the issues identified in the 

framework document, and published a notice of proposed rulemaking on May 27,2010, hereafter 

referred to as "the NOPR." 75 FR 29824. In response to issue (3) above, as applied to automatic 

icemakers, DOE separately published a guidance document addressing various aspects related to 

the icemaker, including the proper manner in which to render an icemaker inoperative for the 

energy consumption test. See 75 FR 2122 (Jan. 14,2010). DOE held a public meeting to discuss 

the NOPR proposals on June 22,2010 and subsequently published the combined final/interimfinal rule on December 16,2010. 75 FR 78810. The final rule (or "December 2010 final rule") 

implemented test procedure amendments applicable to products manufactured before the 

effective date of the 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 industry requests to provide an additional opportunity to comment on final aspects 

related to the interim final rule. Id. at 78845. 

General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow 

6 
when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA provides in relevant 

part that "[a]ny test procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably 

designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use ... or estimated 

annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of 

use, as determined by the Secretary [ of Energy], and shall not be unduly burdensome to 

conduct." (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3» 

In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it must 

publish proposed test procedures and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written 

comments. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2» When considering amending a test procedure, DOE must 

determine "to what extent, if any, the proposed test procedure would alter the ... measured 

energy use ... of any covered product as determined under the existing test procedure." (42 

U.S.C. 6293(e)(1» If DOE determines that the amended test procedure would alter the measured 

energy use of a covered product, DOE must also amend the applicable energy conservation 

standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2» 

With respect to today's mlemaking, DOE has determined that none of the 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 

7 
under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b )(1)(A). DOE anticipates that its next evaluation of this test procedure 

will occur in a manner consistent with the timeline set out in this provision. 

Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers 

DOE's test procedures for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers are found at 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, appendices Al (currently in effect) and A (required for rating of products 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. Industry representatives viewed these test procedures as too complex and eventually 

developed alternative test procedures in conjunction with AHAM that were incorporated into the 

1979 version ofHRF-1, "Household Refrigerators, Combination Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Household Freezers" (HRF-1-1979). Using this industry-created test procedure, DOE revised its 

test procedures on August 10, 1982.47 FR 34517. On August 31,1989, DOE published a final 

rule establishing test procedures for variable defrost control (a control type in which the time 

interval between successive defrost cycles is determined by operating conditions indicating the 

need for defrost rather than by compressor run time), dual compressor refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers equipped with "quick-freeze" (a manually-initiated feature that bypasses the thermostat 

and runs the compressor continuously until terminated). 54 FR 36238. DOE amended the test 

procedures again on March 7, 2003, by modifying the test period used for products equipped 

with long-time automatic defrost (a control type in which defrost cycles are separated by 14 

hours or more of compressor run time) or variable defrost. 68 FR 10957. The test procedures 

include provisions for determining the annual energy use in kilowatt-hours (kWh) and the 

accompanying annual operating costs. 

8 
DOE further amended the test procedures on December 16,2010.75 FR 78810. These 

amendments helped clarify how to test products for compliance with the applicable standards. 

The amendments clarified certain elements in Appendix Al to ensure that regulated entities fully 

understand how to apply and implement the test procedure. These changes included clarifying 

how refrigeration products equipped with special compartments and/or more than one fresh food 

compartment or more than one freezer compartment should be tested. The amendments also 

accounted for the various waivers granted by DOE, specifically with regard to variable antisweat heater controls. The final rule also modified the regulatory definition of "electric 

refrigerator-freezer" to require that storage temperatures in the fresh food compartment be at a 

level that would effectively exclude coverage of combination wine storage-freezer products. 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 storage products. DOE is 

considering modifying its product definitions to address wine storage products in a separate 

future rulemaking. 

In that same notice, DOE also established a new Appendix A, via an interim final rule. 

The new Appendix A included a number of comprehensive changes to help improve the 

measurement of energy consumption of refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. These changes 

included, among other things: (1) new compartment temperatures and volume adjustment 

factors, (2) new methods for measuring compartment volumes, (3) a modification of the longtime automatic defrost test procedure to ensure that the test procedure measures all energy use 

associated with the defrost function, and (4) test procedures for products with a single 

9 
compressor and multiple evaporators with separate active defrost cycles. DOE noted that the 

compartment temperature changes introduced by Appendix 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 use by including a fixed value for manufacturers to add when calculating the energy 

consumption of those products equipped with an automatic icemaker. DOE may consider 

revising this approach once a more appropriate means of accounting for this feature's energy 

consumption is developed. 

Freezers 

DOE's test procedures for freezers are found at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices 

B1 (currently in effect) and B (required for the rating of products 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, industry representatives viewed the freezer test procedures as too complex 

and worked with AHAM to develop alternative test procedures, which were incorporated into the 

1979 version 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 energy use in kWh and annual electrical operating costs for freezers. 

10 
The December 16,2010 notice also clarified compliance testing requirements for freezers 

under Appendix B1 and created a new Appendix B, the latter of which would apply in 2014. 

That new procedure changed a number of aspects to the procedure detailed in Appendix B 1, 

including, among other things: (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 energy use by implementing the same procedure 

as for refrigerator-freezers in which a fixed energy use value is applied when calculating the 

energy consumption of freezers with automatic icemakers. 

Finalization of the Test Procedure Rulemaking for Products Manufactured Starting in 2014 

The interim final rule established comprehensive changes to the manner in which the test 

procedures are conducted by creating new 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. 

DOE had provided an initial comment period on the interim final rule that ended on 

February 14, 2011. DOE subsequently reopened the comment period on September 15,2011 (76 

FR 57612) to allow further public feedback in response to the promulgation ofthe final energy 

conservation standards that were published on the same day. 76 FR 57516. DOE reopened the 

comment period to permit interested parties to comment on the interplay between the test 

procedure and the energy conservation standards in order to permit DOE to make any final 

changes that may be needed to the final test procedure for products that will be manufactured 

11 
starting in 2014.76 FR 57612-57613 (Sept. 15,2011). The comment period ended on October 

17,2011. 

Three stakeholders submitted comments in response to both supplemental comment 

periods that DOE provided for additional feedback -- the Association of Home Appliance 

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 Final Rule 

Name Acronym Type* 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers 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 of the test procedures used in Appendix A. See 

76 FR 16760 (March 25,2011). 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

Today's notice finalizes the test procedures that manufacturers must follow when 

certifying basic models as compliant with the new energy conservation standards starting in 

2014. In finalizing these procedures, DOE made minor changes to the procedure laid out in the 

December 2010 interim final rule to account for comments from interested parties. The changes 

12 
will not result in a significant change in measured energy use when compared to the procedure 

detailed in the interim final rule. The December 2010 amendments for Appendices Al and B1 

are unchanged by today's notice and continue to apply to products manufactured through 

September 14, 2014. (Those aspects ofthe December 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 off energy test results also were not part of the interim final rule 

and were not reopened for comment. Accordingly, these aspects of the December 2010 notice 

remain unchanged. 

Today's notice makes a series of changes that include (a) modifying the default values of 

CT Land CT M, parameters, which represent the minimum and maximum compressor run 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 test period for products with cycling 

compressors and long-time or variable defrost to ensure the procedure accurately captures energy 

use associated with temperature recovery after defrost. The notice also makes changes to clarify 

how to apply the second part of the test for products with long-time or variable defrost. 

III. Discussion 

The following section discusses in further detail the various issues addressed by today's 

13 
notice. 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 Covered by the Final Rule 

Today's amendments cover those products 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 of the 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 of a future rulemaking 

activity. Section D.3 discusses the comments related to wine storage and wine storage 

combination products, 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 be mandatory for representations 

regarding energy use or operating cost of these products starting on that date. 

