1 | Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

[INSERT PICTURE(S) OF PRODUCT(S)]

[INSERT PICTURE(S) OF PRODUCT(S)]

Test Procedures for MiscellaneousConsumer Refrigeration Products

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

January 8, 2015

Joseph Hage

Department of Building Techno

EERE‐2013‐BT‐T

MiscResRefrigP9@ee.doe.gov
2

Welcome• Introductions (around the room)

• Role of the Facilitator• Ground Rules

– Speak one at a time.

– Say your name for the record – there will be a complete tra

this meeting.

– Be concise – share the ‘air‐time’.

– Keep the focus here – cell phones on silent; limit sidebar

conversations.

– Webinar participants turn phone on mute; “raise your hand

recognized to speak.

• Housekeeping Items• Agenda Review• Opening Remarks
3

Agenda1) 10:00 AM Introduction2) 10:15 AM Stakeholder Opening Statements

3) 10:30 AM Regulatory History4) 10:45 AM Products Covered by the Proposal5) 11:30 AM Test Procedure Amendments6) 12:30 PM Break7) 4:00 PM Compliance with Other EPCA Requireme8) 4:30PM Closing Remarks
4

Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Introductions2 Stakeholder Opening Statements3 Regulatory History and Scope4 Products Covered by the Proposal5 Proposed Test Procedure Amendments6 Compliance with Other EPCA Requirements

7 Closing Remarks
5

Listening Via the Webcast• The Department is broadcasting this meeting live ov

Internet.

• DOE is providing the webcast to accommodate stake

that are unable to attend the public meeting in perso

• The web broadcast allows stakeholders to listen in an

the slides.

• All stakeholders are encouraged to submit written co

after the public meeting.
6

Purpose of the Public Meeting• Present DOE’s proposed test procedures for miscella

refrigeration products: cooled cabinets, non‐comprerefrigerators, hybrid refrigeration products, and ice m

• Invite comment on the notice of proposed rulemakin

(NOPR) document.

• Discuss next steps in the rulemaking.

• Invite participants to provide summary comments or

statements and raise additional issues for discussion.
7

Steps in the Test Procedures Rulemaking• NOPR published in the Federal Register on Decembe

2014 (79 FR 74893)

• NOPR Public Meeting today, January 8, 2015

• Comments on NOPR from interested parties

• Transcript records oral comments from today’s public m

• Written comments (comment period closes March 2, 20

• DOE reviews and considers all comments• Final Rule Publication

• Final Rule is expected to be issued in Fall 2015

Final

Rule NOPR
8

Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Introductions2 Stakeholder Opening Statements3 Regulatory History and Scope4 Products Covered by the Proposal5 Proposed Test Procedure Amendments6 Compliance with Other EPCA Requirements

7 Closing Remarks
9

Opening Remarks

Meeting participants are invited to provide opening rem

statements at this time.
10

Issues for Discussion

Issue Box: DOE welcomes comments, data, and information concerning its proposed test procedufor miscellaneous refrigeration products. Whetheinvited by an issue box or not, comments are welcome on any part of DOE’s analysis.

Issue boxes correspond to the list of issues published a

of the NOPR document, available at:

www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE‐201

0029‐0011.The deadline for submitting comments is March 2, 201PM ET.
11

Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Introductions2 Stakeholder Opening Statements3 Regulatory History and Scope4 Products Covered by the Proposal5 Proposed Test Procedure Amendments6 Compliance with Other EPCA Requirements

7 Closing Remarks
12

Regulatory History• The products addressed by this rulemaking are not currently co

regulations.

• The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) establis

for refrigerators, refrigerator‐freezers, and freezers that (a) can 

by alternating‐current (AC) electricity, (b) are not designed to b

without doors, and (c) include a compressor and condenser as 

part of the cabinet assembly. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1))

• On Nov. 19, 2001, DOE modified its definition for “electric refri

clarify that refrigerator coverage excludes products that do not 

compartment temperatures suitable for food storage. 66 FR 57

not assert that products with higher compartment temperatur

excluded from EPCA coverage.

Coverage
13

Regulatory History

• On Feb. 10, 2011, DOE issued guidance regarding treatment of r

products that combine fresh food and/or freezer compartments 

temperature compartments not suitable for food storage.1

– Stated that any size of wine storage added to what would otherwise be an 

refrigerator or refrigerator‐freezer does not remove that product from cove

– However, if a wine storage compartment is greater than 50% of an otherwi

product is not covered under the freezer definition

• DOE published a coverage proposal for non‐compressor refriger

products on Nov. 8, 2011. 76 FR 69147.

• DOE published a coverage proposal for a broader range of misce

refrigeration products on Oct. 31, 2013. 78 FR 65223.

– The products addressed included wine chillers using various refrigeration te

refrigerators using thermoelectric and absorption refrigeration technologie

refrigeration products, and ice makers.

– These products would be evaluated under 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20) and (b) rat

expanding the regulatory definition of refrigerator to include some of these 

1This and other DOE guidance documents are available for viewing at 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/guidance/default.aspx?pid=2&spid=1

Coverage
14

Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Introductions2 Stakeholder Opening Statements3 Regulatory History and Scope4 Products Covered by the Proposal5 Proposed Test Procedure Amendments6 Compliance with Other EPCA Requirements

7 Closing Remarks
15

Products Covered

The NOPR proposes definitions and test procedures fo

products addressed by the 2013 coverage proposal (co

referred to as “miscellaneous refrigeration products”)

• Cooled Cabinets (such as wine chillers) that do not maintain

compartment temperatures suitable for food storage.

