AHAM Preliminary Proposal for Refrigerator‐Freezer Verification Program

Meeting with Michael McCabe & Lucas Adin

U.S. Department of Energy

August 28, 2009

Goal:    AHAM is seeking the Department of Energy’s support for a refrigerator‐freezer third

party certification program to be started in 2010.    This program may be an interim program

prior to the 2014 effective date for the new refrigerator‐freezer test procedure and energy

efficiency standard.

AHAM is seeking support on the following specific items:

1. DOE support for AHAM to use interpretations to the refrigerator‐freezer test procedure

by CSA International as a foundation for the AHAM verification program;

2. DOE support for an AHAM administered refrigerator‐freezer verification program.

The following documents are included for our review and discussion:

1. AHAM comparison of refrigerator‐freezer interpretations and clarifications released

over the past year;

2. CSA Informs – published August 24, 2009;

3. November 14, 2008 agreement between the DOE and LG;

4. DOE Clarification – published January 14, 2009;

5. NRCan Clarification – published May 2009;

6. Consistency of CSA Informs with DOE test procedure and interpretation;

7. AHAM member support for using the CSA interpretation as a foundation for an AHAM

third party testing program;

8. Preliminary AHAM Refrigerator‐Freezer Certification Program Procedural Guide;

9. Comparison of DOE Voluntary Independent Certification Program (VICP) requirements

and features of proposed AHAM verification program.
List of icemaker components and AHAM comparison of LG settlment, DOE interpretation, NRCan interpretation and CSA Informs

Updated: 8/27/2009

LG Settlement DOE Clarification NRCan 

Component Role Function Published November 14, 2008 Published January 14, 2009 Published May 2009 Publ

All All Energy Star 

1 Fill tube Production Primary No energy use No energy use No energy use 

2 Water valve Production Primary Off Off Off 

3 Ice mold Production Primary No energy use No energy use No energy use 

4 Adiabatic water tank Production Primary No energy use No energy use No energy use 

5 Fill tube heater Production Secondary Off On* Off 

6 Thermostat Harvesting Primary No energy use No energy use No energy use 

7 Mold heating coil Harvesting Primary Off Off Off On

8 Electric motor Harvesting Primary Off‐Not Operational Off‐Not Operational Off‐Not Operational On

9 Ejector blade Harvesting Primary Off Off Off On

10 Shut‐off arm Harvesting Primary Off Off Off On

11 Ice Storage bin Storage Primary Temperature to keep ice from melting Temperature to keep ice from melting Temperature to keep ice from melting

N

tempe

prop

Units affected

Status during energy test

melting from melting from melting prop

canno

temp

12 Storage bin with consumer adjustable setting Storage Primary Coldest setting Coldest setting Coldest setting 

13 Cooling fan Storage Primary On On On 14 Ice chute cap Transport Secondary No energy use No energy use No energy use 

15 Ice chute Transport Secondary No energy use No energy use No energy use 

16 Ice chute flap Transport Secondary No energy use No energy use No energy use 

17 Ice dispenser sump heater Transport Secondary On On On 

* There is disagreement between our members on whether the DOE clarification actually requires the fill tube heater to be on.

Notes:ABC

Function describes whether the component is directly related to the production, harvesting or delivery of ice (primary), or if the feature is used to make the

primary component work better (secondary)

Status during test describes AHAM's interpretation of the components activity during the energy test.

Role describes what the component does in the ice making process ‐ production, harvesting or delivery
 

Visit us at www.csa-international.org Click on "Contact Us" for the online phone listing of our Offices and Partners 

Visit us at www.shopcsa.ca to purchase a Standard! 

DQD 529.02 Rev 2009-07-22 

I:\Wgm4\DOC_CTRL\INFORMS\T-W\VerificationServiceEE40.doc Page 1 of 4 

An Urgent Bulletin from CSA International

Ref No: I09-060 

Verification Service Announcement No. 40 New Verification Service available as of today 

Date: August 24, 2009 Apply any time to have your products evaluated 

Announcing: Clarification of Energy Efficiency Test Procedures for Household Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, 

Freezers and Wine Chillers to CSA Standard C300-08, Energy Performance and Capacity of Household Refrigerators, 

Refrigerator-Freezers, Freezers and Wine Chillers. 

Class No: 8806 01, ENERGY EFFICIENCY - Refrigerators and Freezers 

Who is affected?

Manufacturers of household refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, freezers and wine chillers. 

What do you do?

1. This publication outlines verification revisions 

that may affect your currently verified product 

designs. 

2. Please contact CSA engineering staff if you have 

questions or need information concerning this 

publication and how it applies to you. 

3. If you would like to initiate an energy efficiency 

verification project, please contact CSA 

engineering staff to arrange for an evaluation of 

your product design. Please supply your CSA 

engineer with appropriate supporting 

documentation*. If testing is needed, we will 

inform you of the samples required. 

*Technical information as well as company name, 

address, factory locations and CSA file number or 

master contract number (if assigned) when applying. 

Approvals:

All new applications and updates to currently verified 

products will be evaluated to CSA Standard C300-08 

and the procedures listed in Attachment 1. 

Background and Rationale: 

In December of 2008, Canadian Federal Energy 

Efficiency Regulations were amended to reference 

CSA Standard C300-08. CSA International has 

encountered interpretation issues from the industry, 

relating to the test procedures outlined in CSA 

Standard C300-08. The interpretation issues involve 

the test procedures for Type 5A refrigerator-freezers. 

Also, there are no specific test procedures for 

refrigerator-freezer products with variable anti-sweat 

heaters. Finally, CSA International has encountered 

confusion and the subsequent misinterpretation of the 

“Intent of Test Procedures” clauses in CSA Standard 

C300-08. 

See Attachment 1 for detailed clarification of test 

procedures. 

For questions specific to your file or products contact your regular 

CSA International engineering staff. 

Go to http://directories.csa-international.org/ and enter your Master 

Contract # and the class numbers associated with this Notice to 

determine which of your products are affected. 

For technical questions on this Informs

Contact Rick Morrison 

by phone 416.747.4090, fax 416.747.4149 

or e-mail rick.morrison@csa-international.org 
ATTACHMENT 1

 

DQD 529.02 Rev 2009-07-22 

I:\Wgm4\DOC_CTRL\INFORMS\T-W\VerificationServiceEE40.doc Page 2 of 4 

Background and Rationale 

Automatic Icemaker ON Test Procedure: 

The test procedure for testing all household products equipped with an automatic icemaker is as 

follows: 

A refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, freezer or wine chiller equipped with an automatic icemaker must 

be tested with the icemaker in an ON condition but prevented from making or harvesting ice by a 

sensed ice-bin-full condition. The tests are to be performed by mechanically simulating an ice-bin-full 

condition that produces identical results to testing with a full bin of ice. For example, the icemaker ice 

level indicating arm may be mechanically fastened in the position indicating an ice-bin-full condition. 

A refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, freezer or wine chiller equipped with an automatic icemaker having 

an ice storage bin with consumer-adjustable temperature control settings, must be set to the lowest 

temperature setting for all test conditions. 

The procedures above meet the requirements outlined in Clauses 3.3.3.3 (c), 3.3.3.3 (k) and 3.5.2 of 

CSA Standard C300-08. Specifically, all energy except for ice-making and harvesting, are to be 

included in the measured test energy for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers and wine chillers 

equipped with an automatic icemaker. It should be noted, that the standby power of electronic 

icemakers is considered to be energy that is not associated with harvesting. For example, once the 

ice-bin-full condition is met, harvesting is over and all energy, including standby power, must be 

included in the measured energy consumption. 

 

The implementation date for this mandatory procedure is December 28, 2009. 

Variable Anti-Sweat Heater Test Procedures: 

The test procedure and calculation method for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers and wine 

chillers equipped with variable anti-sweat heaters are as outlined in the attached DOE Waiver RF007, except the heater watts will vary according to individual manufacturer design requirements. 

Note: Refer to attached DOE waiver. 

The procedure above meets the requirements outlined in Clauses 3.3.3.3 (j), 3.3.3.3 (k) and 3.5.2 of 

CSA Standard C300-08. Specifically, the calculated energy of variable anti-sweat heaters is the 

energy used in typical room conditions. 

 

The implementation date for this procedure is August 24, 2009.
DQD 529.02 Rev 2009-07-22 

I:\Wgm4\DOC_CTRL\INFORMS\T-W\VerificationServiceEE40.doc Page 3 of 4 

 

Intent of Test Procedures: 

The current C300-08 test procedures provide the following examples under the “Intent of Test 

Procedures” clauses: 

"Examples: 

1. Energy saving features that are designed to operate when there are no door or lid openings for 

long periods of time should not be functional during the energy test. 

2. The defrost heater should neither function differently nor turn off differently during the energy 

test than it would when in typical room conditions. 

3. Electric heaters that would normally operate at typical room conditions with door or lid 

openings should also operate during the energy test. 

4. Energy used during adaptive defrost shall continue to be tested and adjusted per the 

calculations provide for in this standard. 

5. Heaters used to prevent internal or external moisture build-up, to keep gaskets pliable, to keep 

water reservoirs or lines from freezing or deemed as necessary for the normal operation and 

reliability of the product are to be functioning during the energy test. 

These examples have been misinterpreted by a number of manufacturers, which leads to further 

clarification as listed below: 

1. Door heaters must operate in the same manner during the energy test at both temperature 

control settings as they would in a typical room (household conditions). For example, if at the 

warm/warm position the door heater has a duty cycle in the home of 45% - this duty cycle shall 

also be 45% when tested at 32.2 ̊C with no door openings. Further, door heaters at the 

warm/warm position may not operate at a reduced duty cycle (or full off) that does not provide 

the anti-sweating performance that occurs at other temperature control positions such as 

mid/mid and settings that are colder than warm/warm. 

2. Ice making fans and evaporator fans must operate during energy testing in the same manner, 

i.e. with the same algorithm, as operated during normal refrigerator operation with any ice 

storage compartment maintained at the temperature used for storing and properly maintaining 

ice. 

3. Heaters used to prevent internal or external moisture build-up, to keep gaskets pliable, to keep 

water reservoirs or lines from freezing, or deemed as necessary for the normal operation and 

reliability of the product must operate during energy testing in the same manner, i.e. with the 

same algorithm, as operated during normal refrigerator operation with any ice storage 

compartment maintained at the temperature used for storing and properly maintaining ice. For 

example, heaters shall not operate at a reduced energy level as a result of test conditions with 

no door openings (testing in a “Vacation Mode” condition is not permitted). 