14 
C. 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 CT Land CT M 

Refrigeration products with variable defrost vary the frequency of defrost by reducing 

this frequency to save energy when the frost accumulation rate on the evaporator drops -- such as 

when the number of door openings is reduced or when ambient humidity is low. Defrost 

frequency is characterized by the compressor run time between defrosts, CT, which is expressed 

in the test procedure in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour. Variable defrost control 

algorithms vary CT as the defrost need changes. These algorithms may specify a minimum CT 

value (CT L) and a maximum CT value (CT M), consistent with the minimum and maximum 

defrost frequencies required for specific products to provide reliable defrost performance while 

minimizing energy use. The DOE test procedure calculates the energy use of variable defrost 

products using a weighted average ofthe algorithm's CTL and CTM . See 75 FR at 78857, 78865 

(Dec. 16,2010) (detailing requirements of section 5.2.1.3 of new Appendix A and existing 

Appendix AI, respectively). To address those products that may have control algorithms that do 

not use specific maximum and minimum values for the compressor run time between defrost 

cycles, the test procedure specifies a CT L value of 12 hours and a CT M value of 84 hours. See id. 

These values remained the same for both Appendix Al (final rule) and Appendix A (interim 

final rule). 

15 
AHAM argued that the default CT Land CT M 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 be more representative of the operation of refrigeration products with variable 

defrost control algorithms without specific CT values, nor did it provide any justification for the 

change other than to maintain consistency with HRF-I-2008. 

In light of AHAM's comments, DOE reviewed the certification data submitted by 

refrigeration product manufacturers in August 2011 and specifically examined the submissions 

of those products with variable defrost to determine the prevalence of different values for CT L 

and CT M. DOE also investigated whether the certification data showed any evidence of products 

without specified CT values, since these would be the products whose energy use measurement 

would be affected by the change suggested by AHAM. Of2,674 records in the database, 1,397 

products were identified as having variable defrost. None ofthe records for these products 

included undeclared values for CTL and CTM . Table ilL 1 below shows the default CTL and CTM 

values of the current test procedure and ofHRF-I-2008. It also shows the average, mean, and 

most prevalent values for CT Land CT M gleaned from available certification records. For each of 

these CT Land CT M combinations, the calculated CT value is also presented. The summary table 

shows that neither the 12 and 84 default values nor the AHAM-suggested values of 6 and 96 

provide an exact representation of the products in the database. However, the data below 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. 

16 
Table 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 CT M and CT L values. The average of the CT values 

calculated individually for each database record is 28.2. 

Further, the use of the default CT Land CT M values is prescribed for those products that 

do not have specific values for these parameters in the product's control algorithm. Since the 

algorithm for such a product presumably does not explicitly set a minimum value for this time 

period, it is conceivable that the compressor run time between defrosts could at times be lower 

than the 6 hours specified in the test procedure as a minimum for CT L (see section 5.2.1.3 of 

Appendix Al or A). When operating in this mode, such a product would be using more energy 

for defrost than would a product with an algorithm-defined CT L of 6 hours, due to the higher 

defrost frequency. Hence, DOE concludes that to ensure that the test procedure provides a 

conservative estimate of energy use associated with defrost (i.e. at least as high as the actual 

energy use), it is reasonable to require use of a lower default CT L value when calculating energy 

use for products that do not have algorithm-specified CTL values. For this reason, because the 

HRF -1-2008 default values are more representative of the refrigeration products in the database 

than the current default values, and in order to maintain consistency with this industry standard, 

DOE is changing the default values to 6 and 96 in this final rule. This change is being made for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers in both Appendices A and B. 

17 
2. Modification of Long-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 by modifying the second part of the test to better capture energy use associated 

with precooling and temperature recovery. 75 FR 78810,78832-78836 (Dec. 16,2010). A test 

procedure waiver petition submitted by Samsung (see 76 FR 17670 (March 25,2011)) has raised 

the question of whether DOE should consider further changes to the second part ofthe test 

procedure for these products. 

As described in DOE's December 2010 notice, precooling involves cooling the 

compartment(s) of a 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 on testing long-time and 

variable defrostproducts. Id. These products initiate defrost cycles after significantly longer 

periods of compressor run time than conventional automatic defrost products. Long-time defrost 

products initiate defrost after more than 14 hours of compressor run time, and variable defrost 

products adjust defrost frequency based on whether defrost is needed, potentially delaying the 

next defrost up to 96 hours of compressor run time. The second part of the test measures the 

energy use consumed during a defrost cycle. 

The two-part test and procedures for the second part of the test were initially established 

18 
in 1982.47 FR 34521-34522 (Aug. 10, 1982). Since that time, more sophisticated controls have 

replaced the mechanical defrost timers that were generally used. 68 FR 10958 (March 7, 2003). 

Consequently, the initial procedures for the second part of the test did not fully capture or 

consider the high level of sophistication that is now possible and made available with the use of 

modern electronic control systems. The defrost controls in use when the second part of the test 

was first established consisted of a mechanical defrost timer energized to advance when the 

compressor is energized. The initial two-part test specified that the second part starts when the 

heater energizes, which is coincident with the time the compressor turns off in a product using a 

mechanical timer control. 68 FR 10957-10958 (March 7, 2003). The first adjustment ofthe test 

procedure considering the potential for more sophisticated control was made on March 7, 2003. 

This amendment of the test procedure revised the second part ofthe test to allow it to start when 

the compressor turns off prior to activation of the defrost heater, which is typical of an approach 

enabled by more sophisticated electronic controls. Id. 

The interim final rule made additional amendments to the second part of the 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 of a 

refrigerator partially recover, but do not reach, their steady-state operating temperatures. For the 

purposes of testing, a product is considered to reach a state of partial temperature recovery when 

compartment temperatures do not reach the steady-state operating temperature by the end of the 

second part ofthe test (as previously specified in the test procedure) after the rise in 

compartment temperature associated with defrost. The amendments require, for a system with a 

19 
cycling compressor, that the average compartment temperatures for the compressor cycles 

occurring immediately before and after the test period for the second part ofthe test be within 0.5 

OF of the compartment temperature measured for the first part of the test. Under the interim final 

rule's procedure, the modified test period would start at the end of a compressor "on" cycle and 

end at the start of a compressor "on" cycle. Id. at 73885 

Additional Issue Identified During Review of Samsung Waiver 

After publication ofthe interim final rule, an additional issue associated with the two-part 

test was raised during the agency's review of a test procedure waiver petition 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 These products 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 such products and manufacturers seeking to certify these types of products as 

compliant prior 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 of a 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. 

20 
Whirlpool commented in response to Samsung's waiver petition that applying the second 

part of the test to the fresh food defrost of one ofthese products 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 

testing performed by the Canadian Standards Association that examined the energy consumption 

of a Samsung model that uses multiple defrost cycles -- Samsung model No. RFG297 AAPN. 

Whirlpool asserts that the test results are illogical because the energy use contribution of the 

fresh food compartment defrost is negative (i.e. an energy credit), and adds that the energy use 

contribution of the freezer compartment defrost is underestimated. (Id. at p. 4) Whirlpool 

recommended that the test period for the second (defrost) part ofthe test for the fresh food 

defrost should end at the end ofthe second compressor "on" cycle after defrost, and that such a 

change to the test procedure only for the fresh food defrost would increase the measured energy 

use of the product by 1.6 percent. (Id. at pp. 5-6) 

Samsung's response to Whirlpool's comment pointed out that the potential energy credit 

issue had been raised by DOE in its test procedure NOPR public meeting on June 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 had been presented by DOE for 

discussion and consideration by all interested parties -- including Whirlpool. The company 

pointed out that 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. 