• Products that do not use vapor‐compression refrigeration tec

• Hybrid products, which combine warm compartments (comp

least half of the total refrigerated volume) with fresh food an

freezer compartments.

• Ice makers.

The NOPR also proposes amending the definitions for

refrigerators, refrigerator‐freezers, and freezers to clacoverage and distinguish clearly between different protypes.
16

Products Covered

DOE proposes the term “Cooled Cabinet” for products wine chillers which have only one or more cellar comp

• Would include products that use refrigeration systems other t

compression.

• Limited to products with refrigeration systems requiring elect

input only, but not limited to alternating current energy input

“Cooled cabinet” means a cabinet that has a source of refrigerat

requiring electric energy input only and is capable of maintaining

compartment temperatures either a) no lower than 39 °F (3.9 °C) 

range that extends no lower than 37 °F (2.8 °C) but at least as hig

(15.6 °C).• DOE also proposes to clarify that “capable of maintaining com

temperatures” in this and other similar definitions would be d

during operation at a room ambient condition of 72 °F.
17

Products Covered

DOE proposes “non‐compressor” to denote products u

refrigeration technology other than vapor compressio

• Commercialized “non‐compressor” products use thermoelect

absorption refrigeration technology.

• Proposed definitions include “non‐compressor refrigerator,” “

compressor all‐refrigerator,” and “non‐compressor cooled cab

• The definitions for these products would also specify that the 

do not include a compressor and condenser unit.
18

Products Covered

Issue 1: DOE requests comment on the use of the term “cooled cabinet” to denote products such as wine chillers that maintain refrigerated storage temperatures that are warmer than 39  ̊F and on th

proposed definition for these products.

Issue 2: DOE requests comment on the use of the terms “non-compressor cooled cabinet” and “noncompressor refrigerator” to denote products that ualternative refrigeration systems. DOE also requescomment on the definitions proposed for these products, and also on DOE’s initial market researcindicating that non-compressor refrigerator-freezeand non-compressor freezers are not available for sale.
19

Products Covered

DOE proposes definitions for “hybrid refrigerators,” “h

refrigerator‐freezers” and “hybrid freezers.”

• Hybrid refrigeration products would be required to have one 

cellar compartments that comprise half or more, but not all, 

refrigerated volume of the product.

– A cellar compartment would be capable of maintaining compartment te

in the same range as proposed for cooled cabinets.

Issue 3: DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for hybrid products, including on the proposed requirement that hybrid status would require that at least 50 percent of the product’s refrigerated volume comprise one or more warm compartments such as wine chiller compartments
20

Products Covered

DOE proposes the following definition for “ice maker.”

“Ice maker” means a consumer product other than a refrigerator

refrigerator‐freezer, freezer, hybrid refrigeration product, non‐com

refrigerator, or cooled cabinet that is designed to automatically p

and harvest ice, but excluding any type that is certified under ANS

2012 Automatic Ice Making Equipment. Such a product may also 

means for storing ice, dispensing ice, or storing and dispensing ic

Issue 4: DOE requests comment on its proposed definition for ice makers. DOE also requests comment on whether it is necessary to further distinguish ice makers from freezers in the proposice maker definition. If so, what specific changes would be needed to the definition to ensure clarity between these two terms?
21

Products Covered

DOE proposes amending the refrigerator, refrigerator‐ and freezer definitions to improve consistency and cla

• Clarify that these products may contain cellar compartments 

up less than half of the refrigerated volume.

• Remove the terms electric refrigerator and electric refrigerato

• Move the “all‐refrigerator” definition from Appendix A to 10 

because this definition would be used to determine product c

• Replace “designed to be capable of achieving” with “capable 

maintaining compartment temperatures at” when specifying

temperature range, as determined during operation at a typic

ambient condition of 72 °F.

• Remove references to the storage of food.

• Add exclusions of products: designed to be used with open

compartments, without an integral compressor and condense

certified under commercial standards ANSI/NSF 7‐2009 and A

471‐2006.
22

Products Covered

• Miscellaneous refrigeration product means a consumer refrig

product other than a refrigerator, refrigerator‐freezer, or free

includes hybrid refrigeration products, cooled cabinets, non‐c

refrigerators, and ice makers.

– DOE proposes this as a blanket term encapsulating these 

to provide ease of use in referring to this group.

• Consumer refrigeration product means a refrigerator, refriger

freezer, freezer, or miscellaneous refrigeration product as def

section.

– DOE proposes creating this term to refer to all consumer

refrigeration products, both currently covered and those 

in this proposal.

DOE proposes two additional terms to describe refrigeproducts.
23

Products Covered

Issue 5: DOE requests comments on its proposed definitions for “miscellaneous refrigeration producand “consumer refrigeration product.”Issue 6: DOE requests comments on the proposed changes to the definitions for refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer that would distinguish these products from commercial refrigeration equipment. Similarly, DOE also seeks general comments on its proposed clarifying amendments to these definitions.
24

Products Addressed by the NOPR

Consumer Refrigeration

Products

Refrigerators,

Refrigerator‐Freezers,

Freezers

Miscellaneous

Refrigeration Products

Cooled Cabinets

(Including Non‐

compressor Cooled

Cabinets)

e.g., Wine Chillers

Ice Makers

Portable, Batch,

Continuous, Cooled‐

storage, Uncooled‐

storage

Hybrid Refrigeration

Products

Hybrid Refrigerators,

Refrigerator‐freezers,

Freezers

No

Refrig

Hybrid 

R
25

Products Addressed by the NOPR

• Top Compartment: Cellar Compartment• Bottom Compartment: Fresh Food Compartment

• Product Classification: Hybrid Non‐compressor All‐

refrigerator

– Cellar compartment accounts for at least half of the total refrigerated

volume.