4. The ice compartment temperature must be maintained during energy testing at the normal 

operating temperature used for storing and properly maintaining ice. During the energy test, 

the ice compartment temperature cannot be shifted to a warmer temperature than used during 

normal ice storage. 
6.

8.

 The implementation date for the “Intent of Procedures” mandatory test procedures is August 24, 2009.

DQD 529.02 Rev 2009-07-22 

I:\Wgm4\DOC_CTRL\INFORMS\T-W\VerificationServiceEE40.doc Page 4 of 4 

5. Defrost heaters cannot utilize a special algorithm solely for the purpose of the energy test. 

 Energy used by ice ejection heaters shall be included in calculating the product's reported total 

energy use except for the energy used when the ice ejection heater is energized to loosen ice 

from the ice mold during an ice harvest cycle. 

7. Once an ice-bin-full condition is met, harvesting is defined to be over and all automatic 

icemaker energy, including standby power, must be included in the measured energy 

consumption. 

 The operation of heaters or other energy consumer components shall not be linked to the 

ON/OFF status of the icemaker during energy testing. 
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Notices 10425 

Abstract: The information is required 

of institutions of higher education 

designated as Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities and Qualified 

Graduate Programs. Title III, Part B of 

the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 

amended. This information will be used 

for the evaluation process to determine 

whether proposed activities are 

consistent with the legislation and to 

determine dollar share of congressional 

appropriation. 

This information collection is being 

submitted under the Streamlined 

Clearance Process for Discretionary 

Grant Information Collections (1890–

0001). Therefore, the 30-day public 

comment period notice will be the only 

public comment notice published for 

this information collection. 

Requests for copies of the information 

collection submission for OMB review 

may be accessed from http:// 

edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the 

‘‘Browse Pending Collections’’ link and 

by clicking on link number 3583. When 

you access the information collection, 

click on ‘‘Download Attachments’’ to 

view. Written requests for information 

should be addressed to U.S. Department 

of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, 

SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202–4537. 

Requests may also be electronically 

mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed 

to 202–401–0920. Please specify the 

complete title of the information 

collection when making your request. 

Comments regarding burden and/or 

the collection activity requirements 

should be electronically mailed to 

ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Individuals who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–

800–877–8339. 

[FR Doc. E8–3663 Filed 2–26–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Department of Education 

SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, 

Regulatory Information Management 

Services, Office of Management invites 

comments on the submission for OMB 

review as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before March 

28, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be addressed to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attention: Education Desk Officer, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street, NW., Room 10222, 

Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are 

encouraged to submit responses 

electronically by e-mail to 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov or via fax 

to (202) 395–6974. Commenters should 

include the following subject line in 

their response ‘‘Comment: [insert OMB 

number], [insert abbreviated collection 

name, e.g., ‘‘Upward Bound 

Evaluation’’]. Persons submitting 

comments electronically should not 

submit paper copies. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires 

that the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) provide interested 

Federal agencies and the public an early 

opportunity to comment on information 

collection requests. OMB may amend or 

waive the requirement for public 

consultation to the extent that public 

participation in the approval process 

would defeat the purpose of the 

information collection, violate State or 

Federal law, or substantially interfere 

with any agency’s ability to perform its 

statutory obligations. The IC Clearance 

Official, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of 

Management, publishes that notice 

containing proposed information 

collection requests prior to submission 

of these requests to OMB. Each 

proposed information collection, 

grouped by office, contains the 

following: (1) Type of review requested, 

e.g., new, revision, extension, existing 

or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary 

of the collection; (4) Description of the 

need for, and proposed use of, the 

information; (5) Respondents and 

frequency of collection; and (6) 

Reporting and/or Recordkeeping 

burden. OMB invites public comment. 

Dated: February 21, 2008. 

Angela C. Arrington, 

IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of Management. 

Institute of Education Sciences 

Type of Review: New. 

Title: Eighth Grade Access to Algebra 

I: A Study of Virtual Algebra. 

Frequency: On Occasion. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

household. 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour 

Burden: 

Responses: 1,494. 

Burden Hours: 493. 

Abstract: This study of the effects of 

8th grade algebra on student math 

achievement and advanced coursetaking patterns is to be carried out by 

the Northeast and Islands Regional 

Education Laboratory. This randomized 

controlled field trial involves 60 schools 

in Maine, 60 teachers, and 1,800 

students. Targeted outcomes are 

students’ mathematics achievement, as 

measured by scores on the 8th grade 

Maine Educational Assessment in 

mathematics, scores on the MWEA–

MAP test, 9th grade transcript data, 10th 

grade course enrollments, and 10th 

grade PSAT scores. 

Requests for copies of the information 

collection submission for OMB review 

may be accessed from http:// 

edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the 

‘‘Browse Pending Collections’’ link and 

by clicking on link number 3545. When 

you access the information collection, 

click on ‘‘Download Attachments’’ to 

view. Written requests for information 

should be addressed to U.S. Department 

of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, 

SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202–4537. 

Requests may also be electronically 

mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed 

to 202–401–0920. Please specify the 

complete title of the information 

collection when making your request. 

Comments regarding burden and/or 

the collection activity requirements 

should be electronically mailed to 

ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Individuals who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

1–800–877–8339. 

[FR Doc. E8–3747 Filed 2–26–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Decision and 

Order Granting a Waiver to the General 

Electric Company From the 

Department of Energy Residential 

Refrigerator and Refrigerator-Freezer 

Test Procedure (Case No. RF–007) 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Decision and Order. 

SUMMARY: DOE gives notice of the 

Decision and Order (Case No. RF–007) 

that grants to the General Electric 

Company (GE) a Waiver from the DOE 

electric refrigerator and refrigeratorfreezer test procedure, for its product 

line containing relative humidity 

sensors and adaptive control anti-sweat 

heaters. Under today’s Decision and 

Order, GE shall be required to test and 

rate its refrigerator-freezers with 

adaptive control anti-sweat heaters 

according to an alternate test procedure 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10426 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Notices 

1Consistent with the statute, distributors, 

retailers, and private labelers are held to the same 

standard when making representations regarding 

the energy efficiency of these products. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(c)) 

2Part B of Title III of EPCA was repealed by Pub. 

L. 109–58 and redesignated Part A. 

3 GE’s petition uses the terms ‘‘refrigerator’’ and 

‘‘refrigerator-freezer’’ interchangeably. The specific 

models that are the subject of this waiver are 

refrigerator-freezers. 

that takes this technology into account 

when measuring energy consumption. 

DATES: This Decision and Order is 

effective February 19, 2008, and will 

remain in effect until the effective date 

of a DOE final rule prescribing an 

amended test procedure appropriate for 

the model series of GE refrigeratorfreezers covered by this waiver. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Michael G. Raymond, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Building Technologies 

Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9611, E-mail: 

Michael.Raymond@ee.doe.gov; Francine 

Pinto, or Eric Stas, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of General Counsel, Mail 

Stop GC–72, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585–

0103, (202) 586–9507; e-mail: 

Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov or 

Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with 10 CFR 430.27(l), DOE 

gives notice of the issuance of its 

Decision and Order as set forth below. 

In the Decision and Order, DOE grants 

to GE a Waiver from the applicable 

residential refrigerator and refrigeratorfreezer test procedures, at 10 CFR part 

430 subpart B, appendix A1, for its 

product line of refrigerator-freezers with 

relative humidity sensors and adaptive 

control anti-sweat heaters, provided that 

GE tests and rates such products to the 

alternate test procedure described in 

this notice. Today’s decision requires 

that GE may not make any 

representations concerning the energy 

efficiency of these products unless such 

product has been tested in accordance 

with the DOE test procedure, consistent 

with the provisions and restrictions in 

the alternate test procedure set forth in 

the Decision and Order below, and such 

representation fairly discloses the 

results of such testing.1 (42 U.S.C. 

6293(c)) 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 19, 

2008. 

Alexander A. Karsner, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

Decision and Order 

In the Matter of: General Electric 

Company. (Case No. RF–007). 

Background 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA) sets forth a 

variety of provisions concerning energy 

efficiency. Part A 2 of Title III provides 

for the ‘‘Energy Conservation Program 

for Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309) 

Part A includes definitions, test 

procedures, labeling provisions, energy 

conservation standards, and the 

authority to require information and 

reports from manufacturers. Further, 

Part A authorizes the Secretary of 

Energy to prescribe test procedures that 

are reasonably designed to produce 

results which measure energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

operating costs, and that are not unduly 

burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(3)) 

Today’s notice involves residential 

products under Part A. Relevant to the 

current Petition for Waiver, the test 

procedure for residential electric 

refrigerator-freezers is contained in 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix A1. 

DOE’s regulations contain provisions 

allowing a person to seek a waiver from 

the test procedure requirements for 

covered consumer products, when the 

petitioner’s basic model contains one or 

more design characteristics that prevent 

testing according to the prescribed test 

procedures, or when the prescribed test 

procedures may evaluate the basic 

model in a manner so unrepresentative 

of its true energy consumption 

characteristics as to provide materially 

inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 

430.27(a)(1). Petitioners must include in 

their petition any alternate test 

procedures known to evaluate the basic 

model in a manner representative of its 

energy consumption characteristics. 10 

CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iii). 

The Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy (the 

Assistant Secretary) may grant a waiver 

subject to conditions, including 

adherence to alternate test procedures. 

10 CFR 430.27(l). In general, a waiver 

will remain in effect until final test 

procedure amendments that resolve the 

problem that is the subject of the waiver 

become effective. 10 CFR 430.27(m). 

The waiver process also allows any 

interested person who has submitted a 

Petition for Waiver to file an 

Application for Interim Waiver of the 

applicable test procedure requirements. 

10 CFR 430.27(a)(2). The Assistant 

Secretary will grant an Interim Waiver 

request if it is determined that the 

applicant will experience economic 

hardship if the Interim Waiver is 

denied, if it appears likely that the 

Petition for Waiver will be granted, and/ 

or the Assistant Secretary determines 

that it would be desirable for public 

policy reasons to grant immediate relief 

pending a determination on the Petition 

for Waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(g). 

On November 18, 2006, GE filed a 

Petition for Waiver from the test 

procedures which are applicable to its 

product line of refrigerator-freezers with 

relative humidity sensors and adaptive 

control anti-sweat heaters. The 

applicable test procedures are contained 

in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix 

A1—Uniform Test Method for 

Measuring the Energy Consumption of 

Electric Refrigerators and Electric 

Refrigerator-Freezers. GE is designing 

new refrigerator-freezers that contain 

variable anti-sweat heater controls and 

relative humidity sensors that detect 

and respond to a broad range of 

temperature and humidity conditions, 

and then activate adaptive heaters as 

needed to evaporate excess moisture. 