21 
DOE's Previous Discussion Regarding the Appropriate End of the Test Period 

As indicated by Samsung, DOE raised this issue of Appendix AI's potential inability to 

capture all energy usage during defrost cycles when using the second (defrost) part of the test. 

(NOPR Public Meeting Presentation, No.9 at p. 53) DOE recognized this possibility during its 

evaluation of the energy use associated with the fresh food compartment defrost of a Samsung 

product similar to the products addressed in the company's test procedure waiver request. That 

evaluation indicated that the calculated energy use contribution from the fresh food defrost was 

often negative, which resulted in an energy use "credit". DOE evaluated alternative test periods 

and concluded that more reasonable results are obtained when the test period ends at the end of a 

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's presentation also indicated that it projected that the impact on measured energy 

use of the test procedure change would be an increase of approximately 3 percent, if applied to 

both defrosts ofthe Samsung product that was the focus of the discussion. (Id. at p. 53) This 3 

percent impact was determined based on moving the end ofthe test 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 energy use differential by half (i.e. 1.5 percent). ("Summary of 

Energy Use 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 of the 

22 
test to end at the second compressor start after defrost, due to the requirement that the average 

temperature for the compressor cycle immediately following the test period be within 0.5 of of 

the average temperature measured for the first part of the test. (See Appendix A, section 4.2.1.1) 

Hence, the impact on energy use measurement associated with test procedure changes to address 

the observed negative energy use measurement associated with fresh-food-only defrost cycles 

depends on details of the compared test periods. 

Stakeholders generally supported the test procedure approach as proposed in the Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) -- and as adopted in the interim final rule -- and none 

suggested that the test period of the second part of the test should be changed to address the 

anomaly presented, i.e. that measurements for a specific product showed a negative energy use 

contribution associated with the fresh food defrost. Hence, DOE concluded that the anomaly was 

associated with an insignificant number of products 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 ofthe test period for the second part of the test to coincide with the 

end of a compressor "on" cycle (rather than the start ofthat cycle). 

Comment Submitted in Response to the Reopening of the Comment Period 

After considering Whirlpool's waiver petition comments suggesting that DOE modify the 

second part ofthe test, DOE specifically requested comment on this topic when it reopened the 

interim final rule comment period. 76 FR 57613-57614 (Sept. 15,2011). DOE received one 

comment on this topic, from Whirlpool, which suggested that the end of the second part of the 

test be moved so that it coincides with the end of a compressor "on" cycle. (Whirlpool, No. 44 at 

23 
pp. 1-2) Whirlpool asserted that this change should be made for all defrosts, whether they are for 

fresh food compartments or freezer compartments. 

Whirlpool indicated that, for at least one product, the impact ofthis test procedure change 

on the measured energy use for a product having a separate defrost for the fresh food 

compartment would be an increase of approximately 3 percent. Although Whirlpool did not 

identify the manufacturer of that product, it mentioned that its concerns are an extension of those 

concerns it raised earlier in response to a waiver request made by a competitor -- i.e. Samsung. 

The 3 percent impact cited by Whirlpool matches the CSA data presented in Whirlpool's 

comments regarding the Samsung waiver petition: the waiver comments indicate that the tested 

product's energy use increases from 572.5 kWh to 592.1 kWh per year (an increase of3.4 

percent) with the modified test procedure, i.e. when ending the second part ofthe test at the end 

rather than the start of the 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 on the measured energy use is consistent with DOE's own 

conclusions regarding Samsung products with multiple 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 of how and 

why the suggested test period will result in more accurate test results. Instead, the comments 

indicate that the ''underlying principle when measuring the energy consumption of any product 

24 
which operates in cycles is to measure from the same point in one cycle to the same point in a 

successor cycle," and assert that the test procedure of Appendix A measures from a compressor 

stop to a compressor start for products with cycling compressors. However, Whirlpool did not 

provide any explanation supporting the concept of measuring from a point in one cycle to the 

same point in a successor cycle. (Whirlpool, No. 44 at pp. 1-2) Nevertheless, Whirlpool's waiver 

comments note the unintended consequences associated with the negative energy use 

contribution measured for the fresh food defrost of the Samsung product when using the interim 

final rule's version ofthe Appendix A test period as demonstrating that the test period contained 

in the interim final rule is inappropriate. (Whirlpool, Samsung Petition for Test Procedure 

Waiver, Case No. RF-OI8, Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-WAV-0017, No.4 at p. 5) 

DOE had provided data in its NOPR public meeting presentation supporting the use of 

the modified test period, ending when the compressor stops. This situation was illustrated both 

for the fresh food defrost contribution alone and for the total defrost energy use contribution, 

including both fresh food and freezer compartment defrosts. The data showed that a test period 

that both starts and ends when the compressor stops matched the energy expended by the defrost 

heater during a fresh food defrost -- and provided a closer match of energy use measured from 

one initiation ofthe combined defrost cycle (the defrost cycle involving both the fresh food and 

freezer compartments) to the next initiation ofthe combined defrost cycle than the Appendix Al 

procedure. (NOPR Public Meeting Presentation, No.9 at p. 53) More recently, DOE prepared an 

assessment demonstrating that a test period for the second part of the test both starting and 

ending at the end of a compressor "on" cycle is consistent with the full-cycle measurement 

specified for testing non-variable automatic defrost products. See ("Refrigerator Test Procedure: 

25 
Adjustments to Second Part of Test", No. 47) This document shows mathematically that a 

calculation of energy use using the "section 4.2" test period ("full test period") matches the twopart calculation only when the second part of the test ends at the end of a compressor "on" cycle. 

Part of the justification for modifying the test procedure in the manner suggested by 

Whirlpool is based on the observation that when using the test period prescribed by the interim 

final rule, the average compartment temperature would be warmer at the end ofthe test period 

than at its start for a system with a cycling compressor. The interim final rule test procedure 

includes a provision to verify that the product does not employ partial recovery. Using this 

provision requires examining the 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 by the lower horizontal line of 

the temperature plot in Figure 1 of Appendix A. 75 FR at 78855 (Dec. 16, 2010) (see 

temperature plot of Figure 1, "Long-time Automatic Defrost Diagram for Cycling 

Compressors"). 

On the other hand, the compartment temperature is at its typical steady-state cycling 

maximum (the higher horizontal line ofthe temperature plot) 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 

26 
the 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 of the compressor "on" cycle. These arguments illustrate that the test period prescribed 

by the interim final rule for the second part ofthe test is unlikely to fully account for energy use 

associated with temperature recovery. 

DOE concludes that the test period for the second part ofthe test that is specified in the 

interim final rule for products with cycling compressors and long-time or variable defrost may 

not accurately represent energy use associated with defrost, which necessitates a change to 

enhance the accuracy ofthe measurement. DOE received no other comments on this topic. 

Hence, in light ofthis new information, and its own review, DOE is adopting the approach 

suggested by Whirlpool to help ensure the procedure 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 on the second part of the 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 of the test period for the second part ofthe test, DOE 

noticed that for some products, the extension of the test period associated with the test period 

revision recommended by Whirlpool 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 prior to activation of the heater for testing in accordance with Appendix A. 

27 
desired end of the test period was more than four hours later than activation of the defrost 

heater). 

DOE notes that modem data collection is performed almost exclusively using automated 

data acquisition systems. This approach to recording data significantly reduces the test burden 

that could potentially be 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 observe product behavior during the test from minute to minute to ensure that data 

are recorded. Instead, technicians are more likely to periodically check the status of a given test 

once or twice a day to 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 complete because of the duration of the time intervals between defrosts. The compressor run 

time between 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 of 50 percent, the time involved in 

waiting for a defrost cycle can be days. With the use of automated data acquisition equipment by 

test labs necessitating only periodic 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 likely to reduce measurement 

accuracy, since the limit could cause a significant portion of the compressor "on" cycle to be 

4 Personal communication, DetlefWestphalen ofNavigant Consulting, Inc. with Teny Drew, CSA International, 

12/5/11. 

