### 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.ListoficemakercomponentsandAHAMcomparisonofLGsettlment,DOEinterpretation,NRCaninterpretationandCSAInformsUpdated:8/27/2009LGSettlement DOEClarification NRCanCSAInformsComponent Role Function PublishedNovember14,2008PublishedJanuary14,2009PublishedMay2009 PublishedAugust24,2009AllAllEnergyStar All1 Filltube Production Primary Noenergyuse Noenergyuse Noenergyuse Noenergyuse2 Watervalve Production Primary Off Off Off Off3 Icemold Production Primary Noenergyuse Noenergyuse Noenergyuse Noenergyuse4 Adiabaticwatertank Production Primary Noenergyuse Noenergyuse Noenergyuse Noenergyuse5 Filltubeheater Production Secondary Off On* Off On6 Thermostat Harvesting Primary Noenergyuse Noenergyuse Noenergyuse Noenergyuse7 Moldheatingcoil Harvesting Primary Off Off Off On‐NotOperational8 Electricmotor Harvesting Primary Off‐NotOperational Off‐NotOperational Off‐NotOperational On‐NotOperational9 Ejectorblade Harvesting Primary Off Off Off On‐NotOperational10 Shut‐offarm Harvesting Primary Off Off Off On‐NotOperational11 IceStoragebin Storage PrimaryTemperaturetokeepicefrommeltingTemperaturetokeepicefrommeltingTemperaturetokeepicefrommeltingNormaloperatingtemperatureforstoringandproperlymaintainingice‐UnitsaffectedStatusduringenergytestmeltingfrommeltingfrommeltingproperlymaintainingice‐cannotbeshiftedtowarmertemperatureduringtesting12StoragebinwithconsumeradjustablesettingStorage Primary Coldestsetting Coldestsetting Coldestsetting Coldestsetting13 Coolingfan Storage Primary On On On On14 Icechutecap Transport Secondary Noenergyuse Noenergyuse Noenergyuse Noenergyuse15 Icechute Transport Secondary Noenergyuse Noenergyuse Noenergyuse Noenergyuse16 Icechuteflap Transport Secondary Noenergyuse Noenergyuse Noenergyuse Noenergyuse17 Icedispensersumpheater Transport Secondary On OnOnOn*ThereisdisagreementbetweenourmembersonwhethertheDOEclarificationactuallyrequiresthefilltubeheatertobeon.Notes:ABCFunctiondescribeswhetherthecomponentisdirectlyrelatedtotheproduction,harvestingordeliveryofice(primary),orifthefeatureisusedtomaketheprimarycomponentworkbetter(secondary)StatusduringtestdescribesAHAM'sinterpretationofthecomponentsactivityduringtheenergytest.Roledescribeswhatthecomponentdoesintheicemakingprocess‐production,harvestingordeliveryVisit 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 Proce dures 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 EFFICIE NCY - Refrigerators and Freezers

Who is affected?

Manufacturers of household refrigerators,

refrigerator-freez ers, 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. Pl ease 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 produc ts equipped with an automatic icemaker is as

follows:

A refrigerator, refrigerator-freez er, 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 wit h a full bin of ice. For example, the icemaker ice

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

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

an ice storage bin with consumer-adj ustable temperature control setti ngs, must be set to the lowest

temperature setting for all test conditions.

The procedures above meet the requi rements 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, refr igerator-freezers, free zers and wine chillers

equipped with an automatic icemak er. 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, har vesting is over and all energy, including standby power, must be

included in the measur ed energy consumption.

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

Variable Anti-Sweat Heater Test Procedures :

The test procedure and calculation method for refrigerators, refrig erator-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 calculat ed 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 operat e 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 t hat 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 sha ll continue to be tested and adjusted per the

calculations provide for in this standard.

5. Heaters used to prevent internal or external mo isture 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 man ner during the energy test at both temperature

control settings as they would in a typical room (household conditions). Fo r 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. Furthe r, door heaters at the

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

the anti-sweating performance that occurs at ot her temperature contro l 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 st oring and properly maintaining

ice.

3. Heaters used to prevent internal or external mo isture 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 re frigerator operation with any ice storage

compartment maintained at the te mperature used for storing and pr operly 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 “Vacati on Mode” condition is not permitted).