GE’s alternate test procedure simulates 

the energy used by the adaptive heaters 

in a typical consumer household. 

Because the existing test procedure 

under 10 CFR part 430 takes neither 

ambient humidity nor adaptive 

technology into account, it does not 

accurately measure the energy 

consumption of GE’s new refrigeratorfreezers that feature humidity sensors 

and adaptive control anti-sweat heaters. 

Consequently, GE has submitted an 

alternate test to DOE for approval to 

ensure that it is correctly calculating the 

energy consumption of this new product 

line. 

On April 17, 2007, DOE published 

GE’s Petition for Waiver. 72 FR 19189. 

DOE received one comment on the GE 

petition, from the Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), 

which is discussed below. 

Assertions and Determinations 

GE’s Petition for Waiver 

On November 18, 2006, GE submitted 

a Petition for Waiver from the test 

procedures applicable to residential 

electric refrigerator-freezers.3 GE’s 

petition asserts that the energy use for 

its refrigerator-freezers with relative 

humidity sensors, variable anti-sweat 

heater controls and adaptive heaters 

cannot be accurately tested using the 

current test procedure because these 

products will yield a different test result 

for energy consumption depending on 

the ambient relative humidity in the test 

chamber. The current DOE test 

procedure does not specify a value for 

the relative humidity in the test 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 / Notices 10427 

4Anti-sweat heaters remove moisture that 

condenses on the cabinet of refrigerator-freezers. 

They consume a significant amount of energy in 

doing this, and GE’s technology is designed to use 

less anti-sweat energy, by activating the heaters 

only when needed. 

chamber. GE included an alternate test 

procedure with its petition, in which it 

proposed to ‘‘run the energyconsumption test with the anti-sweat 

heater switch in the ‘off’ position and 

then, because the test chamber is not 

humidity-controlled, to add to that 

result the kilowatt hours per day 

derived by calculating the energy used 

when the anti-sweat heater is in the ‘on’

position.’’ (GE Petition, page 4.) 

According to GE, the objective of this 

approach is to simulate the average 

energy used by the adaptive anti-sweat 

heaters 4 as activated in typical 

consumer households across the United 

States. (Id.) To determine the conditions 

in a typical consumer household, DOE 

understands that GE compiled historical 

data for the monthly average outdoor 

temperature and humidity for the top 50 

metropolitan areas of the U.S. over 

approximately the last 30 years. Then, 

GE used the average exterior monthly 

temperature and humidity values to 

determine in-home conditions. In 

addition, GE included in the test 

procedure a ‘‘system-loss factor’’ to 

calculate system losses attributed to 

operating anti-sweat heaters, controls, 

and related components. This factor 

includes the additional energy required 

to operate the anti-sweat heater controls 

and related components, and the 

additional energy required to increase 

compressor run time to remove heat 

introduced into the refrigerator-freezer 

compartments by the anti-sweat heater. 

This ‘‘System-loss Factor,’’ based on 

GE’s historical experience, is 1.3. 

AHAM (a trade organization 

representing the manufacturers of 

refrigerator-freezers) supported DOE 

granting GE’s petition and also 

supported GE’s alternate test procedure. 

AHAM commented that there might be 

a need for a different heat load 

multiplier for other types of internal 

heaters that might be the subject of 

future petitions. (AHAM, No. 1 at page 

1) 

Consultations With Other Agencies 

DOE consulted with the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) staff concerning the 

GE Petition for waiver. The FTC staff 

did not have any objections to granting 

a waiver to GE. 

Conclusion 

After careful consideration of all the 

material that was submitted by GE, the 

comment received, the review by the 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, and consultation with the 

FTC staff, it is ordered that: 

(1) The ‘‘Petition for Waiver’’

submitted by the General Electric 

Company (Case No. RF–007) is hereby 

granted as set forth in the paragraphs 

below. 

(2) GE shall not be required to test or 

rate the following GE models, which 

have GE’s new humidity sensor and 

adaptive anti-sweat heater technology, 

on the basis of the current test 

procedures contained in 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, appendix A1, but shall 

be required to test and rate such 

products according to the alternate test 

procedure as set forth in paragraph (3) 

below: PGCS1NJW, PGCS1NFW, 

PGSS5NJW, PGSS5NFW, PGCF1NJW, 

PGCF1NFW, PGSF5NJW, PGSF5NFW, 

PFIC1NFW and PFIC1NFX: 

(3) GE shall be required to test the 

products listed in paragraph (2) above 

according to the test procedures for 

electric refrigerator-freezers prescribed 

by DOE at 10 CFR part 430, appendix 

A1, except that, for the GE products 

listed in paragraph (2) only: 

(A) The following definition is added at the 

end of Section 1: 

1.13 ‘‘Variable anti-sweat heater control’’

means an anti-sweat heater where power 

supplied to the device is determined by an 

operating condition variable(s) and/or 

ambient condition variable(s). 

(B) Section 2.2 is revised to read as follows: 

2.2 Operational conditions. The electric 

refrigerator or electric refrigerator-freezer 

shall be installed and its operating conditions 

maintained in accordance with HRF–1–1979, 

section 7.2 through section 7.4.3.3. except 

that the vertical ambient temperature 

gradient at locations 10 inches (25.4 cm) out 

from the centers of the two sides of the unit 

being tested is to be maintained during the 

test. Unless shields or baffles obstruct the 

area, the gradient is to be maintained from 2 

inches (5.1 cm) above the floor or supporting 

platform to a height one foot (30.5 cm) above 

the unit under test. Defrost controls are to be 

operative. The anti-sweat heater switch is to 

be ‘‘off’’ during one test and ‘‘on’’ during the 

second test. In the case of an electric 

refrigerator-freezer equipped with variable 

anti-sweat heater control, the ‘‘on’’ test will 

be the result of the calculation described in 

6.2.3. Other exceptions are noted in 2.3, 2.4, 

and 5.1 below. 

(C) New section 6.2.3 is inserted after 

section 6.2.2.2. 

6.2.3 Variable anti-sweat heater control 

test. The energy consumption of an electric 

refrigerator-freezer with a variable anti-sweat 

heater control in the ‘‘on’’ position (Eon), 

expressed in kilowatt-hours per day, shall be 

calculated equivalent to: 

EON = E + (Correction Factor) 

where E is determined by 6.2.1.1, 6.2.1.2, 

6.2.2.1, or 6.2.2.2, whichever is 

appropriate, with the anti-sweat heater 

switch in the ‘‘off’’ position. 

Correction Factor = (Anti-sweat Heater Power 

× System-loss Factor) × (24 hrs/1 day) × 

(1 kW/1000 W) 

Where: 

Anti-sweat Heater Power 

= A1 * (Heater Watts at 5%RH) 

+ A2 * (Heater Watts at 15%RH) 

+ A3 * (Heater Watts at 25%RH) 

+ A4 * (Heater Watts at 35%RH) 

+ A5 * (Heater Watts at 45%RH) 

+ A6 * (Heater Watts at 55%RH) 

+ A7 * (Heater Watts at 65%RH) 

+ A8 * (Heater Watts at 75%RH) 

+ A9 * (Heater Watts at 85%RH) 

+ A10 * (Heater Watts at 95%RH) 

where A1–A10 are from the following table: 

A1 = 0.034 

A2 = 0.211 

A3 = 0.204 

A4 = 0.166 

A5 = 0.126 

A6 = 0.119 

A7 = 0.069 

A8 = 0.047 

A9 = 0.008 

A10 = 0.015 

Heater Watts at a specific relative humidity 

= the nominal watts used by all heaters 

at that specific relative humidity, 72 °F 

ambient, and DOE reference 

temperatures of fresh food (FF) average 

temperature of 45 °F and freezer (FZ) 

average temperature of 5 °F. 

System-loss Factor = 1.3 

(4) Representations. GE may make 

representations about the energy use of 

its adaptive control anti-sweat heater 

refrigerator-freezer products, for 

compliance, marketing, or other 

purposes, only to the extent that such 

products have been tested in accordance 

with the provisions outlined above, and 

such representations fairly disclose the 

results of such testing. 

(5) This waiver shall remain in effect 

from the date this Decision and Order is 

issued until DOE prescribes final test 

procedures appropriate to the above 

model series manufactured by GE. 

(6) This waiver is conditioned upon 

the presumed validity of statements, 

representations, and documentary 

materials provided by the petitioner. 

This waiver may be revoked or modified 

at any time upon a determination that 

the factual basis underlying the Petition 

for Waiver is incorrect, or DOE 

determines that the results from the 

alternate test procedure are 

unrepresentative of the basic models’

true energy consumption characteristics. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 19, 

2008. 

Alexander A. Karsner, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. E8–3686 Filed 2–26–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

AND LG ELECTRONICS, USA, INC. 

This Agreement is made and is effective as of November 14,2008, by and between the 

United States Department of Energy ("DOE") and LG Electronics, USA, Inc. on behalf of itself 

and any parent, subsidiary, division or other related entity ("LG") in resolution of matters arising 

from DOE concerns regarding the administration of testing procedures for measuring energy 

consumption levels (in kilowatt hours ("kWh") per year) reported for purposes of certification 

with the ENERGY STAR program and compliance with the energy conservation requirements 

set out in the Code of Federal Regulations in 10 C.F.R. Part 430 ("Part 430"). The signatories to 

this Agreement are collectively referred to as the "Parties." 

The Parties wish to completely, comprehensively and finally compromise, resolve, and 

settle all disputes, disagreements, claims, counterclaims, or other causes of action, that, for the 

LG refrigerator-freezers equipped with French Doors and through-the-door ice service set forth 

below (hereafter referred to as "the Affected Models"), relate to LG's certification with all 

applicable ENERGY STAR criteria within DOE's jurisdiction and DOE's responsibilities with 

respect to testing procedures, energy efficiency standards, labeling, and disclosure of information 

with respect to the use of the ENERGY STAR mark by LG on the Affected Models and the 

Affected Models' compliance with the DOE energy conservation requirements. 