– Paired with a compartment that would otherwise be considered a

non‐compressor all‐refrigerator.

Product Classification Example: Non‐compressor prodtwo compartments

Compartment Volume (ft3)

Compartment

Temperature at

90 °F Ambient

Compartment

Temperature at

72 °F Ambient

Cold Warm Cold Warm

Top 4 50 67 38 63Bottom 3 48 55 34 50
26

Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Introductions2 Stakeholder Opening Statements3 Regulatory History and Scope4 Products Covered by the Proposal5 Proposed Test Procedure Amendments6 Compliance with Other EPCA Requirements

7 Closing Remarks
27

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Proposed Elimination of Definition Numbering

• DOE proposes to eliminate definition numbers within Append

B to simplify the overall structure.

Proposed Elimination of Externally‐Vented Product Pr

• Because DOE is not aware of any externally‐vented products a

consumers, DOE proposes to remove the associated provision

Appendix A for procedure simplification.

Issue 7: DOE requests comment on its proposal to remove provisions for testing externally vented products from the test procedures.
28

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

DOE proposes Sampling Plans, Certification Reporting, 

Measurement/Verification of Volume

• Section 10 CFR 429.61 would address miscellaneous refrigera

product sampling plans and certification reporting.

– Same sampling criteria as for refrigerators—for representative v

annual energy use, the rating would be no lower than the highe

sample mean or (b) the upper 95% confidence limit divided by 1

– Similar certification reporting requirements as for refrigerators.

– Non‐compressor refrigerators and hybrid non‐compressor refrig

would also certify the cold‐setting compartment temperature, i

than 39  ̊F.

– Ice maker certification reports would also include harvest rate a

hardness.

• Section 10 CFR 429.72(d) would allow use of Computer Aided 

(CAD) software for certifying volume and section 429.134(c) w

include volume verification procedures for miscellaneous refrproducts, similar to refrigerators as established in DOE’s Apri

final rule. 79 FR 22320.
29

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Issue 8: DOE requests comment on its proposed sampling plans and certification report requiremenfor the products covered by this proposed test procedure. DOE also requests comment on its proposal to allow the use of CAD for volume measurements and on the proposed requirements associated with verification of certified volumes fomiscellaneous refrigeration products.
30

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

DOE proposes to clarify compartment and productclassifications.

• Compartment definition would acknowledge use of the term 

procedures to denote either an individual enclosure or all the 

within the cabinet that provides the same type of storage.

• Language in section 5.3 of Appendices A and B would explain 

adjacent compartments require there be a subdividing barrie

considered separate, and that if the cabinet contains a movab

subdividing barrier, it must be placed in its median position.

• Additions to 10 CFR 429 would clarify that for all consumer re

products (except for ice makers), compartment types would b

determined based on average compartment temperatures m

according to the applicable test procedure, but at an ambient

temperature of 72 °F.
31

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

“Cellar Compartment” would refer to compartments t

maintain temperatures warmer than fresh food comp

• This term is used in the proposed definitions for many of the 

addressed in this rulemaking.

• To allow flexibility, the proposed definition allows some cross

the fresh food compartment temperature range (below 39  ̊F

if the temperature range clearly is primarily above the fresh f

“Cellar compartment” means a refrigerated compartment within 

consumer refrigeration product that is capable of maintaining

compartment temperatures either a) no lower than 39 °F (3.9 °C) 

range that extends no lower than 37 °F (2.8 °C) but at least as hig

(15.6 °C).
32

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Cellar Compartments

• DOE proposes to require a standardized temperature of 55 °F 

cellar compartments, which is consistent with:

– California (2012 Appliance Efficiency Regulations, CEC‐400‐2012

Table A‐1, p. 70)

– Canada (Energy Performance and Capacity of Household Refrige

Refrigerator‐Freezers, Freezers, and Wine Chillers, Canadian Sta

Association, Standard C300‐08 (“CSA C300‐08”), section 5.3.6.2

– The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) (AH

2008, section 5.6.2)

– DOE test procedure waivers granted to Liebherr and Sanyo (72 F

(Apr. 24, 2007); (77 FR 49443 (Aug. 16, 2012)))

– DOE market research of cellar compartment operating tempera

to 65 °F)
33

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Issue 9: DOE invites comment on its proposed definition for cellar compartment. DOE also requestcomment on whether an alternative term may be moappropriate than “cellar” to denote this type of compartment.Issue 10: DOE requests comment on its proposal tuse 55 °F as the cellar compartment standardized temperature during testing.
34

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Cellar Compartments

• DOE proposes adopting temperature sensor placement requi

similar to what AHAM HRF‐1‐2008 provides for wine chiller

compartments.

• DOE proposes to treat cellar compartments (with separate te

control) not in cooled cabinets or hybrid refrigeration produc

special compartments during testing.

• For hybrid refrigeration products and cooled cabinets, DOE pr

require temperature settings similar to refrigerators or refrige

freezers

– Median setting for the first test.