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

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

the ice compartment tem perature cannot be shifted to a warme r temperature than used during

normal ice storage.

### 6.

8.

The implementation date for t he “Intent of Procedures” m andatory 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 algori thm solely for the purpose of the energy test.

Energy used by ice ejection heaters shall be incl uded in calculating the pr oduct's reported total

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

from the ice mold duri ng an ice harvest cycle.

7. Once an ice-bin-full condition is met, harve sting 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 component s shall not be linked to the

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

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


1 Consistent 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)) 2 Part 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


4 Anti-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 (E

on ),

expressed in kilowatt-hours per day, shall be

calculated equivalent to:

E ON = 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** 


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:

2LG 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.)

36) 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.

4Department 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.

5h) 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 inform ation regarding the te sting of certain models of refrigeratorfreezers with bottom-mounted freezers and th rough-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, S ubpart B, Appendix A-1 ("Appendix A-1").

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

obligations under that procedure.

Appendix A-1 sets forth the Uniform Test Meth od 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 thr ough 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-fre ezer] 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 “automa tic ice makers are to be inopera tive during the test” (i.e. “ice

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

special compartments and are [to be] tested with c ontrols 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 bi n is filled to a predetermined amount.” Id . at sec.

3.5. Special compartments are compartments “d esigned 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 em phasized this fact in a recent ENERGY STARrelated agreement with one manufacturer and st ressed, among other things, that an ice storage

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

Department notes that energy consuming componen ts that interact with the ice making system

but are not involved in the producti on, harvesting, or storage of i ce -- examples of which include,

but are not necessarily li mited to, heaters that prevent conde nsation 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 co mponents is included in calculating a product's

reported total energy usage.

###      



###                

                

      

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

)    *      + ,

                                                   

                                                     

    !    

"    #   $ 

%  #   &    #

  '

(

) #   - .

)                        *                       

 

+   !  #     #

  $ 

% &   '     ,

 ,  -                #                     #

                                    -    . / 

0 ,    "     #  1                  #     #     

   "    #  -                            #          #

                                    -   

(

       "       -                                    

(

          "           *       -      "           /      

    *       

(

0 %    

0 1 2 2 3

%    "                    "          4   "      

          # 

        4  5            #                

               

(            "      #   -                    #  

          #

+         

(

                             6        

         

    

! 

( 0           #            #  -  

%    

          7               

            #               #        !      

(

###       #            !             #       - #   7    #           "  

           

                                  

                  

(      "                8 2 9            /   

    #                 #

           

( 0 

                   

       

        

     

+   !  #           # 

(           

                           #      

(        

                  -          -      

%      

                 :   -   1 2 2 ;      -         #             

              

+    6       !           

(

0     1 2 2 ;

%                      #     

      "                    

        

+    6                     *                    3 2  <    

8 = 2

%   -    )

%      7 

+ 3 

(

>       #

% 4  5 :                  # 1 2 2 ?

%                 

          

        

 !  "  #      

  $

 $ % % & & & '

( 

(  

 

(   ) %          %        

*         %        

%          

*   "  

(  

                       3 2  <     8 = 2

%   -    )

%      7 

+ 3                  

+    6    *                 !  

(

         

         

+    6    *                 !     -              3 2  < 

   8 = 2

%   -    )

%      7 

+ 3                         ,

3

(   

+   !  #   -    -         

      !   

% - 

1

(       #         "   "                     /       

  7          -       @       

%    #     / 2 2 .

=

(        #

%         -   -  !                    "       

    .