Recitals 

WHEREAS DOE, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 6294a, jointly manages with the 

Environmental Protection Agency the operation of the ENERGY STAR program, whose purpose 

is to "identify and promote energy-efficient products and buildings in order to reduce energy 

consumption, improve energy security, and reduce pollution" by means that include the creation 

of uniform, national labeling standards to assist the American public in choosing the most energy 

efficient products and practices, thereby saving money and protecting the environment; 

WHEREAS the goals of the ENERGY STAR program are accomplished in relevant part 

by the identification of those products, including refrigerator-freezers, that have been certified as 

satisfying certain uniform, national criteria beyond the minimum energy conservation 

requirements set out by DOE in Part 430; 

WHEREAS DOE, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 6291, et seq., is responsible for the 

promulgation and enforcement of the energy conservation requirements set forth in Part 430 and 

the management of the ENERGY STAR program with respect to refrigerator-freezers; 

WHEREAS the testing and labeling standards that DOE promulgated. and is responsible 

for enforcing, "supersede[ ] any state regulation" related to the testing of energy consumption or 

the disclosure of information with respect to energy use or efficiency (42 U.S.C. § 6297(a»; 
WHEREAS Part 430 incorporates by reference the operational testing conditions of an 

industry standard created by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers -- Standard 

HRF-I-1979 ("HRF-l") -- which are applicable to compliance testing for refrigerator-freezers; 

WHEREAS HRF-l specifies the required operational conditions of the ice maker and 

related components of refrigerator-freezers during testing; 

WHEREAS the energy conservation requirements also require a manufacturer to affix an 

Energy Guide label depicting the estimated annual energy usage of a refrigerator-freezer based 

on results from the relevant test procedure from Part 430; 

WHEREAS certification to the ENERGY STAR program for refrigerator-freezers 

currently requires a manufacturer to use the same procedures as those prescribed in Part 430; 

WHEREAS LG manufactures and distributes a wide variety of consumer products, such 

as the Affected Models, and has claimed compliance with Part 430 and certification to the 

ENERGY STAR criteria; 

WHEREAS a disagreement arose between DOE and LG concerning whether LG's 

application of an aspect of the governing test procedure, as set forth in HRF-l for refrigeratorfreezers, resulted in the under-reporting of energy consumption data by LG when certifying 

compliance with the energy conservation requirements for the Affected Models, estimating the 

annual energy usage data on the required Energy Guide label for the Affected Models, and 

certifying to the ENERGY STAR criteria for the Affected Models; 

WHEREAS LG recognizes this application of an aspect of the governing test procedure 

has raised concerns with DOE as to whether the testing for these Affected Models, and possibly 

other similarly situated products from other manufacturers, satisfy the ENERGY STAR criteria 

and the applicable energy conservation requirements; 

WHEREAS DOE intends to issue a public statement regarding the proper 

implementation of the test procedure for refrigerator-freezers; 

WHEREAS DOE does not dispute that LG's interpretation of the governing aspect of the 

test procedure in question was made in good faith and reflected a common approach to the 

interpretation of that aspect, DOE, as the agency charged with developing and administering a 

balanced and coordinated national energy policy, concludes that, in light of the circumstances 

and given no finding of any violation, this Agreement properly balances the policies recognized 

in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act and is the appropriate way to resolve this matter; 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual agreements 

hereinafter contained and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and adequacy of 

which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 

2 
LG Electronics, USA, Inc. 

I) LG will immediately withdraw voluntarily, on a temporary basis, from the 

ENERGY STAR program the Affected Models, which are identified by the following 

model number series: LFX25950, LFX25960, LFX25971, LFX23961, LFX21960ST, 

LFX21971ST, LFX21980ST, LFX25980ST, LMX21981ST, and LMX25981 ST. 

Additionally, this same action will apply to any and all similar or derivative models made 

for any LG Original Equipment Manufacturer customers whose products are sold in the 

United States. 

2) With respect to the ENERGY STAR program, LG will: (a) alert retailers and 

Original Equipment Manufacturers supplied by LG of this Agreement and promptly 

provide DOE with copies of all such written communications; and (b) remove all 

ENERGY STAR logos from Affected Models and LG communication materials 

pertaining to the Affected Models, including the LG website, printed materials, retailer 

price tags, Energy Guide labels, and other point-of-sale materials pertaining to the 

Affected Models. 

3) LG will validate through third-party testing, in conjunction with DOE, product 

modifications that shall yield improved energy efficiency in the Affected Models and 

shall be confirmed using testing procedures consistent with DOE's interpretation of the 

operating conditions specified in HRF-l, which require that the ice making system of the 

refrigerator-freezer be disabled for purposes of making ice but that all other system 

components remain on during testing with the exception of the fill tube and ice ejection 

heaters, which may remain off for the purposes of testing under this Agreement subject to 

further notice by DOE. Additionally, the ice storage bin must be kept at a temperature 

that will prevent the ice from melting. If the bin has a consumer-adjustable setting for 

multiple ice storage temperatures, it must be set at the lowest temperature setting. 

4) The validation by third party testing (along with the necessary accompanying 

approval by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL» shall be completed by no later than 

November 14, 2008. 

5) After validation by third-party testing as specified in Item No.4 above, LG will 

promptly otfer retailers and consumers who have purchased Affected Models the 

opportunity to have Affected Models modified, at no cost to them, to incorporate the 

modifications in Item No.3 above, and provide DOE with copies of representative 

samples of its communications with retailers and consumers related to these 

modifications. (This requirement shall not apply to floor units of the Affected Models 

carrying the LG brand name at retailers, as long as such units are labeled "Floor Unit Not 

For Sale" and have their currently affixed Energy Guide labels removed prior to their 

modification. LG shall also direct retailers having floor units of Affected Models 

carrying the label of an Original Equipment Manufacturer ("OEM") brand name rather 

than the LG brand name to, by no later than November 21, 2008, label such units as 

"Floor Unit Not For Sale" and have their currently affixed Energy Guide labels removed 

prior to their modification.) 

3 
6) By no later than November 14,2008, LG will also halt shipments of Affected 

Models to retailers until units of Affected Models in LG warehouses are modified, with 

the modifications to begin not later than November 14,2008. This action shall be 

announced in coordination with DOE by LG no later than November 14,2008. 

7) Also at such time, LG will work with its retail partners and OEM customers to 

modify units in their warehouses (free of charge) in accordance with the modifications 

described above to ensure that these units are modified as required by Item No.3 above 

prior to their sale to consumers. 

8) Also at such time, LG will offer consumers a credit reflecting past incremental 

energy usage related to this matter, measured pursuant to the methodology set forth in 

Appendix A hereto. 

9) Also at such time, LG will offer consumers an annual credit that shall reflect the 

future energy consumption difference occurring during the average useful life (which is 

defined as fourteen (14) years from the date of purchase by the consumer) of such 

Affected Models, measured pursuant to the methodology set forth in Appendix B hereto. 

10) The energy credits described above shall be in the form of a check from LG to 

each purchaser of an Affected Model, with the first checks expected to be issued by 

December 19,2008, and subsequent checks to be issued annually to consumers on the 

anniversary date of the issuance of the first check to cover the remaining years of useful 

life of the Affected Model, in full satisfaction of these credits. In the case of any 

purchasers of the Affected Models for whom LG does not have or is unable to secure 

sufficient contact information for purposes of issuing the first check called for hereunder, 

LG shall provide a means for those purchasers to readily contact the company to provide 

that information. Such means shall include, but not be limited to, mail-in registration, a 

toll-free telephone hotline, and on-line registration through the LG website. 

II) The modifications and credits provided for in this Agreement are in lieu of and 

preclude any other civil penalties and/or remedies by DOE with respect to the Affected 

Models and, in the view of the Parties, strike a fair and equitable balance between LG and 

the purchasers of the Affected Models. LG will use its best efforts to produce ENERGY 

STAR-rated versions of the Affected Models by January 2009. 

12) Until such time when all items described above are complete, LG will provide 

DOE with a quarterly update status report for two years beginning on December I, 2008, 

detailing the progress being made with respect to Item No.1 0 above as well as all other 

Items listed above. Annual status reports will be provided to DOE thereafter. DOE will 

maintain cxclusive jurisdiction over this Agreement until LG has performed all its 

obligations under the Agreement. 

13) Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as an admission of fact, liability, 

obligation, position, or right as to any matter by LG. 

4 
Department of Energy 

14) In consideration of the above, DOE will permit all other LG products that are 

currently certified to the ENERGY STAR criteria to continue to participate in the 

ENERGY STAR probrram, subject to their satisfaction of the applicable criteria. 

15) DOE agrees that LG's satisfaction of the obligations of this Agreement resolves 

all issues between LG and DOE concerning the Affected Models covered by this 

Agreement. 

16) This Agreement is entered into pursuant to DOE's authority to interpret and 

enforce its rules for energy efficiency and to enter into its own agreements interpreting 

and applying those rules and the requirements ofthe ENERGY STAR program. 

17) General Provisions. 

a) This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and shall be binding upon, 

the Paliies hereto, their heirs, executors, administrators, and successors. Any 

rights and obligations hereunder shall not be assignable by any of the parties 

hereto. 

b) This Agreement, the appendices hereto, constitute the entire agreement 

among the Parties with respect to the transactions contemplated herein and 

supersede all previous negotiations, commitments, and writings. The recitals are 

incorporated into this Agreement by this reference and form a part of this 

Agreement. 

c) The headings in this Agreement are for convenience only, and shall not 

limit or otherwise affect any ofthe terms hereof. 

d) The Agreement shall be governed by and construed and enforced in 

accordance with Federal law, including 42 U.S.C. § 6297(a). 

c) The parties acknowledge at they have entered into this Agreement 

voluntarily and in good faith after receiving proper counsel and authorization as to 

al1 aspects thereot: 

t) Any provision of this Agreement that is held, after the date of the 

execution of this Agreement. to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable by a court or 

agency of competent jurisdiction shall be fully severable. In place of any severed 

provision, the parties agree to substitute a legal, valid, and enforceable provision 

that is as similar as possible to the severed provision. 

g) This Agreement and the appendices hereto may be executed in one or 

more counterparts that, taken together, shall constitute the whole agreement, and 

there may be duplicate originals of this Agreement. 

5 
h) Notices and all other correspondence related to the obligations listed in 

this Agreement shall be delivered to the following individuals: 

For DOE: 

For LG: 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency 

OffIce of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

United States Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue~ SW 

Washington, DC 20585 

Vice President 

Government Relations & Communications 

LG Electronics, USA, Inc. 

1776 K Street, NW 

Washington. DC 20006 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, tbis Agreement has been duly executed by the Parties hereto 

as of the date first written above. 