– Warm setting for second test if all compartments are cooler than their s

temperatures during the first test. Otherwise, cold setting for the secon

• DOE proposes requiring volume‐weighted averaging of cellar

compartment temperatures if there are multiple cellar compa

• DOE proposes energy calculations for cooled cabinets and hy

refrigeration products similar to refrigerators and refrigerator

– Calculate weighted average energy use from the two tests conducted ba

standardized temperatures of the cellar, fresh food, and/or freezer com

– Select the highest of these calculations.
35

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Issue 11: DOE requests comments on its proposals for measuring cellar compartment temperatures.Issue 12: DOE requests comment on its proposal trequire that cellar compartments with their own temperature controls within products that are not cooled cabinets or hybrid refrigeration products be treated as special compartments.Issue 13: DOE requests comment on its proposals incorporating cellar compartment temperature measurements into the test procedure requirements for temperature control settings and the proposed selection of tests to be used to calculate energy use for cooled cabinets and hybrid refrigeration produc
36

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Cellar Compartments

• DOE proposes that cellar compartment volume be determine

in the current test procedures for fresh food compartments.

• DOE proposes the following volume adjustment factors for ce

compartments:

– For cooled cabinets, the volume adjustment factor would 

– For hybrid refrigeration products, the volume adjustment 

would be 0.69, as calculated below.

90	°F െ 55	°F90	°F െ 39	°F ൌ 0.69

• For convertible compartments that achieve cellar, fresh food, 

freezer temperatures, DOE proposes that the highest energy 

position be tested, as required by the current procedure whe

measuring convertible compartments that can switch betwee

food and freezer temperatures.
37

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Issue 14: DOE requests comments on the proposafor calculating cellar compartment volume and the proposed volume adjustment factors of 1.0 for thescompartments in cooled cabinets and 0.69 for these compartments in other refrigeration products.Issue 15: DOE requests comments on its proposed test procedure changes to address compartments tare convertible between the cellar compartment temperature range and fresh food and/or freezer temperature range.
38

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Cooled Cabinets: Ambient Temperature and Usage Adjustm

• DOE considered adopting the 90 °F ambient temperature and 

usage adjustment factor found in CSA C300‐08 and AHAM HR

• Limited field data suggest that the 0.85 factor applied to a 90 

ambient test over‐estimates field energy use.

• Laboratory testing shows that cooled cabinet energy use is se

raising ambient temperature to 90 °F.

Unit

No.

Rated Energy

Use*

(kWh/year)

Tested Energy

Use**

(kWh/year)

Ave

En

(kW

1 368 433 2 320 376 

* Ratings obtained from the California Energy Comm

Database, available at

http://www.appliances.energy.ca.gov/AdvancedSe

**The laboratory energy consumption measuremen

calculated by dividing the rated energy use by 0.85.

DOE

Sample

ID

Volume (ft3)

72 °F Ambient

Energy Use

(kWh/year)

90 °F Ambient

Energy Use

(kWh/year)

Ratio of 72 °F

& 90 °F Energy

Tests

1 1.7 120 238 0.502 5.9 165 375 0.433 5.7 225 564 0.404 5.4 106 268 0.405 5.9 134 315 0.426 5.9 85 189 0.457 15.4 238 423 0.568 17.3 224 430 0.53

Average 0.46

Note: Energy use is as measured, without multiplying by usage adjustment factors.

Laboratory Testing Field Testing
39

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

• For vapor‐compression cooled cabinets, DOE proposes to use 

ambient condition, consistent with CSA C300‐08, AHAM HRF‐

and DOE testing for refrigerators, refrigerator‐freezers, and fr

minimize changes to the test methods.

• In order to address the over‐estimation of energy use associa

90 °F ambient testing of cooled cabinets, DOE proposes to ad

correction factor of 0.55. This value is based on the following

– The 0.46 ratio between measured energy use at 72 °F an

observed in closed door testing, and

– A 1.2 usage factor used to represent additional thermal lo

(0.46×1.2=0.55).

Cooled Cabinets: Ambient Temperature and Usage Adjustm
40

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

• For non‐compressor cooled cabinets, DOE is concerned that t

90 °F ambient temperature would not consistently represent 

field energy use.

– Few units are able to maintain the compartment at 55 °F in a 90 

– The energy increase associated with 90 °F testing would be inco

applied, depending on how closely the product meets the 55 °F

temperature.

• Instead, DOE proposes testing non‐compressor cooled cabine

ambient temperature and applying a usage adjustment factor 

DOE Sample ID Volume (ft3) 72 °F Ambient Energy Use (kWh/year) 90 °F Ambient Energy Use (kWh/year) Ratio of 72 °F & 

Energy Tes

1 0.6 118 485 0.242 1.1 366 647 0.573 2.3 553 552 1.00

Average 0.60

Notes: Energy use is as measured, without multiplying by usage adjustment factors.

Cooled Cabinets: Ambient Temperature and Usage Adjustm
41

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Issue 16: DOE requests comment on its proposals ambient temperatures and usage adjustment factorfor both vapor-compression and non-compressor cooled cabinets. DOE requests information regardinfield energy use of wine chillers and other cooled cabinets which it could use to confirm or adjust the proposed adjustment factors.
42

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Cooled Cabinets: Light Bulb Energy

• CSA C300‐08 requires that light bulb energy be measured by a

test results with manual light switches both on and off.

• LBNL conducted a survey on manual light switches in cooled c

that found consumers leave manual light switches in the off p

90% of the time.

• AHAM HRF‐1‐2008, referenced by Appendices A and B, requir

features not required for normal operation be set in their low

use position.

• Because of the LBNL survey results, consistency with Append

B, and DOE’s goal to minimize test burden, DOE proposes to t

light switches in the lowest energy use position.

Issue 17: DOE requests comment on its proposal, cooled cabinets equipped with manual light switchthat only one test would be required, with the lightcontrol set to its lowest energy use position.
43

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Non‐Compressor Refrigerators: Ambient Temperature

• The 90 °F ambient test condition is an accepted simulation of 

thermal loads for a refrigerator in a household.