28 
dropped from the measurement.s In light of the more advanced capabilities of testing labs and the 

operation of modem refrigeration products, DOE believes that the four-hour time limit ofthe 

second part of the test is obsolete as a means to limit test burden and may in fact prevent the 

accurate measurement of energy consumption of these products. Because of the impact of the 

four-hour time limit on test measurement accuracy, and because it is no longer needed to reduce 

test burden, DOE is eliminating this provision ofthe test procedure for Appendices A and B in 

this notice. Making this change will also fully address the potential problem identified by 

Whirlpool by eliminating any incentives by some manufacturers to exploit potentlallimitations 

presented by a procedure that artificially limits the overall testing duration without fully 

capturing that product's energy consumption. 

Recovery for Both Compartments of a Refrigerator or Refrigerator-Freezer 

The interim final rule requirements for confirming that the second part of the test does 

not include events associated with precooling and temperature recovery provide a means to 

compare the temperatures of "the compartment" measured during the first part of the test with 

the average temperatures of "the compartment" for compressor cycles preceding and following 

the second part ofthe test. (See Appendix A, section 4.2.1.1) The language does not specify 

which compartment must be evaluated in this fashion. In order to assure that the test procedure 

properly accounts for energy use associated with precooling and temperature recovery ofthe 

entire product, the language of section 4 of Appendix A is modified to clarify that these 

requirements apply to both compartments (i.e. the freezer compartment and the fresh food 

5 For example, suppose the test period criteria for temperature recovery are met at the end of the third compressor 

"on" cycle after the defrost, but the four hour limit ends the test period just after the start of the third compressor 

"on" cycle. In this case, a significant portion of compressor energy use is eliminated from the measurement for the 

second part of the test. 

29 
compartment), regardless of which compartment's evaporator undergoes defrost. DOE is making 

this clarification to assure testing accuracy. 

Modification of Figure 2 of Appendices A and B 

The interim final rule includes a figure for both Appendices 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 making this change to avoid confusion and to ensure the 

accuracy of the measured test results. This amendment represents no change to the specified test 

procedure. 

Addition of Minor Edits 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 some minor adjustments to the language would be needed 

to clarify the test procedure and to ensure the overall consistency ofthe procedure. These 

adjustments include the following: 

• In the first and second lines of both sections, changing " ... the second part starts . 

. . " to " ... the second part ofthe test starts ... ". 

• In section 4.2.1..1, changing " ... first part's temperature ... " to " ... average 

temperature for the first part of the test ... " 

These changes are made in parallel sections to both Appendices A and B. 

30 
Impact of the Test Procedure Change on Measured Energy Use 

Whirlpool estimated that modifying the test procedure to address the observed negative 

energy use associated with fresh food compartment defrosts would increase the measured energy 

use of a tested competitor's product by 3 percent. (Whirlpool, No. 44 at p. 2) These results are 

consistent with the results DOE observed, as reported in the NOPR public 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 of the second part of the tests as 

represented by the interim final rule and today's final rule. ("Summary of Energy 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 ofthe test procedure change on 

energy use measurement for most affected products is near 1 percent. DOE also notes that the 

energy use impact of this change would apply only for 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 by Whirlpool, DOE reviewed the data it collected to support the test 

procedure's development and data collected as part of its compliance efforts. The analysis DOE 

conducted drew from two separate sets of test reports. The first set included tests conducted 

using the current test procedures of Appendix AI. For this set oftests, the applicable temperature 

settings did not permit one to calculate a weighted-average energy use at the Appendix A 

standardized compartment temperatures of 0 of for the freezer compartment, and 39 of for the 

31 
fresh 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 setting requirements of Appendix AI, 

section 3) did not generally bound these standardized temperatures. The second set oftests, in 

contrast, included measurements at temperature settings allowing calculation of results consistent 

with the Appendix A standardized compartment temperatures. These tests involved the use of 

temperature control settings suitable for the Appendix A standardized temperatures. 

For the first set of tests, DOE evaluated the impact ofthe test procedure change only for 

the coldest compartment temperature setting used in the test, which was typically the median 

setting. The compartment temperatures of these tests fell within 3 OF of the 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 

of these products under standardized compartment temperature conditions for two reasons -- (1) 

the small size of the temperature deviations and (2) the measured data demonstrate that the 

influence of compartment temperature on the estimated impact ofthe test procedure change was 

negligible. 

The analysis focused on four key refrigerator-freezer product 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 exception reliefto 

account for through-the-door ice service (for the purposes of this discussion, designated product 

32 
class 5A under the recently promulgated standards for 2014), and class 7 (refrigerator-freezersautomatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service). These product 

classes were chosen because they represent significant market share, have automatic defrost, and 

are the most likely products to have variable defrost, thus indicating that they would be more 

likely candidates to be tested using the two-part test. The assessment focused solely on products 

with cycling compressors and variable defrost, since the test procedure change does not affect 

energy use measurement for other products. 

DOE re-evaluated the test results for both sets of data using the modified test period for 

the second part ofthe test as described in this section, including both shifting the end ofthe test 

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 of data and does not 

include any data covering Samsung products. The average measurement impact for these 25 

products is under 1 percent. 

Table 111.2: Measured Energy Use Increase 

First Set of Tests Second Set of Tests 

Number of Average Number of Average 

Product Class Units Energy Use Units Energy Use 

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% 

33 
DOE also separately evaluated data for six Samsung products 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 of Samsung products to this test procedure change as compared with 

other products is that these products have two defrosts (one combined defrost of both the freezer 

and fresh food compartment evaporators and one defrost of only the fresh food evaporator) 

occurring in the same amount oftime that other products use one defrost. 

Shipment-Weighted Impact of the Test Procedure Change on Measured Energy Use 

DOE developed estimates of shipment-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 the percentage of models with variable defrost for the evaluated refrigeratorfreezer product classes as reported to DOE in August 2011 as part ofthe annual certification data 

submission. DOE used these percentages of basic models as a proxy for shipment-weighted 

average percentages. Because the certification data do not distinguish between cycling and noncycling compressor systems, these percentages include both types and for that reason provide a 

conservative (i.e. larger) estimate regarding the market share of affected products. (As discussed 

above, only products with variable defrost and cycling compressors will be affected by the test 

procedure change.) The table also shows the market share of Samsung products by product class 

based on sales data purchased from the NPD Group6 for the years 2007 and 2008. DOE 

calculated the shipment-weighted average impact ofthe test 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> 

34 
In this equation, Ss is the Samsung market share and Sv is the variable defrost market 

share. DOE assumed that the Samsung products all have variable defrost. Table III.3 shows the 

results ofthis calculation of weighted average energy use impact for the four product classes. 

The percentage impact varies from less than 0.5 percent to just above 1 percent. From these 

projections, DOE concludes that the level of change in the measurement does not necessitate a 

change in the energy conservation standards, as discussed in section III.E.2. 

Table 111.3: Weighted Impact 

Product Percent of Basic Percent Samsung Weighted Average Models with Variable Class Defrost Products Energy Use 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 made by 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) (1 0) addressing refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers and in section (b)(7) 

addressing freezers. 75 FR 78818-78820 (Dec. 16,2010). AHAM commented that the anti35 
circumvention 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 by AHAM appears in a section that provides general guidance for 

manufacturers to consider with respect to potential anti-circumvention issues. The specific 

language changes AHAM recommended include the following: 

1. "Energy saving features that are designed to be activated by a lack of door openings 

shall not be functional during the energy test." should read "Energy saving features 

that are designed to operate when there are no door openings for long periods of time 

shall not be functional during the energy test." 