Date: 10 Lflc 8 ----~--~/~~---------------

6 

By: --~~~~~~----------------

Jo 

Date: __ ~~-I-f~lL-. ______ _ 
APPENDIXB 

Methodology for Calculating Future Incremental Energy Usage 

The value of these annual credits shall reflect the measured future incremental energy 

usage over and above the energy usage amount stated on the Energy Guide label (e.g., 547 kWh 

per year) affixed to each Affected Model prior to modification. In calculating the value of this 

credit, LG will detennine the difference between the measured energy usage of the modified 

Affected Model and the energy usage reflected on the Energy Guide label on the Affected 

Models prior to modification. The energy usage for the modified Affected Model shall be 

measured in accordance with the procedure described in Item No.3. 

8 
Application of 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix A-1

After reviewing manufacturer information regarding the testing of certain models of refrigeratorfreezers with bottom-mounted freezers and through-the-door ice and water service, the 

Department of Energy ("DOE" or "the Department") has become aware that some manufacturers 

may not have accounted for certain energy usage required by the current DOE test procedure for 

refrigerator-freezers found at 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix A-1 ("Appendix A-1"). 

Accordingly, DOE is providing the following statement to remind manufacturers of their 

obligations under that procedure. 

Appendix A-1 sets forth the Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of 

Electric Refrigerators and Electric Refrigerator-Freezers. Section 2.2 of Appendix A-1 requires 

that the operational conditions detailed in sections 7.2 through 7.4.3.3 of the Association of 

Home Appliance Manufacturers Standard HRF-1-1979 (“HRF-1”) be satisfied during testing. 

HRF-1 specifies that “the cabinet [refrigerator-freezer] with its refrigerating mechanism is to be 

assembled and set up as nearly as practicable in accordance with the printed instructions supplied 

with the cabinet.” HRF-1-1979, sec. 7.4.2. 

HRF-1 further specifies that “automatic ice makers are to be inoperative during the test” (i.e. “ice 

maker exclusion”) and that “other temperature controllable compartments . . . are considered 

special compartments and are [to be] tested with controls set to provide the coldest temperature.” 

Id. It defines an “automatic ice maker” as “[a] device, connected to a water supply, which 

automatically produces, harvests, and stores ice in a storage bin, with means to automatically 

interrupt the harvesting operation when the bin is filled to a predetermined amount.” Id. at sec. 

3.5. Special compartments are compartments “designed for maintaining special environmental 

conditions for a particular type of product or purpose.” Id. at sec. 3.18. An ice storage bin, 

defined as “a container in which ice can be stored,” is one such type of special compartment. Id. 

at sec. 3.18.5. 

A refrigerator-freezer equipped with an automatic ice maker must be tested in a manner that 

satisfies the above conditions. DOE recently emphasized this fact in a recent ENERGY STARrelated agreement with one manufacturer and stressed, among other things, that an ice storage 

bin must be maintained at a temperature to prevent the ice from melting during testing. The 

Department notes that energy consuming components that interact with the ice making system 

but are not involved in the production, harvesting, or storage of ice -- examples of which include, 

but are not necessarily limited to, heaters that prevent condensation or that help to properly 

dispense ice from the ice storage bin -- are not considered part of the automatic ice maker. 

Accordingly, the energy consumed by these components is included in calculating a product's 

reported total energy usage. 
 

	


	   

		

	
 
	






	!
" 
	#$
#%
"	 "
"
&		'
()


*
+,

 	 
 	 
 	  

   
	 
  		 
	


		
 
  	  
 	
 
	   

!	 	" # $%# &
 # '(

)# -.)  
	   *
 
	  

+!
	#		 #	 $%&
 '	,

, 	-   
	#

	
 
  
 
#


	
 		 
  	  	 
 - . /

0, "  

#

1

	 
  

  
#


#	

"	#	- 
  		 
  
	 #
 
#


	
 		 
  	  	 
 - (


  " 	- 	  
	 
   (

	  
  " 	 


 	 *	  - " 
  
/	 

 *
 	
(

0%	 

0
 1223% "

 
 
 	
 
 
	" 
  4 
"




 
#  
  4 5
 
 
# 	
  
	  

  
 
(  	  "
#-
 	
  

#


 
#+


 	(

  	

	  

  
6 






  !(

0
   	#   	#-%	 	   7 
 	

	

	
  
	  # 
 	 
#


 
  !(
 
#
	
 
 !	 
	  
#
	 -#7#	 
 "




 
	  	 


 


	 
 


  
  
	


    	 	(	 "	  
	   829 
  
/	 


#

 
 
 	 # 
 
	(0 	   
 

 


 	  	  
  	  +!
	#	 #

(	 	


 	
  	 	
 
 
#
	
(

 		 
  

 
  	  	 -
 	 
  
- 
 
%




	 	  
 :- 122; 	- 			 
#

 
	 


	
 
	+
6	 !	  (

0
  122;%    
#

 "	 
 	
 
	 



+
6	 
  

   *
	 
  	
 32< 

8=2%- )%
7+3(

>	 
#%4 5: 		 
 

 	
 
 #122?%






 

!

"
#


$

$%%&&&'(


(

()%%
*%

%

*

"
(

 
	  	
 	   32<  8=2%- )%
7+3 


   
+
6 * 
  !(

		



 
+
6 * 
  ! 	 - 	 
  32<

 8=2%- )%
7+3
  

  		
	  
 


	 
 	,

3(  +!
	#		 - 	- 
  		 
 !
%-

1(   	#	 

	 
"" 
  
	 
 	 
 / 
	


  7
 
  
 - 
  @
 	% #
 /22.

=( 
#%  	 -
 	 - !      "
   



.

8( 
  -
 	  
	+@	- 	

   	 	% 	 -

	    	  	
(


  - 
	
 	 

 
  	 
  
	  - 		 


 
7 

   
#


#
	(

2	#	
	#	3 
	
	#
3


 >6"%>(((


 
	 



3:-	"#	(%)
A$

: %:
(B3 28


,&3=??1+$8'8

<7, &3=?88+&=&$

+

,CC(

((C
	

>
 >
#


 
 :



3:-	"#	(%)
A3

: %: B3 28 



,&3=??1+=?22

<7, &3=?8'+$1;&

+

,CC(

((C
	
1

Brunk, Debra

From: Rick Morrison [Rick.Morrison@csa-international.org]

Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 8:49 AM

To: Brunk, Debra

Subject: RE: CSA C300-08

Attachments: RM001EN.DOC; image001.jpg

Hi Debra, 

The answers to your questions are as follows: 

1. C300-08 is harmonized with the 2007 version of HRF-1-2007. 

2. The new CSA INFORMs is consistent with HRF-1-2007 and our C300-08. I feel that the DOE and NRCan 

interpretations are consistent with our INFORMs. However, confusion arises with the DOE and NRCan 

interpretations around the language with what heaters “may” be off. I have attached the final INFORMs (it will not 

change from this version) which I suggest you have DOE review and comment. Our INFORMs does address all 

anti-circumvention wording in both C300-08 and AHAM HRF-1-2007 – please make DOE aware of this. Most 

importantly, our INFORMs will provide the public (ENERGYGUIDE label) with the best possible representation of 

how much energy their refrigerator/freezer would consume in the home. Finally, our INFORMs leaves no room 

for “loopholes” for refrigerator/freezer manufactures that ultimately both DOE and NRCan were striving to achieve 

with their interpretations. 

3. Using our INFORMs for testing and DOE interpretation would produce the same number if the tester understands 

that when the ice bin is full harvesting is over and all harvesting heaters that were allowed to be off must be 

included if they are still on after harvesting is over. 

4. Yes, you may have someone from Navigant talk with me. However, I will be away until the week of August 17th. 

Regards, 

Rick 

Tel: 416-747-4090 

From: Brunk, Debra [mailto:DBrunk@AHAM.org] 

Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 10:13 AM 

To: Rick Morrison 

Subject: CSA C300-08

Hello Rick,

I have a few questions for you on the CSA Informs and CSA C300‐08.

First, we are trying to figure out if the CSA‐C300‐08 standard is harmonized with AHAM HRF‐1‐2007, or if it is

closer to the 2004 or 1979 version of HRF‐1.  The big different in HRF‐1‐2007 was the addition of some anti‐

circumvention language.  Do you know what version of HRF‐1 CSA C300‐08 is closest to or harmonized with?

Second, is the new CSA Informs consistent with the DOE interpretation?  I know we discussed this, but I have

forgotten.  I know it’s not consistent with the DOE‐LG agreement and I know that you switched the language

around so the ice maker is ON, instead of OFF.  Would somebody doing the test measure different energy use
2

if they were using the DOE interpretation vs. your Informs?  We have a meeting with DOE next week, and

need to understand if there are any subtle differences in the interpretations.

Finally, we have asked Navigant Consulting, a contractor to DOE, to compare the differences in the DOE,

NRCan and CSA International interpretations to the R‐F test procedure.  This provides us with the view of

another independent party – one who is close to DOE.  If needed, would you be willing to talk with someone

from Navigant Consulting about your Informs?

Many thanks for your help.  Hope you have a great vacation!

Best regards, 

Debra 

Debra K. Brunk, Ph.D. 

Vice President, Technical Services 

1111 19th Street NW, Suite 402, Washington, DC 20036 

t 202.872.5955 ext314 f 202.872.9354 e dbrunk@aham.org

www.aham.org

STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY:  The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are

intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering the

e‐mail to the intended recipient, be advised you have received this message in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,

printing, or copying is strictly prohibited. Please notify The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers at (202) 872‐5955 or

unsubscribe@aham.org, and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.  

 This message is intended only for the use of the person or organization to which it is addressed, and may 

contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the 

reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or responsible for delivering the message to the intended 

recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is 

strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by 

email and delete the original message immediately. The sender, its subsidiaries and affiliates, do not accept 

liability for any errors, omissions, corruption or virus in the contents of this message or any attachments that 

arise as a result of e-mail transmission. Thank you. 
1

Brunk, Debra

From: Brunk, Debra

Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 12:01 PM

To: McGuire, Joseph; Samuels, Chuck

Cc: Messner, Kevin

Subject: Navigant's comments on CSA R-F interpretation

Attachments: image001.jpg

All –  

I just got off the phone with Detlef Westphalen (Navigant).  He briefly looked through the materials that we

sent him on the R‐F language and CSA Informs.