• DOE proposes to test non‐compressor refrigerators in a 90 °F 

and to apply a usage adjustment factor of 1.0. Thermal loads 

household use are expected to be equivalent to loads for refr

and refrigerator‐freezers (in contrast to cooled cabinets, whic

expected to be used differently).

• DOE tested several non‐compressor refrigerators and found t

could maintain internal compartment temperatures near 39 °

– DOE considered use of the extrapolation approach in App

and B1, but this approach often results in unrealistically h

negative measured energy use for these products.

– To address this issue, DOE proposes that non‐compressor

refrigerators that do not reach 39 °F be tested in the cold 

and that compartment temperatures achieved during tes

reported in the certification report.
44

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Issue 18: DOE requests comment on its proposal to require testing of non-compressor refrigerators in 9°F ambient temperature conditions, to require that their energy use be calculated with a usage factor equal to 1.0, and to require that certification reports include the fresh food compartment temperature attained in testing (if warmer than 39 °F). DOE also requests comment on how potential standards for non-compressor refrigerators would need to be adjusted for products with compartment temperatures that are warmer than the standardized temperature.
45

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Non‐Compressor Refrigerators: Refrigeration Cycles

• Appendices A and B require that test periods be comprised o

“compressor cycles”. However, non‐compressor refrigerators 

have compressors.

• DOE proposes to expand the definition of compressor cycles t

any refrigeration system to clarify its application to non‐comp

refrigerator testing.

• DOE proposes that, in the context of non‐compressor produc

term “compressor cycles” means “refrigeration cycles” and th

term “compressor” refers to a “refrigeration system.”
46

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Issue 19: DOE requests comment on its proposal thnon-compressor refrigeration system cycling be addressed in the test procedure by indicating that tterm “compressor cycles” means “refrigeration system cycles” for such products.
47

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Extrapolation for Refrigeration Products other than NoCompressor Products

• The 2010 interim final rule established that products that did 

achieve standardized compartment temperatures during test

not be rated. 75 FR 78810 (Dec. 16, 2010).

• DOE is proposing that product categories be based on tempe

maintained during operation at 72 °F ambient temperature, n

required for most testing. A product that meets a temperatu

threshold at 72 °F may not meet it during the test at 90 °F.

• Appendices A1 and B1 allowed in these cases the use of “extr

to calculate energy use at the standardized temperature, base

conducted at the cold and warm settings.

• For products (other than non‐compressor refrigerators) that d

maintain standardized temperatures at 90 °F during testing, D

proposes to adopt the extrapolation approach with restriction

– Compartment temperature must be higher and measured energy use m

in the warm setting as compared with the cold setting.

• These restrictions would prevent unrealistic energy use result
48

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Issue 20: DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate into Appendices A and B the extrapolatapproach when testing refrigeration products other than non-compressor refrigerators, subject to the requirement that the measured warm-setting compartment temperature(s) must be warmer than tcold-setting compartment temperatures and that thmeasured energy use must be lower in the warm setting.
49

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Hybrid Refrigeration Products: Test Procedure

• DOE proposes a 90 °F ambient temperature for testing hybrid

refrigeration products.

• DOE proposes a usage adjustment factor of 0.85 for hybrid re

products. Usage patterns are expected to be comparable to t

cooled cabinets, because, under the proposed definition for t

products, at least half of a hybrid product’s refrigerated volum

of cellar compartments.

• DOE proposes to use temperature setting logic for hybrid refr

products consistent with section 3 of Appendix A.

– Median setting for the first test.

– Warm setting for second test if all compartments are cooler than their s

temperature for the first test. Otherwise, cold setting for second test.

• DOE proposes energy calculations for hybrid refrigeration pro

similar to refrigerators and refrigerator‐freezers.

– Calculate weighted average energy use from the two tests conducted ba

standardized temperatures of the cellar, fresh food, and/or freezer com

– Select the highest of these two or three calculations, as appropriate.
50

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Issue 21: DOE seeks comments on its proposal to specify that hybrid refrigeration products be tested 90 °F ambient temperature conditions, and that theienergy use be calculated using a 0.85 usage adjustment factor.Issue 22: DOE requests comment on its proposals tincorporate cellar compartment temperatures into ttest procedure requirements for setting temperature controls, conducting tests, and calculating product energy consumption.
51

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Ice Makers: Product Types and Test Procedure

• DOE proposes to add the following ice maker definitions to 10 CF

– “Batch‐Type” means an ice maker that has alternating freezin

harvesting periods.

– “Continuous‐Type” means an ice maker that continually and s

freezes and harvests ice.

– “Cooled‐storage ice maker” means an ice maker that maintai

bin temperatures below 32 °F.

– “Uncooled‐storage ice maker” means an ice maker that does 

ice storage bin temperatures below 32 °F.

– “Portable ice maker” means an ice maker that does not requi

to a household water supply for operation and is operable us

more on‐board reservoirs that must be manually supplied wit

• DOE also proposes to establish new test procedures for ice make

430.23(ee) and Appendix BB.

– Testing is substantially different from other consumer refriger

products.
52

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Ice Makers: Test Procedure Definitions

• DOE proposes the following ice maker definitions in the new App

– “Harvest” means the process of freezing or removing ice pieces from 

icemaking mold or evaporator.

– “Harvest rate” means the amount of ice (at 32 °F (0 °C)) in pounds p

hours.

– “Ice hardness factor” means the latent heat capacity of harvested ic

thermal units per pound of ice (Btu/lb), divided by 144 Btu/lb, expre

percentage.