2. "The defrost heater should not either function or tum off differently during the energy 

test than it would when operating in typical room conditions." should read "The 

defrost heater shall not either function or tum off differently during the energy test 

than it would when operating in typical room conditions. Also, the product shall not 

recover differently during the defrost recovery period than it would in typical room 

conditions. " 

3. In "Electric heaters that would nOlmally operate at typical room conditions with door 

openings should also operate during the energy test." the "should" should be replaced 

with "shall" 

As noted earlier, amendments to 10 CFR 430.23 as part of the December 16,2010 notice 

were made as part of the December 2010 final rule. These issues were not fully vetted as part of 

the re-opening notice, which focused on issues related to Appendices A and B. DOE notes, 

36 
however, that it developed this limited guidance in reliance on the 2007 version of HRF -1. 

(Compare section HRF-I-2007, section 1.2 with HRF-I-2008, section 1.2). Should DOE need to 

clarify the application of these 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 by AHAM regarding 

refrigeration products designed for sale with or without icemakers ("kitable models"). Such 

products may leave 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, 

by the retailer, or even by a customer after purchase ofthe product. 76 FR at 57538 (Sept. 15, 

2011). Icemakers can also be produced by third-party manufacturers separate from the 

refrigeration products' manufacturers. (For example, the third party brand Aquafresh is 

advertised as a replacement for all major icemaker brands. 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 if they have the icemaker installed. (AHAM, Refrigeration 

Products Energy Conservation Standard Rulemaking, Docket Number EE-2008-BT -STD-0012, 

No. 73 at p. 6) DOE responded to these claims by noting that such products could be purchased 

either with or without the icemaker, that the field energy use for products without an icemaker 

would be less by the amount of energy use associated with icemaking (which is represented by a 

fixed value of 84 kWh in the interim final rule test procedure) and that better consistency with 

the test procedure would be established if such products were required to be certified both with 

and without the icemaker. 76 FR at 57538-57539 (Sept. 15,2011). 

37 
AHAM strongly opposed the DOE approach and its comments to DOE stressed that the 

approach would create unnecessary burden and cost with no public benefit. AHAM cited the 

following reasons in support of its position: 

• As far as AHAM is aware, manufacturers typically assign kitable models a single model 

number regardless of whether the icemaker is installed when the product leaves the 

factory. Requiring certification ofthe model with and without the icemaker might require 

establishing a second model number for each such product, which would represent a great 

cost to manufacturers. 

• The approach is overly burdensome because it requires twice the test burden and twice as 

much reporting. 

• Consumers that install an icemaker after purchase of a refrigerator would not be aware of 

the additional energy use associated with icemaking. 

• If manufacturers maintain a single model number for the product with and without the 

icemaker, there might be confusion if consumers see two different energy use values 

indicated for the same model (i.e. one for the unit with the icemaker and one for the unit 

without the icemaker). 

• The manufacturer may not have any control over whether an icemaker is installed in the 

unit after it leaves the factory, making it difficult to ensure that the correct energy label is 

included with the unit. 

AHAM's approach would be to treat kitable models as ifthey have an icemaker. Such an 

38 
,approach would ensure that a purchaser of a kitable model would receive a product that would 

have energy use no more than the rated value. This approach would also mean that there would 

be only one energy use 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 may have no control of events 

occurring after a product leaves their factory, and, hence, may not know which label to ship with 

a product, ifthe label were required to accurately reflect whether the product 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 indicate product 

performance with and without the icemaker, because it would include a measurement ofthe 

product without an icemaker. Calculating the energy use for an icemaker-equipped product 

would be a matter of adding a fixed value to calculate this value, as specified by the Appendix A 

test procedure (see section 6.2.2.2). Additionally, AHAM did not quantify the burden involved. 

Without such quantification, or a meaningful explanation as to why a second set of tests would 

be needed, DOE has little information with which to judge the merits of AHAM's 

recommendations or its claims. DOE also notes that product labeling is the jurisdiction ofthe 

FTC and that any contents of those labels lie primarily within the province ofthat agency's 

rulemaking authority. 

Further, DOE notes that any approach eventually adopted for kitable models must ensure 

39 
that both versions of the 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 new test procedures as represented by the September 2011 standards final 

rule and this test procedure final rule notice, since both the test procedure and the standards 

apply a fixed value of 84 kWh (to represent icemaker energy consumption) to the measured 

energy use of a product when configured without an icemaker -- this new value represents the 

energy use of an icemaker-equipped version ofthat product. 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 of an approach to address kitable models 

would, in all likelihood, be more appropriately addressed as part of a future rulemaking to decide 

whether to incorporate such a laboratory-based icemaking energy use measurement. DOE adds 

that the full rulemaking process 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 Combination Wine Storage Products 

This section addresses issues associated with wine storage products and combination 

wine storage products. The latter are refrigeration products combining wine storage with fresh 

food and/or freezer compartments. 

Definitions for Refrigerator and Refrigerator-Freezer 

40 
DOE amended the definitions for refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer as part ofthe final 

rule published 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 of compartments) are not refrigerator-freezers. Second, 

the definitions clarified the requirements for fresh food compartments of refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers. Regarding this second item, the revised definitions clarified that a product 

is not necessarily disqualified from status as a refrigerator or refrigerator-freezer ifits fresh food 

compartments can maintain average temperatures above 39 of for some temperature control 

settings. Id. 

The amendments did not include language specifying that products incorporating wine 

storage compartments -- for the purpose of this discussion, compartments that are not designed to 

be capable of maintaining storage temperatures below 39 OF -- in products that would otherwise 

be refrigerators or refrigerator-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 the proper storage temperature for bottled wine. DOE 

subsequently posted on its website a guidance document explaining its interpretation ofthe 

amended definitions. ("Guidance on Scope of Coverage for Hybrid (Wine Storage) Refrigeration 

Products Issued Feb. 10,2011", No. 49). The Guidance clarified DOE's interpretation of the 

definitions and explained that adding a wine storage compartment to a refrigerator or a 

refrigerator-freezer does not change its status as a refrigerator or refrigerator-freezer under the 

regulations. 

41 
AHAM objected to this interpretation ofthe test procedure final rule definitions. 

(AHAM, No. 43 at ppA-5) It argued that DOE's interpretation is inequitable because it treats 

freezers differently than refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. AHAM also argued that the 

Guidance was, in its view, inconsistent with the separate rulemaking approach that DOE had 

'indicated it was considering applying to wine chillers. AHAM argued further that establishing 

coverage through interpretation, which it believed was performed by the Guidance, was 

inappropriate, and stated that such steps should be taken only through the established rulemaking 

process. 

At the outset, DOE notes that these definitions were established as part ofthe December 

2010 final rule. Because of the limited nature of the re-opening of the comment period, which 

focused on those issues related to the conduct ofthe test procedures detailed in Appendices A 

and B, these particular issues were not completely vetted through the rulemaking process. Hence, 

DOE may revisit and reconsider these issues as part of a future rulemaking activity. 

DOE further notes that AHAM does not contest the validity ofthe text ofthe definitions 

themselves but only how DOE may choose to apply these definitions to a small group of 

products that have yet to comprise any significant share of the overall refrigeration product 

market. DOE's research was able to identify only seven distinct products that are clearly part of 

this product group. ("Wine Storage Combination Products", No. 50) 

With respect to the definitions, the coverage of refrigeration products has been clarified 

42 
through guidance to help explain that products that meet a specific set ofperformance criteria 

would be treated as covered products. Any product meeting these criteria are subject to the 

regulations covering these products. These criteria were established through a lengthy notice and 

comment process associated with this test procedure rulemaking that began in May 2010 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 these products. 