He said that his first impression was that the CSA Informs is consistent with the DOE clarification regarding the

ice maker/heater language.  He noted a couple of other inconsistencies though, which we have not discussed:

1. Volume calculation – HRF‐1‐2007 includes the hump and recess of through the door ice makers in the

calculation of volume.  This results in a higher adjusted volume, which effectively raises the calculated

maximum energy consumption value.  This is not consistent with the law (HRF‐1‐1979).

2. Anti‐sweat switch calculation – There is a discrepancy in the calculation of annual energy use and

annual energy cost of anti‐sweat switches.  Section 23 of 10 CFR says that the annual energy cost

should be an average of the energy with the switch on and with the switch off, while the annual energy

use should be with the switch on.  Manufacturers are reporting the average of on/off for both the

energy use and the energy cost.  While this appears to be an error in the CFR, Detlef noted that this is

an inconsistency with the 1979 test procedure.

As we suspected, he expressed surprise that the industry was doing more work on the anti‐circumvention

language.  I explained to him that our members felt the DOE clarification was not as clear as it could have been

and that the CSA approach seems to be more understandable.  I noted the specific components that raised

confusion.  He explicitly stated (as we have heard before), that the LG/DOE agreement is separate and distinct

from the DOE clarification issued at the beginning of this year.

He is willing to spend more time on comparing the test procedures,  and also suggested having David Yasher

look at the language, but said that he/they will need to be asked by  DOE to do an “official” comparison.  

Best regards, 

Debra 

Debra K. Brunk, Ph.D. 

Vice President, Technical Services 

1111 19th Street NW, Suite 402, Washington, DC 20036 

t 202.872.5955 ext314 f 202.872.9354 e dbrunk@aham.org

www.aham.org
OFFICIAL VOTE NEEDED 

Reply Requested 

Date: July 30, 2009 

To: Refrigerator-Freezer DOE Task Force 

Major Appliance Division Government Relations Council (Refrigerator-Freezer 

Companies) 

From: Joe McGuire 

Debra Brunk 

Return by: August 3, 2009 

Return to: Jessica Bibins (jbibins@aham.org) 

Fax number: 202-872-9354 

Ballot subject: Voluntary AHAM Refrigerator-Freezer Third Party Testing Program and 

Procedure 

As a follow-up to the meeting held at AHAM on July 15, 2009, staff is seeking task force 

approval of the test procedure to be employed by AHAM for a third party testing program to 

commence sometime in 2010. The program and related test procedure would revolve around 

interpretations and clarifications of AHAM HRF-1-2007. 

The point of the program and the interpretational approach to AHAM HRF-1-2007 is to deal 

primarily with anti-circumvention. The task force unanimously agreed in May to support a third 

party testing program. Since that time, we have had extreme difficulty generating a consensus 

on test procedure interpretation language and an approach dealing with circumvention. 

Compounding this problem is the task force’s position that this subject must be resolved prior to 

negotiating efficiency standards with the environmental advocates. 

The window for resolving the efficiency standards issue and negotiating an agreement in the 

Senate Energy bill is limited. We must begin negotiations no later than early September, 

assuming we can reach consensus among member companies on the key issues. AHRI and 

NEMA already are well ahead in similar negotiations for their products. Based on the short 

timetable and the lack of progress in obtaining consensus on the test procedure, staff is putting 

forward a proposal for an approach to a third party test procedure that does not require AHAM 

to resolve all substantive interpretational issues before the program commences. 

While the task force will continue to influence the test procedure DOE is developing for the 2014 

efficiency standard, the task force goal is to put a program in place now that assures the public, 

DOE, and the industry that compliance and proper labeling issues are a priority, even in the 

short run. While this approach will not guarantee that there are no future disagreements about 

the proper interpretation of the test procedure, there will be a path forward for quickly resolving 

disputes through a credible, authoritative source. 

We are suggesting that the program use as a basis for interpretation and challenge resolution 

the test procedure interpretation used by CSA International. CSA International’s interpretation 
of the test procedure was presented to the task force by Rick Morrison during the July 15 

meeting. However, members should be aware that CSA undoubtedly will revise and send out 

additional guidance over time. In staff’s view, basing the third party testing program on the CSA 

“Informs” or similar CSA guidance and interpretations will provide greater value and clarity to the 

industry. CSA has considerable expertise in refrigerator-freezer testing using the DOE and 

NRCAN test procedures. They also communicate regularly with most companies in the industry 

and therefore have current knowledge on technical and product design nuances. Relying on the 

CSA approach to the test method also provides the AHAM program with the flexibility to adapt 

to future changes in product testing. 

Manufacturers, of course, are free to decide whether to join this program and may interpret for 

themselves and deal with regulators and others directly on federal test procedure issues. It is 

recognized that the approach suggested here may require some firms to arguably ”overstate” 

label energy consumption for some models beyond what they might rationalize under the 

existing DOE test procedure. However, voluntary participants in this program will play an 

important role in providing assurance to the public in reported energy usage through a 

transparent, relatively speedy process, before the 2014 standard goes into effect. 

We are issuing this ballot at this time because AHAM will meet with DOE Assistant Secretary for 

Energy Efficiency Catherine Zoi on August 5th. At this meeting we would like to assure her that 

our industry is taking steps to deal effectively with concerns about refrigerator-freezer energy 

ratings. We would ask her to evaluate our proposed third party testing program for the purpose 

of publicly acknowledging and supporting it as useful to DOE’s compliance and enforcement 

efforts. 

Enclosed with this ballot is the latest CSA Informs document describing their interpretation of 

the refrigerator-freezer test procedure. Some interpretations will begin immediately and some 

will go into effect in December 2009. We are proposing that the AHAM testing program 

becomes fully operational in June 2010. This implementation date allows potential program 

participants to become familiar with the CSA test procedure during the six month prior to the 

program start date. 

CSA and NRCAN employ a refrigerator-freezer test procedure based on AHAM’s HRF-1-2007. 

For the reasons stated above, and if we receive DOE and Canadian support, we do not see this 

as imposing insurmountable legal or operational difficulties. Please complete the enclosed 

ballot and return to AHAM by close of business, August 3rd. 

If you have any questions, please contact Debra Brunk, Chuck Samuels or Joe McGuire. 

p 2 

Ballot AHAM Refrigerator Freezer Third Party Test Procedure | July 30, 2009 
p 3 

Ballot AHAM Refrigerator Freezer Third Party Test Procedure | July 30, 2009 

Proposal: test procedure interpretation used by CSA International in the testing of refrigeratorfreezers will be used for AHAM’s third party verification program prior to 2014. 

Please check one of the following regarding the proposal:

 YES, my company approves the proposal to accept CSA International’s test procedure 

interpretation for AHAM’s third party certification program 

 NO, my company does not approve the proposal to accept CSA International’s test procedure 

interpretation for AHAM’s third party certification program for the following reasons: 

 My company wishes to abstain 

Comments: 

Name ___________________________________ 

Company 

Phone 
1

Brunk, Debra

From: Brunk, Debra

Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 11:51 AM

To: Andrew Doberstein (Andy.Doberstein@u-line.com); Bill A. Brown (b.brown@ge.com); 

Samuels, Chuck; Charles R. Smith (charlesr.smith@ge.com); Christopher Johnson 

(crjohnson@lge.com); Dae Sig Shin Ph. D. (dss.shin@samsung.com); Dave Donaghy 

(ddonaghy@northlandnka.net); David Hall (david.l.hall@electrolux.com); Brunk, Debra; 

Dennis Schenk (dennis.schenk@electrolux.com); Denny Hansen 

(denny.hansen@electrolux.com); Doug Czerwonka (d.czerwonka@samsung.com); Franz J. 

Bosshard (franz.bosshard@bshg.com); George Hawranko 

(george.e.hawranko@electrolux.com); Greg Hall (ghall@wcwood.com); Jeffrey Wood 

(jeffrey.wood@appl.ge.com); Jim Holland (jholland@northlandnka.net); Joel Van Winkle 

(joel_van_winkle@whirlpool.com); Joon So (joon.so@electrolux.com); Kelley Kline 

(kelley.kline@ge.com); Kenneth N. Whah (kenneth_n_whah@whirlpool.com); Manfred 

Staebler (manfred.staebler@bshg.com); Mark Drake (mdrake@VikingRange.com); Paul 

Surowiec (paul.surowiec@ge.com); Paul V. Sikir (psikir@subzero.com); Richard E. Bollard 

(richard.bollard@fp.co.nz); Richard F. Topping (rtopping@rftopping.com); Scott H. Welham 

(scott.welham@ge.com); Steve Polinski (spolinski@mieleusa.com); Steven C. Church 

(steven_c_church@whirlpool.com); Thomas F. Catania (thomas_f_catania@whirlpool.com); 

Tom R. Thompson (tom.r.thompson@electrolux.com); Tony Ye (bwye@lge.com); Tonya P. 

McCall (tmccall@vikingrange.com); Andrew Sinclair (andrew_sinclair@whirlpool.com); 

Andrew Sullivan (andrew.sullivan@liebherr.com); Ashlee Stroud 

(Ashlee_L_Stroud_Aerotek@Whirlpool.com); Audrey Rohan (arohan@haieramerica.com); 

Bill Crump (bcrump@vikingrange.com); Bob Cunningham (bobc@haierus.com); Samuels, 

Chuck; Christopher Johnson (crjohnson@lge.com); David Hall (david.l.hall@electrolux.com); 

David W. Becker (dbecker@vikingrange.com); Brunk, Debra; Dennis Schenk 

(dennis.schenk@electrolux.com); Derek Dao (ddao@sea.samsung.com); Doug Czerwonka 

(d.czerwonka@samsung.com); Earl F. Jones (earl.f.jones@ge.com); Franz J. Bosshard 

(franz.bosshard@bshg.com); Gordon L. Stauffer (gstauffer@northlandnka.net); Greg Hall 

(ghall@wcwood.com); JB Hoyt (j_b_hoyt@whirlpool.com); Jeffrey S. Armstrong 

(jarmstrong@sea.samsung.com); Jennifer Straszewski (jennifer@u-line.com); Jim Pelkey 

(jpelkey@wolfappliance.com); John Godfrey (john.godfrey@samsung.com); John I. Taylor 

(jtaylor@lge.com); Kelley Kline (kelley.kline@ge.com); Ken Knudson 

(kknudson@subzero.com); Kevin Alexander (kalexander@haieramerica.com); Liston P. 