– “Ice storage bin” means a container for ice storage that is part of an 

– “Icemaking cycle,” defined for batch‐type ice makers, means the per

required to produce and harvest one batch of ice. The start and end 

icemaking cycles are defined to occur at the end of harvest, when ic

from the ice maker’s evaporator or icemaking mold.

– “Replacement cycle,” defined for uncooled‐storage ice makers, inclu

ice makers, means one or more consecutive icemaking cycles for bat

makers or a continuous period of icemaking for continuous‐type ice 

initiated automatically to refill the ice storage bin after a period of ic

terminated automatically when the bin is full again.
53

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Issue 23: DOE requests comments on the proposed definitions delineating different types of ice makersDOE also seeks comment on whether the industry uses terminology that would be more technically accurate (and descriptive) when distinguishing cooled-storage from uncooled-storage ice makers. Issue 24: DOE requests comment on its proposed definitions to support the proposed test procedures for ice makers.
54

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Ice Makers: Energy Use Metric

• DOE considered using:

– Kilowatt hours per 100 pounds of ice, the automatic commer

(ACIM) metric measured in a 90 °F ambient temperature with 

water.

• This method does not capture the energy use for storage 

replenishing melted ice.

• DOE’s test data showed that ice storage energy use is a si

portion of the overall energy use for ice makers, particula

daily ice consumption rates (as low as 5% of overall energ

lb/day consumption rate, up to 91% for 1.8 lb/day).

– Kilowatt hours per year, accounting for ice production and sto

use, based on an assumed daily ice consumption rate.

• Captures standby energy use.

• Metric consistent with other consumer refrigeration prod

• DOE proposes annual energy use in kWh/year as the metric for ic
55

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Issue 25: DOE requests comment on its proposal to establish an energy use metric for ice makers that includes both ice production and ice storage energuse, and whether the proposed metric would sufficiently capture the total energy consumption oboth cooled-storage and uncooled-storage ice makers.
56

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Ice Makers: Daily Ice Consumption Rate

• DOE proposes a 4‐pound daily ice production rate for calculating 

energy consumption of ice makers.

– This is greater than the 1.8 pounds per day previously proposed for 

makers in refrigerators, refrigerator‐freezers, and freezers. 78 FR 416

– AHAM commented in response to this proposal that a lower ice con

0.76 pounds per day is appropriate for ice makers within these cons

refrigeration products.

– DOE believes that consumers who purchase ice makers would consu

than those using automatic icemakers found in other consumer refr

products.

– Ice makers are also designed to produce more ice per day than auto

within other consumer refrigeration products.

– Accordingly, DOE expects that the higher consumption rate of 4 pou

appropriate for ice makers.
57

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Issue 26: DOE requests comment on its proposed daily ice consumption rate of 4 pounds per day. DO

also seeks access to field or survey data that would yield, if possible, a more representative value for a daily ice consumption rate. DOE also requests comment on whether the daily ice consumption rate used in its proposal should vary based on ice makeharvest rate, and if so, how the rate should vary.
58

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Ice Makers: Test Conditions & Setup

• DOE proposes to require that ice makers meet the same setup re

and operating conditions as other consumer refrigeration produc

– Clearance distances

– Steady‐state conditions where applicable

• DOE proposes that ice makers be tested in a 72 °F ambient tempe

– Ice makers are likely not opened as often as other consumer refriger

– The ice maker test procedure would already account for thermal loa

with freezing and cooling of ice.

– Hence, simulating the additional loads of door openings and other l

ambient temperature are not necessary.

• DOE proposes inlet water conditions of 72 °F ± 2 °F temperature a

psig pressure while the water is flowing for ice makers that are no

• For portable ice makers, DOE proposes to require water supplied 

reservoir to be 55 °F ± 2 °F temperature to allow units to more qu

stabilization.
59

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Issue 27: DOE requests comment on its proposal to require testing of ice makers in a 72 °F ambient temperature condition and its proposal to otherwise apply to ice makers all of the set-up requirements applicable to ice makers that are currently required refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. DOalso seeks comment on its assumption that ice makers are not opened as frequently as other refrigeration products.

Issue 28: DOE requests comment on whether its proposed water temperature conditions for portable and non-portable ice makers are appropriate: 72 ± 2 temperature and 60 ± 15 psig pressure for nonportable ice makers, and 55 ± 2 °F temperature for portable ice makers.
60

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Ice Makers: Test Conditions & Setup

• DOE proposes that:

– Any temperature controls be set to the median position.

– Any user‐accessible ice piece size control be set for the largest ice pi

– Data collection for temperature, power, and energy be not less than 

minute.

– A single temperature sensor one inch above the maximum level of ic

determine when stabilization is reached according to the criteria use

consumer refrigeration products.

– Any tubing used to convey water from the ice production away from 

test lab floor drain be as specified in the consumer instructions suppcabinet.

– Drain lines be installed running downwards from the ice maker’s dra

– No optional drain water pumps would be used during testing.

• If a pump is integrated in the unit and is optional (e.g., required 

must be pumped from the ice maker to an elevated drain), it sh

or disconnected for the test.

• If an integrated pump cannot be disconnected or shut off, pump 

consumption would be included.
61

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Ice Makers: Icemaking Test

• DOE proposes to:

– Require a 2‐hour stabilization period of icemaking operation.

– Require a perforated container to measure the ice collected d

– Test period:

• Batch‐type – a period of whole icemaking cycles of at least 6 ho

ice maker stops automatically if less than 6 hours.