DOE also notes that there are some key technical 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. In particular, the standardized temperature for a freezer is 0 of, while the 

standardized temperature for the fresh food compartment of a 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 can be expected to approach a 45 of 

temperature during testing, but approaching 0 of would be extremely unlikely given the nature of 

the product -- specifically, the technical requirements for designing a compartment of a 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 of fresh food -- or the even higher 

standardized temperature (45 OF) required by the current test procedure during the testing of 

these products. These differences not only require different design considerations, but they also 

result in very different energy consumption characteristics. 

43 
Moreover, the definitions for these three products (refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and 

freezer), which DOE adopted with full input from the public, including manufacturers, contain 

clear differences with respect to the inclusion of separate compartments. Both the refrigerator 

and refrigerator-freezer definitions explicitly contemplate the inclusion of compartments with 

more than one temperature range, while the freezer definition does not. See 10 CFR 430.2. As a 

result, a freezer-wine chiller combination product does not fall squarely into any ofthese 

definitions. In contrast, a wine chiller combined with either a refrigerator or refrigerator-freezer 

would fall within the definitions for those two products. Treating these three products in the 

exact same manner as suggested by AHAM -- 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 chiller product should not be treated in the same manner as a 

refrigerator-wine chiller or refrigerator-freezer-wine chiller products. 

DOE recognizes, however, that some combination wine storage products may have 

characteristics that would make attempts at testing them with the wine storage compartment 

approaching 45 of provide non-representative results. For such products, manufacturers may still 

market such items by first petitioning DOE for an appropriate test procedure waiver. DOE 

highlighted this option when it issued its February 2011 Guidance. Also, in the case ofthose 

products that may be unable to comply with the applicable standards, manufacturers have the 

option of applying for exception relief with the Office of Hearings and Appeals. See 42 U.S.C. 

7194 and 10 CFR 1003. 

Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Wine Chillers 

44 
In 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 by the energy conservation 

standards for refrigeration products. 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 of wine 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, AHAM reiterated its support for a rulemaking 

to regulate wine storage products, and indicated that such a rulemaking should include products 

in which wine storage compartments are combined with fresh food and/or freezer compartments. 

(A HAM, 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 conducting rulemakings addressing 

coverage, test procedures, and energy conservation standards for wine chiller and related 

products. DOE has already taken an initial step in this process by publishing a coverage 

determination proposal to establish coverage for refrigeration products that do not have 

compressors and condensers integrated with their cabinets -- many of which include wine 

chillers. 76 FR 69147 (Nov. 8,2011) Such products cannot be immediately covered under the 

authority granted to DOE by EPCA to regulate conventional refrigeration products, which 

necessitates a separate coverage determination to address these non-condenser/compressor 

45 
products. (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 simplify this test procedure and suggested an alternative test 

procedure addressing such products. (AHAM, No. 16 at p. 7). DOE explained that it could not 

adopt the AHAM proposal in the interim final rule because the AHAM procedure represents a 

significant departure from the proposal that was presented in the NOPR, and that stakeholders 

were not provided an adequate opportunity to comment on the procedure 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 test procedure. See id. 

AHAM raised this issue in all three of its 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 of multiple 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 of its 

continually evolving position, AHAM urged DOE to modify the dual compressor test procedure 

because, in its view, the DOE test procedure contains specific problems that relate to its 

46 
requirement that a manufacturer separately measure the energy use of the two separate systems.7 

The group made two assertions in support of its view. First, AHAM argued that this requirement 

posed a significant test burden. Second, AHAM asserted that many dual compressor products do 

not work in the manner that the test procedure assumes they do -- i.e. as separate independent 

systems. Instead, AHAM argued that many of these 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 it provided a practical, accurate, and repeatable test procedure 

that should be incorporated into the final rule. 8 (Sub Zero, No. 42 at pp. 1-2) 

AHAM added that Appendix Al should be modified 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 16,2010 notice were made as part ofthe final rule. 

Because of the limited nature of the 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's requirement that each compressor system 

of a dual compressor system be separately measured was first established in 1989. See 54 FR 

7 DOE notes that the requirement for separate measurement of the two systems for dual compressor products is not 

new. It was initially established in the test procedure on August 31, 1989. 54 FR 36238. 

8 Sub Zero's comments mention that they have submitted a petition for a test procedure waiver to obtain relief for 

their dual-compressor products from use of the current test procedure (see 76 FR 71335 (Nov. 17,2011», which 

they claim are difficult or impossible to conduct. (Sub Zero, No. 44 at pp. 1-2) The waiver process is the appropriate 

step in addressing such products that cannot properly be tested using the DOE test procedures. 

47 
36238,36241 (Aug. 31, 1989). Manufacturers are, by now, very familiar with this procedure and 

how to most efficiently and accurately perform it. The issues that AHAM initially raised in its 

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 of AHAM's recommended approach highlights the unsettled nature 

ofthat approach and underscores the complexity ofthis issue. In DOE's view, these facts tend to 

indicate that the adoption of anyone of AHAM' s three suggested alternatives would likely be 

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 those products. 

DOE is unaware of any freezer products that employ a dual compressor system. 

5. Triangulation 

During the test procedure NOPR public meeting, stakeholders introduced the concept of 

triangulation in the context of setting a refrigeration product's temperature controls for testing. 

The triangulation approach involves conducting tests at three temperature control setting 

combinations as opposed to the two settings generally required in the current test procedures. By 

properly setting the controls for the three tests and calculating the appropriate weighted average 

of the energy use measurements of those tests, triangulation allows one to calculate the proj ected 

level of energy use ifboth the fresh food and freezer compartment temperatures matched their 

48 
standardized temperatures (i.e. 0 of in the freezer compartment and 39 of in the fresh food 

compartment for a refrigerator-freezer tested according to Appendix A). In comparison, the 

current DOE test procedure provides a more conservative measurement (i.e. potentially higher 

value) of energy use at the standardized temperatures that reduces the overall testing burdens by 

limiting the number of required 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 test procedure 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 be introduced as an optional approach for setting temperature controls 

for testing. AHAM also indicated that DOE could have put this topic up for stakeholder 

comment in the interim final rule, and added that if the DOE adopts triangulation for certification 

purposes, it should also be required for enforcement purposes. (AHAM, No. 39 at pp. 3-4) 

DOE believes the triangulation approach departs enough from current procedures for 

setting temperature controls that it would have been inappropriate for DOE to incorporate it 

9 A more conservative (i.e. larger) estimate of energy 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 of energy 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 of their 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). 

49 
based solely on the strength ofthe NOPR comments, which were sparse and contained little to 

no supporting data. Those technical differences, coupled with the lack of any opportunity for all 

interested parties to fully evaluate this issue, weigh in favor of not 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 or the interim final rule. 

Additionally, introducing triangulation could have unforeseen implications, as alluded to 

in AHAM's comments, which suggested that, if adopted, 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 of the current DOE test procedure. Those differences 

could be significant enough to affect whether a given product 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 of Appendix A at this time. DOE, may, however, consider the 

incorporation of this method when it considers potential changes to the test procedure as 

periodically required under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b). 

E. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements 

In addition to the issues discussed above, DOE examined its other obligations under 

EPCA in developing the amendments in today's notice. These requirements are addressed in 

greater detail below. 

50 
1. Test Burden 

EPCA requires that the test procedures DOE prescribes or amends be reasonably 

designed to produce test results which measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of 

use. These procedures must also not be unduly burdensome to conduct. See 42 U.S.C. 