Durden (ldurden@vikingrange.com); Luke M. Harms (luke_m_harms@whirlpool.com); Lynn 

H. Thomson (lynn.thomson@ge.com); Manfred Staebler (manfred.staebler@bshg.com); 

Michael Moss (mikem@sea.samsung.com); Mike Kubiak (mkubiak@vikingrange.com); 

Raveendran Vaidhyanathan (ravee.v@samsung.com); Richard E. Bollard 

(richard.bollard@fp.co.nz); Richard F. Topping (rtopping@rftopping.com); Sarah H. Bovim 

(sarah_h_bovim@whirlpool.com); Sean Mackay (sean_mackay@whirlpool.com); Shariff Kan 

(skan@haieramerica.com); Steve Polinski (spolinski@mieleusa.com); Suzanne Kelley 

(suzanne.kelley@corporate.ge.com); Thomas F. Catania (thomas_f_catania@whirlpool.com)

Cc: AHAM Staff

Subject: AHAM: Status Update on Refrigerator-Freezer Third Party Certification Program

Attachments: image001.jpg

To:       Refrigerator‐Freezer DOE Task Force

            Major Appliance Division Government Relations Council (Refrigerator‐Freezer)

Re:       Status Update on Refrigerator‐Freezer Third Party Certification Program

On July 30, AHAM sent a ballot to Refrigerator‐Freezer DOE task force members regarding the Voluntary

AHAM Refrigerator‐Freezer Third Party Testing Program and Procedure.  Members were asked to approve the

use of CSA International’s interpretations to the refrigerator‐freezer test procedure, as issued, as a basis for

AHAM’s third party verification program prior to 2014. 
2

A majority of members voted to accept the proposal. 

The next step is to obtain DOE’s support for this approach and agreement on use of the CSA interpretation. 

We will ask them to have their technical consultants review it. Our meeting with DOE Assistant Secretary for 

Energy Efficiency, Catherine Zoi, has been postponed to August 20. Discussion of third party testing is 

expected to take up a substantial part of the agenda. 

Assuming we can obtain support from the DOE, our next task will be to issue Request for Proposals (RFPs) to 

potential third party laboratories. 

We recognize that many of you may be working on your 2010 budgets. AHAM will distribute third party testing 

cost estimates, based on the laboratory proposals we received in 2006, to enable you to budget for this 

program. 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best regards, 

Debra 

Debra K. Brunk, Ph.D. 

Vice President, Technical Services 

1111 19th Street NW, Suite 402, Washington, DC 20036 

t 202.872.5955 ext314 f 202.872.9354 e dbrunk@aham.org

www.aham.org

STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY:  The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are

intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering the

e‐mail to the intended recipient, be advised you have received this message in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,

printing, or copying is strictly prohibited. Please notify The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers at (202) 872‐5955 or

unsubscribe@aham.org, and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.  
Page 1 of 9 

The following document is a preliminary 

AHAM Refrigerator-Frezer Certification Procedural Guide. 

 

Final details and cost structure of the program have not yet 

been decided 

DRAFT August 26, 2009 
Page 2 of 9 

Role of AHAM 

A. Licenses U.S. manufacturers and private-brand sellers to certify energy 

consumption for refrigerators and refrigerator/freezers sold in the United States. 

B. Licenses foreign manufacturers and importers to certify energy consumption 

for refrigerators and refrigerator/freezers sold in the United States. 

C. Provides administrative staffing for the Program. 

D. Provides an electronic version of the certification seal to companies licensed 

in the Program. 

E. Monitors release and use of seals. 

F. Collects certification fees quarterly from Licensees for purposes of funding 

the Program. 

H. Monitors: 

(1) Program participation 

(2) Verification testing 

(2) All re-ratings 

 (4) All challenges 

I. Informs key stakeholders, including Licensees as well as representatives for 

CSA, NRCan, CEC, DOE, and DOE E-Star Program of the following: 

(1) All re-ratings. 

(2) Exclusion of any Manufacturer from the Program. 

Role of Third Party (Verification Laboratory/Program Administrator)

A. Serve as Verification Laboratory performing testing for verification purposes and 

for challenges in accordance with ANSI/AHAM HRF-1 (latest version), with 

accepted interpretations. 

B. Arrange for acquisition of random test samples. 

C For each program unit under verification, obtain CAD files and volume 

calculation details for evaluation. 

Issuance of verification test reports (and notices of non-compliance should testing 

indicate re-rating necessary). 
Page 3 of 9 

F. Determination of revised rating to be certified in case of mandatory (either as result 

of regular Program testing or challenge procedure) or voluntary re-rating. 

G. Disposition of all test samples. 

Role of Manufacturer 

A. Certifies the energy consumption on all models sold in the United States 

B. Affixes certification seal to each unit produced under the Program. 

C. Submits model data and volume calculation information to the Laboratory under 

contract to AHAM for models within the Program. 

D. Furnishes test specimens at no cost to Program and pays all shipping costs to 

and from the Laboratory. 

E. May challenge certified ratings of other Licensees on basis of full and proper test 

of a sample unit or review of an algorithm by a mediation board as described in 

the section titled “initiation of challenge”. 

-Forwards challenge with supporting test data to the laboratory (with copy to 

AHAM) after mediation board determines merit of challenge. 

F. Re-rates certified ratings in accordance with Program procedures. 

(1) Voluntary re-ratings. 

(i) May voluntarily re-rate on basis of quality control 

(2) Mandatory re-ratings. 

(i) Accepts revised rating(s) determined by the Laboratory. 

(ii) Notification of re-rating must be sent to the first line of 

 distribution, all literature must be revised at its next printing 

Comment [db1]: Need to determine scope and 

language 
Page 4 of 9 

H. Confirms all Communications in Writing - All communications must be 

confirmed in writing (e-mail or letter) to be considered official. Neither AHAM 

nor the Laboratory will assume any liability for the actions take which are not 

confirmed in writing. 

Program Funding 

All cost for testing will be assumed by the individual manufacturer. Payments for actual 

tests are made directly to the Laboratory. 

A separate Fee for maintaining the program complete with all administrative 

requirements is paid to AHAM on a quarterly basis. Payment of fees is determined by 

Major Appliance Engineering Council. 

To Enter the Program 

To Enter the Program - A licensee enters the Program by completing and submitting to 

AHAM a signed license agreement stating that the company submits to the articles of the 

agreement as detailed in this document, by joining the CSA EEV program, and by paying 

the appropriate fees. 

Certification Seal 

At the time and place of manufacture, a certification seal bearing the words, "AHAM 

Certified energy rating” may be affixed to each refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer under the 

Program. 

A. Graphic Elements CD containing the certification seal artwork and 

reproduction requirements (size and color, for example) is provided at no 

additional charge to each Licensee whose certification payments to the 

Program are current. Licensees may elect to either have the seal embedded 

directly in the nameplate or may elect to have labels made that can be 

affixed directly onto the nameplate. All label specifications must be in 

accordance with the AHAM Graphic Standards CD. 

B. Licensees may not sell, lend, transfer, or otherwise dispose of the actual 

certification seals in any manner other than by affixing them to licensee's 

production of certified products. 

Verification Process for Certified models & Quantity Sampled 

Model verification includes two parts: 

Comment [db2]: TBD 

Comment [db3]: 

Comment [db4R3]: Needs further discussion. 

What will be requirements? 
Page 5 of 9 

Part 1: Six (6) basic refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer and freezer model, or 10% of basic 

models, will be randomly selected each year for verification testing, whichever is less. 

Models may be from any product class. The Laboratory is responsible for developing a 

random selection protocol. 

Example A: If a Licensee has 20 basic models distributed through all 

refrigerator-freezer product classes, the Laboratory will randomly select any two 

(2) basic models for verification testing (20 * 0.1 = 2, which is less than 6). 

Example B: If a Licensee has 100 basic models distributed through all 

refrigerator-freezer product classes, six (6) basic models will be randomly 

selected by the Laboratory for verification testing (6 is less than 100*0.1 = 10). 

Part 2: To supplement the random verification testing, the AHAM Refrigerator-Freezer 

Council will determine one product class or energy platform for targeted verification each 

year. The Council will evaluate annual shipments, annual Energy Star shipments and 

other crieteria [to be set by the Council] to determine the focus for this part of the 

verification program. One product that fits the requirements selected by the Council will 

be randomly selected the the Laboratory and included in the verification testing. 

If a Licensee does not manufacture the product selected for focused verification efforts, 

the Licensee is exempt from this testing for that year. 

Test Procedure 

The following test procedures will be used to evaluate the test samples: 

1. Latest version of 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix A; 

2. Latest CSA Informs published by CSA International, which provides the most 

current interpretation to the CSA C300 (2008), which is harmonized with 

ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2007. 

Acquisition and Shipping of Test Samples 

The Laboratory randomly selects units either from manufacturer's and distributors' stocks 

or from the open market. Units selected for the certification program shall be provided 

by the participants on a consignment basis if at all possible and shipped to the Laboratory 

on a PREPAID freight basis. 

Samples may be purchased by the Laboratory on the open market where stock is not 

available from manufacturers, or at the request of the Manufacturer. However, costs for 

open market purchase must be paid for by the Manufacturer. The third party laboratory 

must first check with the manufacturer to ensure that the least burdensome method is 

followed. 

If a second or subsequent unit must be tested, the Manufacturer will assume all costs 

incident to the selection, testing and handling of such units. Again, the Manufacturer 

must be contacted to determine the least burdensome method of obtaining samples. 
Page 6 of 9 

The Laboratory will invoice Manufacturer directly in accordance with the current fee 

schedule in the Service Contract between the Laboratory and AHAM. 

Disposal of Test Samples 

As provided in the license agreement, the Laboratory must be notified by the 

Manufacturer of the method selected for disposal of tested products. All tested units will 

be returned to the Manufacturer unless an optional method is requested by Manufacturer 

which the Laboratory is able to honor. If the Manufacturer has special instruction for 

disposal of their unit, they must notify the Laboratory in writing within 30 business days 

following receipt of the test report. All costs associated with the optional method of 

disposal shall be borne by the Manufacturer. 

Finding of Compliance 

When the results of verification tests indicate that the certified energy ratings are within 

the allowable tolerance as specified in this Guide, verification is automatically 

established for the model tested and any derivatives thereof. The certified ratings are 

verified and a copy of the test report is forwarded to the participant. Finding of NonCompliance – General 

The energy consumption declared on the label of any production unit shall be not more 

than 105% of its claimed rating. If the results of the first sample verification test are 

greater than 5% of the stated energy rating, then the Manufacturer is immediately notified 

by the Laboratory of the failure. The Manufacturer has four options: 

1) Request that more products be tested in accordance with the tolerance section 

stated below. 

2) Revise their rating. 