– Icemaking cycles typically defined by observing the power 

– May be defined by monitoring three alternative variables, 

the 2013 test procedure NOPR (78 FR at 41622): mold tem

water temperature, or activation of the water supply valve

• Continuous type – a period of six hours of icemaking, or until th

stops automatically if less than 6 hours.

– Allow door openings, under 15 seconds, when testing produc

allow for a large enough perforated container to hold all the i

during the prescribed test periods.

– Require 1% accuracy and precision for weighing ice, identical 

requirements for automatic commercial ice makers.
62

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Issue 29: DOE requests comment on all aspects of proposed test conditions and test set-up requiremefor ice makers. DOE also requests comment on its proposals for icmaker drain lines and for drain pumps.

DOE also requests information regarding the powe

consumption of such pumps.Issue 30: DOE requests comment on the proposed two-hour stabilization period for the icemaking portof the test for ice makers.
63

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Issue 31: DOE requests comment on its proposal to require that ice be retrieved within two-minutes aftethe end of the icemaking test period and seeks suggestions and alternative ice collection delay limDOE also seeks any supporting data regarding the proposed and alternative limits. Issue 32: DOE seeks comment on its proposed use a perforated container and the container specifications, the proposed requirements for the scale used to measure the ice weight, the proposed requirement to leave the ice produced during the stabilization period in the ice storage bin (i.e., the shour test period), or any other aspect of the propostest.
64

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Ice Makers: Ice Storage Test

• DOE proposes:

– This test be conducted when ice makers enter a mode where 

maintain cooled storage temperatures or replenish melted ice

– The test would be conducted while the ice storage bin is full, 

produced by the unit under test.

– Cooled‐storage ice makers be tested:

• After a stabilization period that meets the criteria for other cons

refrigeration products. (Appendix A, section 2.9)

• Using a test period of at least two compressor cycles and at leas

long.

– Uncooled‐storage ice makers be tested:

• With no stabilization period to prevent unnecessarily lengthy te• Using a test period of at least 48‐hours, that starts at the end of 

(or at the end of the first replacement cycle) and ends at the en

replacement cycle.
65

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Issue 33: DOE requests comment on its proposed methodology for measuring ice storage energy consumption for both cooled-storage and uncooledstorage ice makers. In particular, it requests commeon whether its proposed duration for the uncooledstorage test period is of sufficient length to reduce variability in test results that might be caused by thinconsistent intervals between ice production and iperiods when the ice maker is operating only to replenish melted ice.
66

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Ice Makers: Ice Hardness

• Ice hardness represents the fraction of the delivered ice product 

• DOE proposes ܫு, or the ice hardness factor, to be the industry st

as measured by the procedure specified in Annex A of ASHRAE 29

• DOE proposes to use this fraction to adjust ice maker energy of co

ice makers to determine the energy use that would have been re

produce ice of 100‐percent hardness.

• DOE proposes to calculate the ice hardness adjustment factor, IHA

ܫு஺ி ൌ 	

݈ܾݑݐܤ 40 ൅ ݈ܾݑݐܤ 144

݈ܾݑݐܤ 40 ൅ ுܫ	ൈ 	݈ܾݑݐܤ 144
67

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Issue 34: DOE requests comment on its proposed adjustment to the icemaking energy use for continuous-type ice makers to account for ice hardness less than 100 percent, and its proposed approach that would allow use of either an ice hardness value measured using calorimetry or a standard ice hardness factor. DOE also requests comment on whether its proposice hardness factor of 0.85 is an appropriate value trepresent the nugget ice expected to be used in consumer continuous-type ice makers.
68

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Ice Makers: Energy Use

• Ice production energy use and ice storage energy use would be a

provide daily average energy use.

– Daily energy use associated with icemaking would be based on an av

production rate of 4 pounds. For continuous‐type ice makers, this va

multiplied by the ice hardness adjustment factor.

– Daily ice storage energy use would be the average ice storage powe

multiplied by the amount of time per day the ice maker is not produ

pounds of daily ice.

• For portable ice makers, the daily average energy use sum would 

by a usage adjustment factor of 0.5 to account for the likelihood t

makers are not energized and producing or storing ice at all times
69

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Issue 35: DOE requests comment on its proposed method for calculating the daily energy consumptioof ice makers. In addition, DOE requests comment on whether 0.5 an appropriate annual usage adjustment factor for portable ice makers and seeks access to field or survey data that could help it develop a more representative assumption.
70

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Incidental Changes to Test Procedure Text to Improve 

• DOE proposes to:

– Revise multiple sections of Appendices A and B to refer to two “test

opposed to two “test periods.”

– Revise auxiliary compartment language to refer to “primary” fresh fo

freezer compartments instead of “first” compartments.

– Replace “should” with “must” in the definition of “Variable defrost c

in Appendices A and B to clarify that times between defrosts must d

with usage patterns.

– Extend set‐up provisions of section 2 of Appendix A to apply to the n

consumer refrigeration products covered in this rulemaking.