6293 (b )(3). DOE has concluded that the amendments being adopted today satisfy this 

requirement. In large part, today's rule simply finalizes the interim final rule of December 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 today have the potential to slightly extend the testing 

time for some products that use long-time or variable defrost, this extended duration is likely to 

represent an insignificant impact on the overall test burden. In particular, while the duration of 

the second part of the test will extend for those products that use cycling compressors - the test 

period will be extended typically for the duration of a compressor "on" cycle, but may be longer 

in the limited number of cases where the four-hour time limit between defrost heater activation 

and the end of the test period under the current test procedure applies. The amended procedure 

will, in the vast majority of cases, not extend the testing duration for products. DOE estimates 

that any products that would be affected by these changes would have an extended testing 

duration of between 1 and 2 hours. Given that most, ifnot all, modem testing is conducted using 

automated data acquisition equipment and that these tests typically last a full week for a typical 

product, the addition of this amount of time is unlikely to result in any significant added burden. 

51 
As described in section C.2, in tests conducted using automated data acquisition, a test 

technician does not actively monitor the test minute to minute. Instead, the test status is checked 

periodically during the test, perhaps once or twice per day. At the time of such 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, if any, cases would extension ofthe defrost part ofthe test by 1 or 2 hours significantly 

lengthen the overall test time. The extension of the test period of the second part of the test 

would cause delay only if, during such status check, the latest defrost cycle has started but not 

ended. Also, for such a case, a two-hour extension ofthe test, if it did occur, would represent 

about a 1 percent 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 

outweighed by the improved accuracy ofthe test represented by the test procedure amendment. 

The test procedure changes modifying the default values for CT Land CT M and revising 

the reference to the test data records requirements impose no changes in test burden. 

2. Changes in Measured Energy Use 

In this final rule, DOE is amending the test period for the second part ofthe test. This 

test is conducted as part ofthe two-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 1 percent for affected standard-size refrigerator-freezers. The other 

52 
test procedure amendments made in this final rule will not affect energy use measurement. 

When DOE modifies test procedures, it must determine to what extent, if any, the new 

test procedure would alter the measured energy use of covered products. (42 U.S.c. 6293( e)(1» 

In this case, DOE has determined that the projected impact on the measured energy use of 

covered products that are affected would be altered by approximately 1 percent. DOE considers 

this an insignificant impact on measured energy use. Accordingly, DOE has determined that an 

adjustment to the applicable standard is not required. 

IV. Procedural Requirements 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget has determined that test procedure rulemakings 

do not constitute "significant regulatory actions" under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not 

subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office oflnformation and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires preparation of an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, 

53 
unless the agency certifies that the proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 

13272, "Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking," 67 FR 53461 (August 

16,2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19,2003, to ensure that the 

potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the rulemaking 

process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office ofthe 

General Counsel's website (http://www.gc.doe.gov). 

DOE reviewed the test procedures in today's final rule under the provisions of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. This 

final rule prescribes test procedures that will be used to test compliance with energy conservation 

standards for the products that are the subject ofthis rulemaking. 

The Small Business Administration (SBA) considers an entity to be a small business if, 

together with its affiliates, it employs less than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 

CFR part 121, which relies on size standards and codes established by the North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS). The threshold number for NAICS code 335222, which 

applies to Household Refrigerator and Home Freezer Manufacturing, is 1,000 employees. 

DOE searched the SBA website (http://dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/dsp dsbs.cfm) to 

identify manufacturers within this NAICS code that produce refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

and/or freezers. Most ofthe manufacturers supplying these products are large multinational 

corporations with more than 1,000 employees. There are several small businesses involved in the 

54 
sale of refrigeration products that are listed on the SBA website under the NAICS code for this 

industry. However, DOE believes that only V-Line Corporation of Milwaukee, Wisconsin is a 

small business that manufactures these products. V-Line primarily manufactures compact 

refrigerators and related compact products such as wine chillers and stand-alone icemakers 

these icemakers differ from the automatic icemakers installed in many refrigeration products 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 of the 

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 the provisions of the 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 the provisions of the Act. These amendments do 

not require use of test 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 significantly more difficult or 

time-consuming to conduct than current DOE energy test procedures. 

For these reasons, DOE concludes and certifies that the rule would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. DOE has transmitted the certification and 

55 
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA for review 

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

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Manufacturers of refrigeration products must certify to DOE that their products comply 

with any applicable energy conservation standard. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must 

test their products according to the DOE test procedure for refrigeration products, including any 

amendments adopted for that test procedure. The collection-of-information requirement for the 

certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval. DOE received 

OMB approval to collect this information and has established regulations for the certification and 

recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, 

including the refrigeration products addressed by today's final rule. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 

2011). The public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 20 hours per 

response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of 

information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision ofthe law, no person is required to respond to, nor 

shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information 

subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently 

valid OMB Control Number. 

56 
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

In this notice, DOE amends its test procedure for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers. These amendments will improve the ability of DOE's procedures to more accurately 

account for the energy consumption of products that incorporate a variety of new technologies 

that were not contemplated when the current procedure was promulgated. The amendments also 

will be used to develop and implement future energy conservation standards for refrigeration 

products. DOE has determined that this final rule falls into a class of actions that are 

categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this 

rule amends an existing rule without changing its environmental effect, and, therefore, is covered 

by the Categorical Exclusion in 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix A6. See 76 FR 63764, 

63788 (Oct. 13,2011). The exclusion applies because this rule establishes a strictly procedural 

requirement by revising existing test procedures. These revisions will not affect the amount, 

q:uality, or distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, will not result in any environmental 

impacts. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact 

statement is required. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, "Federalism," imposes certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have 

Federalism implications. 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999). The Executive Order requires agencies 

57 
to 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 of regulatory policies that have 

Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing 

the intergovernmental consultation process that it will follow in developing such regulations. 65 

FR 13735. DOE examined this final rule and determined that it will not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the 

products that are the subject oftoday's final rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from 

such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No 

further action is required by Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, 

section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, "Civil Justice Reform," 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) 

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide 

a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote 

simplification and burden reduction. Section 3 (b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires 

that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation specifies the 

58 
, following: (1) the preemptive effect, if any; (2) any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; 

(3) a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) the retroactive effect, if any; (5) definitions of key terms; and (6) other important 

issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review 

regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3( a) and 3(b) to determine whether they 

are met or whether it is unreasonable to meet one or more ofthem. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the 

relevant standards of Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II ofthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4; 2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory 

actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. For a regulatory actIon 

resulting in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of$100 million or more in anyone year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 ofUMRA requires a Federal agency to publish estimates ofthe resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a)-(b» UMRA also 

requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed "significant intergovernmental 

mandate," and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially-affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might 

59 
significantly or uniquely affect such governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a 

statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 

12820. (The policy is also available at www.gc.doe.gov). Today's final rule contains neither an 

intergovernmental mandate nor a mandate that may result in an expenditure of $1 00 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 Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that 

may affect family well-being. Today's final rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or 

integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary 

to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, "Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights," 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), 

that this regulation would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 

U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the 

60 
public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines 

were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed today's rule under OMB and 

DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those 

guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use," 66 FR 28355 (May 22,2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OIRA a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A 

"significant energy action" is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected 

to lead to promulgation of a final rule and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the agency must give a 

detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use ifthe regulation is 

implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy 

supply, distribution, and use. Today's regulatory action is not a' significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866. It has likewise not been designated as a significant energy action 

by the Administrator of OIRA. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, 

accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. 

61 
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 

Under section 301 of the DOE Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), 

DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as 

amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977 (FEAA). (15 U.S.C. 

788) Section 32 essentially provides in part that, where a rule authorizes or requires use of 

commercial standards, the rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of such 

standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the 

Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or 

industry standards on competition. 

Today's action does not incorporate testing methods contained in any new commercial 

standards not already referenced by the current regulations on which the Attorney General and 

FTC have not already been previously consulted earlier during this rulemaking process. 