3) Add the necessary components to ensure that the product conforms with the 

standard. 

4) Withdraw its product from the market. 

The manufacturer has 90 business days to come into compliance after testing is complete 

and a failure is recorded. [The interim steps between the 90 days will need to be 

defined.] If the product needs to be re-rated, it must come into compliance with the 

testing value during the audit. If the manufacturer is going to add components then the 

testing will need to be reconfirmed by the Laboratory. 

If the deviation from the rated value is not sufficiently addressed the Manufacturer will 

have the AHAM label removed from their product and the appropriate stakeholders will 

be notified of the failure and the lack of response. 

Additional Testing due to Failure 

If more products are tested the sample size shall be at least four products and no more 

than eight products. The third party shall determine the average of the products. A 

Comment [db5]: TBD
Page 7 of 9 

standard deviation shall also be determined and the standard error computed. The upper 

and lower control limits shall be determined by subtracting the standard error from the 

Energy Consumption Standard for the lower control limit and adding the standard error to 

the Energy Consumption Standard for the Upper control limit. See CFR 10 part 430, 

subpart F, App. B for the necessary formulas. 

Compare the mean with the upper and lower control limits. If the mean of the first 

sample is above the upper control limit, then the basic model is out of compliance and 

testing is complete. 

If the mean of the sample is equal to or less than the lower control limit, then the basic 

model is in compliance and testing is at an end. 

If the mean of the sample is equal to or less than the upper control limit but greater than 

the lower control limit then no determination of compliance can be made and a second 

sample is required. All testing must be completed in thirty days. 

Initiating a Challenge 

Any manufacturer in the program has the right to challenge a certified energy 

consumption rating. 

The challenge for energy consumption must be resolved through testing at the 

Verification Laboratory. 

To initiate a challenge to an algorithm, the challenge shall first be presented to a 

mediation board set up by AHAM to verify the legitimacy of the claim and to assist in 

interpreting the HRF-1 circumvention language. The mediation board will consist of 

members of AHAM, manufacturers, a representative from NIST, and a member of the 

third party responsible for the testing. The member from AHAM will be a nonvoting 

member and they will be responsible for running the meeting. The members from NIST 

and the third party will be present for the discussion but will be nonvoting members. All 

AHAM-member program participants will be eligible for participation as voting 

members. It is necessary to obtain at least a 2/3 approval to proceed with a formal 

challenge on an algorithm. The additional steps that need to take place to complete the 

challenge to an algorithm, including recommended testing, shall be determined by the 

mediation board . 

If an algorithm is in question, the board will rule on the legitimacy of the algorithm. If 

the board determines that the algorithm is contrary to test procedure and the challenged 

party denies that that algorithm presented accurately describes their algorithm, then 

testing will take place to verify the algorithm. The board will determine what testing is 

required to reveal the accuracy of the algorithm. If the challenged party agrees that their 

algorithm has been adequately represented, then no testing will be required. 

Comment [db6]: TB further discussed. 

Comment [db7]: Working on approach and 

language 
Page 8 of 9 

Challenge Testing 

Challenge testing will be performed to the latest AHAM HRF-1 test procedure that 

includes interpretive anti-circumvention language. If the first sample fails or displays an 

algorithm determined to be contrary to the test procedure, the challenged party will be 

immediately notified of the failure. The challenged party has four options: 

1) Request that more products be tested. 

2) Revise their rating on the basis of a single test. 

3) Add the necessary components to ensure that the product conforms with the 

standard. 

4) Withdraw its product from the market. 

If more products are tested the sample size shall be at least four products and no more 

than eight products. The third party shall determine the average of the products. The 

products will be selected in the same manner random manner by the third party as 

utilized for the auditing program. A standard deviation shall also be determined and the 

standard error computed. The upper and lower control limits shall be determined by 

subtracting the standard error from the Energy Consumption Standard for the lower 

control limit and adding the standard error to the Energy Consumption Standard for the 

Upper control limit. See CFR 10 part 430, subpart F, App. B for the necessary formulas. 

Compare the mean with the upper and lower control limits. If the mean of the first 

sample is above the upper control limit, then the basic model is out of compliance and 

testing is complete. 

If the mean of the sample is equal to or less than the lower control limit, then the basic 

model is in compliance and testing is at an end. 

If the mean of the sample is equal to or less than the upper control limit but greater than 

the lower control limit then no determination of compliance can be made and a second 

sample is required. All testing must be completed in thirty days. 

The manufacturer has 90 business days to come into compliance to a failure after testing 

is complete. If the product needs to be re-rated, it must come into compliance with the 

testing value during the audit. If the manufacturer is going to add components then the 

testing will need to be reconfirmed by the third party. 

If the products are found to be out of compliance then challenged party again has the 

option to re-rate, add necessary components, or withdraw the product from the market. 

Results of this testing will be shared with appropriate stakeholders, including the DOE, 

CEC, AHAM members and NRCan. 
Page 9 of 9 

Cost of Challenging Testing 

The challenger will assume the cost of all testing including the purchase, shipping and 

disposal of all test samples if the challenge is not upheld. If the challenge is upheld, then 

the cost will be assumed by the challenged party. A challenger will only permitted three 

unsuccessful challenges in one calendar year. 

Notification of Revised rating 

If the challenged party chooses to revise their rating their product they will be give 90 

business days to complete the task and report to the new rating to AHAM. The third 

party will test the product to verify the new rating. All testing will be done at the expense 

of the challenged party. The challenged party will also be responsible for re-certifying 

their product will all outside agencies as required by law. 

If an algorithm is found to be contrary to the test procedure and the faulty algorithm is 

present on any other models, the challenged party will need to change over all models 

with that algorithm. 
Review of 10 CFR Part 431: Energy Efficiency Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Efficiency Certificatio

Enforcement Requirements for Commercial Heating, Air Conditioning and Water Heating Equipment; Proposed Rule

Comparison of DOE Voluntary Independent Certification Program requirements and Proposed AHAM Refrigerator‐Freezer 

DOE Proposal AHAM Program

“The VICP publishes in written form the procedures for the operation

of the certification program, and permits all manufacturers of products

covered by the program to participate so long as they comply with

requirements concerning operation of the program.”

AHAM publishes a Procedural Guide for all of its 

certification programs. The refrigerator‐freezer 

under development and uses a similar format a

procedural guides for our room air conditioner, 

air cleaner programs.

An AHAM certification programs will be open to 

manufacturers. There are no requirements for 

members, although non‐member certification p

since AHAM member dues cover certification p

“To participate in the VICP, a manufacturer would be precluded from

distributing any basic models or equipment covered by the program

unless it had reported to the VICP the energy efficiency or usage, as

applicable, of that basic model, based on measurement of the basic

model’s performance.”

This is a requirement of all AHAM programs. AH

use on the product. Typically the Seal is embos

nameplate, but there are other options. Additio

AHAM refrigerator‐freezer program need to be 

“The VICP publishes or otherwise makes available to the general public

and to the Department, these efficiency ratings.”

AHAM publishes an online directory for all curre

programs – the same will be done for a refriger

The online directory is updated real‐time. In ad

directories are made available twice a year, by r

“The VICP conducts periodic verification testing on listed equipment,

such that the performance of each basic model is checked and

compared to its rated efficiency value at least once every five years.”

Members have determined that a realistic verif

requirement is 6 basic models per year or 10% o

whichever is less, randomly selected. As units w

randomly across all refrigerator‐freezer product 

incentive for Licensees to maintain their stated 

basic models allow a wide range of products to 

the program prohibitively expensive. Larger ma

product on the market will have more products 

manufacturers.

AHAM R‐F Certification Program Page 1 
DOE Proposal AHAM Program

“The VICP testing personnel select units for verification testing

randomly from manufacturer’s stock.”

AHAM’s procedural guide requires that units be 

AHAM will work with the third party laboratory 

random selection process is used and can be ve

“The VICP conducts its verification testing at an independent

laboratory, or under the supervision of independent personnel, in

accordance with the prescribed DOE test procedures.”

AHAM will contract with a third party laborator

verification testing. Potential laboratories are U

International – Toronto. RFPs are expected to b

have DOE support. Laboratories will be audited 

with and understanding of the refrigerator‐free

well as their maintenance of quality and docum

“The VICP verification testing meets industry standards for the

accuracy of testing and of rating results for the equipment being

tested, and the program satisfactorily describes how it meets these

standards.”

AHAM will work with the selected third party la

members to ensure measure and audit the lab’s 

equipment performance and calibration.

“The VICP has an appropriate standard for determining whether the

efficiency rating a manufacturer claims for a product is valid.”

The AHAM Procedural Guide defines a toleranc

reported energy use value.

“The VICP provides to the manufacturer copies of all records of

completed verification testing performed on the manufacturer’s

covered equipment.”

All AHAM certification programs require that Lic

verification program test reports. The refrigera

will have the same requirements.

“The VICP requires that, if a basic model fails verification testing

conducted by the VICP, the manufacturer of the basic model must

remove it from production and sale if the verification testing results

show it is not in compliance with EPCA efficiency standards, or

correctly re‐rate it if it complies with such standards. The program

must also provide that a participating manufacturer will be expelled

from the VICP if it does not comply with such requirements, and thatthe VICP will report to the Department verification test results that

find the performance of a basic model not to meet EPCA efficiency

standards.”

The AHAM program provides the following proc

must follow if a model fails verification testing:

“The Manufacturer has four options:

1. Request that more products be tes

the tolerance section stated below.

2. Revise their rating.3. Add the necessary components to e

conforms to the standard.

4. Withdraw its product from the mar

The manufacturer has 90 business days to c

after testing is complete and a failure is rec

“The VICP provides for penalties or other incentives to encouragemanufacturers to report accurate and reliable efficiency ratings.”

If a basic model fails verification testing, the Lic

significant additional expense, either in the form 

(see item 1 above), or rating revisions that requ

marketing and other expense.

AHAM R‐F Certification Program Page 2 
AHAM R‐F Certification Program Page 3 

DOE Proposal AHAM Program

“The VICP provides to the Department on an annual basis, summary

data that shows the results of verification testing on each basic model,

including the manufacturer’s energy efficiency or use rating for the

model, the measured energy efficiency or use from the verification

testing, and either the energy conservation standard for the tested

basic model or a description of the model sufficient to enable the

Department to determine the standard that applies to the basic

model.”

AHAM does not currently supply this informatio

room air conditioner and dehumidifier program

be happy to do so.

AHAM will supply this information to the DOE f

refrigerator‐freezer third party testing program