Changes to Volume Calculation Instructions

• DOE proposes to:

– Use the acronym “AV” for adjusted total volume throughout the CFR

– Round volumes of fresh food, freezer, and cellar compartments to th

nearest 0.01 cubic foot. Volumes measured in liters would need to b

converted to cubic feet and rounded to the nearest 0.01 cubic foot.
71

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Changes to Volume Measurement Instructions

Component Volume Determination Discussion

Automatic Icemaker

Compartment Insulation Not Included

HRF‐1‐2008 section 4.2.2 

the volume shall take into 

exact shapes of the walls 

depressions or projectionthe icemaker compartmeis a wall or set of walls, th

occupied by this insulatio

be included in the volume 

Icemaker Auger Motor Included

If housed inside the insula

the cabinet, this compone

considered part of the ice

storage bin, and is therefoper section 5.3 of Append

• DOE proposes to clarify volume inclusions/exclusions consistent w

guidance issued in August 2012.
72

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Changes to Volume Measurement Instructions

Component Volume Determination Discussion

Automatic Icemaker Kit

Included Included per section 5.3 o

Ice Storage BinFountain Recess

Not Included

Not included per section 

HRF‐1‐2008

Dispenser InsulationIce Chute

Included

Included up to the dispen

there is no plug, cover, or 

ice chute, per figure 43 of 

Not Included

Not included if there is a 

cap over the ice chute pe

HRF‐1‐2008.
73

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Issue 36: DOE requests comment on its proposal to change the term “test period” to “test” in sections 6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.2, 6.2.2.1, 6.2.3.1, and 6.2.4.1 of AppendA and in sections 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2 of Appendix B.Issue 37: DOE requests comment on its proposal to refer to primary compartments as “primary” compartments rather than “first” compartments in idiscussions of separate auxiliary compartments.Issue 38: DOE requests comments on its proposal treplace “should” with “must” in its definition for variable defrost.
74

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Issue 39: DOE requests comment on its proposed extension of the requirements of Appendix A, sectio2.4, 2.5, and 2.11 to the appropriate new products addressed by this notice.Issue 40: DOE requests comment on the proposed clarifications to the refrigerated volume measurements in Appendices A and B, which are consistent with the August 2012 Guidance.Issue 41: DOE requests comments on its proposal tmodify the designation for adjusted volume to “AV” Appendices A and B, and its proposal to require thathe volumes of freezer, fresh food, and cellar compartments be rounded to the nearest 0.01 cubic foot before calculating a product’s total refrigerated volume or adjusted volume.
75

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

Removal of Appendices A1 and B1

• DOE proposes to remove Appendices A1 and B1 from the CFR bec

they have been obsolete since September 15, 2014.
76

Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Introductions2 Stakeholder Opening Statements3 Regulatory History and Scope4 Products Covered by the Proposal5 Proposed Test Procedure Amendments6 Compliance with Other EPCA Requirements

7 Closing Remarks
77

Compliance with Other EPCA Requirements

• The products covered by this rulemaking apply primarily to produ

previously not covered by DOE, but are similar to refrigerators,

refrigerator‐freezers, and freezers.

• The proposed test procedures are consistent with those for refrig

refrigerator‐freezers, and freezers, and therefore would not repre

greater test burden than the current DOE test procedures for tho

products.

• The proposed ice maker test procedures differ from those for the 

consumer refrigeration products, but the test facilities, instrumen

and test duration would be similar, and represent no greater burd

Test Burden
78

Compliance with Other EPCA Requirements

• DOE identified four small business manufacturers that would be a

by today’s proposal.

• Cooled cabinets are currently regulated by the CEC and NRCan as 

chillers, so manufacturers likely already test these products.

– The proposed test procedures would modify the calculations for the

products, but would not require re‐testing.

– DOE estimated that revising the energy use representations for cool

cabinets would require 120 hours of effort for each manufacturer.

• Cost to manufacturers associated with testing for the remaining p

from today’s proposal are estimated to average $2,500 per test.

– DOE estimated testing cost of $2,500 per unit, two units per basic m

shipping cost of $150 per unit, test management and review time at 

per unit, reporting time of 40 hours plus 6 hours per model.

• Brings total estimated cost to $74,000, or $18,500 per small busin

– The total cost burden represents 0.01 to 0.2 percent of annua

revenues.

Regulatory Flexibility Review
79

Compliance with Other EPCA Requirements

Issue 42: DOE seeks comment on its reasoning thathe proposed test procedure changes would not haa significant impact on a substantial number of smaentities.

Proposed Test Procedure Amendments
80

Issue 43: DOE tentatively proposed that no separate chaneeded to account for standby and off mode energy conbecause the currently used and proposed procedures aladdress energy consumed in standby and off modes. DOrequests comments on this determination.

Compliance with Other EPCA Requirements

Standby Mode and Off Mode

• The test procedures for these products (both those currently use

proposed) would address standby/off mode energy use, so additi

provisions to address energy use of these modes are not necessa
81

Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Introductions2 Stakeholder Opening Statements3 Regulatory History and Scope4 Products Covered by the Proposal5 Proposed Test Procedure Amendments6 Compliance with Other EPCA Requirements

7 Closing Remarks
82

How to Submit Written Comments

In all correspondence, please refer to this rulemaking by:

– Test Procedures for Miscellaneous Consumer Refrigeration 

– Docket Number EERE‐2013‐BT‐TP‐0029

– Regulation Identification Number (RIN) 1904‐AD44

Email: MiscResRefrigProd2013TP0029@ee.doe.gov

Postal: CourierMs. Brenda Edwards Ms. Brenda Edwards

U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program, Building Technologies Prog

Mailstop EE‐5B 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW

1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20024

Washington, DC 20585‐0121 Tel: 202 586‐2945

Comment period closes March 2, 2015, 11:59 P
83

Contact Information• Questions about products can be sent to:

refrigerators_and_freezers@ee.doe.gov

• For additional information, use the following links:

– DOE Appliance and Equipment Standards Program (main si

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standa

– Test Procedure Rulemaking for Miscellaneous Refrigeration 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standa

.aspx?ruleid=105

• Thank you for your participation.