M. Congressional Notification 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation oftoday's 

rule before its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a 

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

62 
v. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of these final rules. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR part 430 

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy 

conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental 

relations, Small businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on 

Kathleen B. Hogan 

Deputy Assistant Secretary 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

63 
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE 

amends part 430 of chapter II oftitle 10, ofthe Code of 

Federal Regulations, as set forth below: 

PART 430 -- ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 

1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. 

2. Appendix A to subpart B of part 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, by revising sections 5.2.1.3 and 5.2.1.5. 

The revisions read as follows: 

ApPENDIX A TO SUBPART B OF PART 430--UNIFORM TEST METHOD 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 

64 
part ofthe test starts at the tennination ofthe last 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 of the last regular compressor "on" cycle must 

both be within 0.5 OF (0.3 DC) oftheir average temperatures measured for the first part ofthe test. 

If any compressor cycles occur prior to 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 by more 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 temperature(s) of one 

or both compartments prior to energizing the defrost heater, must be included in the second part 

of the test. The test period for the second part of the test ends at the tennination of the first 

regular compressor "on" cycle after both compartment temperatures have fully recovered to their 

stable conditions. The average temperatures of the compartments measured from this tennination 

of the first regular compressor "on" cycle until the tennination of the 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 

65 
CycleA* 

START SECOND 

PARTOFTEST 

CycleB* 

T2------------------~ 

END SECOND 

PARTOFTEST 

* Average compartment tempera ture(s) during cycles A & B must be 

within 0.5 'F of the average temperature(s) for the first part ofthe test. 

4.2.1.2 Non-cycling Compressor System. For a system with a non-cycling compressor, 

the second part of the test starts at a time before defrost during stable operation when the 

temperatures of both fresh food and freezer compartments are within 0.5 of (0.3 DC) oftheir 

average temperatures measured for the first part ofthe test. The second part stops at a time after 

defrost during stable operation when the temperatures of both compartments are within 0.5 of 

(0.3 °C) oftheir average temperatures measured for the first part ofthe test. 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)attimes A& B must be within 

0.5 of of the average temperature(s) for the first part ofthe test. 

* * * * 

4.2.4 Systems with Multiple Defrost Frequencies. This'section applies to models with 

long-time automatic or variable defrost control with multiple defrost cycle types, such as models 

with single compressors and multiple evaporators in which the evaporators have different defrost 

frequencies. The two-part method in 4.2.1 shall be used. The second part of the method will be 

conducted separately for each distinct defrost cycle type. 

67 
* * * * * 

5. Test Measurements 

* * * * * 

5.2.1.3 Variable Defrost Control. The energy consumption in kilowatt-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; 

CT L = least or shortest compressor run time between defrosts in hours rounded to the nearest 

tenth of an hour (greater than or equal to 6 but less than or equal to 12 hours); 

CT M = maximum compressor run time between defrosts in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of 

an hour (greater than CTL but not more than 96 hours); 

F = ratio of per day energy consumption in excess of the least energy and the maximum \, 

difference in per-day energy consumption and is equal to 0.20 

For variable defrost models with no values for CT Land CT M in the algorithm, the default values 

of 6 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 or refrigerator-freezer; 

EP2i = energy expended in kilowatt-hours during the second part of the test for defrost cycle type 

i' ,

T2i = length of time in minutes of the second part of the test for defrost cycle type i; 

CTi is the compressor run time between instances of defrost cycle type i, for long-time automatic 

defrost control equal to a fixed time in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour, and 

for variable defrost control equal to 

CT Li = least or shortest compressor run time between instances of defrost cycle type i in hours 

rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour (CT L for the defrost cycle type with the longest 

compressor run time between defrosts must be greater than or equal to 6 but less than or 

equal to 12 hours); 

CT Mi = maximum compressor run time between instances of defrost cycle type i in hours 

rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour (greater than CT Li but not more than 96 hours); 

69 
For cases in which there are more than one fixed CT value (for long-time defrost models) or 

more than one CTM and/or CTL value (for variable defrost models) for a given defrost 

cycle type, an average fixed CT value or average CT M and CT L values shall be selected 

for this cycle type so that 12 divided by this value or values is the frequency of 

occurrence of the defrost cycle type in a 24 hour period, assuming 50% compressor run 

time. 

F = default defrost energy consumption factor, equal to 0.20. 

For variable defrost models with no values for CT Li and CTMi in the algorithm, the default 

values of 6 and 96 shall be used, respectively. 

D is the total number of distinct defrost cycle types. 

3. Appendix B to subpart B of part 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. Test Measurements, by revising section 5.2.1.3. 

The revisions read as follows: 

ApPENDIX B TO SUBPART B OF PART 430--UNIFORM TEST METHOD FOR MEASURING THE ENERGY 

CONSUMPTION OF FREEZERS 

* * * * * 

4. Test Period. 

* * * * * 

70 
4.2.1.1 Cycling Compressor System. For a system with a cycling compressor, the second 

part ofthe test starts at the termination of the last regular compressor "on" cycle. The average 

temperature ofthe compartment measured from the termination ofthe previous compressor "on" 

cycle to the termination ofthe last regular compressor "on" cycle must be within 0.5 of (0.3 °C) 

of the average temperature of the compartment measured for the first part of the test. Ifany 

compressor cycles occur prior to the defrost heater being energized that cause the average 

temperature in the compartment to deviate from the average temperature for the first part of the 

test by more than 0.5 of (0.3 DC), these compressor cycles are not considered regular compressor 

cycles and must be included in the second part of the test. As an example, a "precooling" cycle, 

which is an extended compressor cycle that lowers the compartment temperature prior to 

energizing the defrost heater, must be included in the second part of the test. The test period for 

the second part of the test ends at the termination ofthe first regular compressor "on" cycle after 

the compartment temperatures have fully recovered to their stable conditions. The average 

temperature of the compartment measured from this termination of the first regular compressor 

"on" cycle until the termination ofthe next regular compressor "on" cycle must be within 0.5 of 

(0.3 DC) ofthe average temperature ofthe compartment measured for the first part of the test. See 

Figure 1. 

71 
Figure 1 

Long-time Automatic Defrost Diagram for Cycling Compressors 

CycleA* 

START SECOND 

PARTOFTEST 

CycleB* 

T2 ----------~ 

END SECOND 

PARTOFTEST 

* Average compartment temperature during cycles A& B must be within 

0.5 'F of the average temperature for the first part of the test. 

4.2.1.2 Non-cycling Compressor System. For a system with a non-cycling compressor, 

the second part of the test starts at a time before 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 of the 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 of the test. See Figure 2. 

72 
* 

* 

Figure 2 

P:: 

~ 0 

~ 

Long-time Automatic 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 

* Average compartment temperature attimes A & B must be within 

0.5 of of the average temperature for the first part ofthe test. 

* * * * 

5. Test Measurements. 

* * * * 

P:: OZ 

000 

~~~ §~~ ~o~ u O 

5.2.1.3 Variable Defrost Control. The energy consumption in kilowatt-hours per day shall 

73 
be 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 = (CTL x CTM)/(F x (CTM- CTd + CTd 

where: 

CT L = least or shortest compressor run time between defrosts in hours rounded to the nearest 

tenth of an hour (greater than or equal to 6 hours but less than or equal to 12 hours); 

CT M = maximum compressor run time between defrosts in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of 

an hour (greater than CT L but not more than 96 hours); 

F = ratio of per day energy consumption in excess ofthe least energy and the maximum 

difference in per-day energy consumption and is equal to 0.20. 

For variable defrost models with no values for CT Land CT M in the algorithm, the default values 

of 6 and 96 shall be used, respectively. 

* * * * * 

74