8

(  -        

+   @   -                            

%   - 

                

(

      -                                  -        

  7             #     #       

(

2  #     #  3         #    3

    >    6  "

% >

( 

(  

(               

3 : -   "    #   

( % )     A $

:  

% :

( B 3  2  8

   ,  & 3 =  ? ? 1

+ $ 8 ' 8

<  7 ,  & 3 =  ? 8 8

+ & = & $



+   

 , C C   

(   

(  

(  

C        >      >       #

            :   

3 : -   "    #   

( % )     A 3

:  

% :  B 3  2  8     

   ,  & 3 =  ? ? 1

+ = ? 2 2

<  7 ,  & 3 =  ? 8 '

+ $ 1 ; &



+   

 , C C   

(   

(  

(  

C       1 

### Brunk, Debra

From: Rick Morrison [Rick.Morris on@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-1-2 007 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 l anguage with what heaters “may” be off. I hav e attached the final INFORMs (it will not

change from this version) which I suggest you have DO E 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 (ENERGYG UIDE label) with the best possible representation of

how much energy their refrigerator/freezer would consum e 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 wo uld produce the same number if the tester understands

that when the ice bin is full harvesting is over and all ha rvesting 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 17 th

.

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 use2 

### 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 organizati on to which it is addressed, and may

contain information that is privileg ed, confidential and exempt from disc losure under applicab le 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 rece ived this communication in error, pl ease 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, corr uption or virus in the contents of th is 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 fo rce 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 interpretationof 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, ba sing 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 regul arly 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 be yond 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 5 th . 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 3 rd

.

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, 2009p 3

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

Phone1 

### 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 (c harlesr.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 Czerw onka (d.czerwonka@samsung.com); Franz J.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(richard.bollard@fp.co.nz); Richard F. Toppi ng (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_cat ania@whirlpool.com);

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

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

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

(Ashlee_L_Stroud_Aerotek@Whirlpool.com); A udrey Rohan (arohan@haieramerica.com);

Bill Crump (bcrump@vikingrange.com); Bob C unningham (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 D ao (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. Stau ffer (gstauffer@northlandnka.net); Greg Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(sarah_h_bovim@whirlpool.com); Sean Mackay (s ean_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-Fr eezer 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 approac h and agreement on use of the CSA interpretation.

We will ask them to have their technical consultants revi ew 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 Cert ification Procedural Guide.

Final details and cost structu re of the program have not yet

been decided

DRAFT August 26, 2009Page 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 perf orming 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 verifi cation, 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 othe r 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 de termines 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

languagePage 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 th e 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 colo r, 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, transf er, 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. Th e Laboratory is responsible for developing a

random selection protocol.

Example A: If a Licensee has 20 ba sic 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 Licens ee 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 sh ipments, 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 th e requirements selected by the Council will

be randomly selected the the Laboratory a nd 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 C 300 (2008), which is harmonized with

ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2007.

Acquisition and Shippi ng 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 th e 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 test ed, the Manufacturer will assume all costs

incident to the selection, testing and handl ing 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 repor t is forwarded to the participant. Finding of NonCompliance – General

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

than 105% of its claimed rating. If the resu lts 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 re confirmed by the Laboratory.

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

have the AHAM label removed from their produc t 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]: TBDPage 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 Uppe r 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 th e legitimacy of the claim and to assist in

interpreting the HRF-1 circumvention langua ge. 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 st eps 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

languagePage 8 of 9 Challenge Testing

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

includes interpretive anti-circumve ntion language. If the first sa mple 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 part y 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 ma nner 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 stan dard 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 comp liance 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 thei r rating their product they will be give 90

business days to complete the task and repo rt 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 pa rty will need to change over all models

with that algorithm.Reviewof10CFRPart431:EnergyEfficiencyProgramforCommercialandIndustrialEquipment:EfficiencyCertification,Compliance,andEnforcementRequirementsforCommercialHeating,AirConditioningandWaterHeatingEquipment;ProposedRuleComparisonofDOEVoluntaryIndependentCertificationProgramrequirementsandProposedAHAMRefrigerator‐FreezerVerificationProgramDOEProposalAHAMProgram“TheVICPpublishesinwrittenformtheproceduresfortheoperationofthecertificationprogram,andpermitsallmanufacturersofproductscoveredbytheprogramtoparticipatesolongastheycomplywithrequirementsconcerningoperationoftheprogram.”AHAMpublishesaProceduralGuideforallofitsthirdpartycertificationprograms.Therefrigerator‐freezerproceduralguideisunderdevelopmentandusesasimilarformatandrequirementsastheproceduralguidesforourroomairconditioner,dehumidifierandroomaircleanerprograms.AnAHAMcertificationprogramswillbeopentoallrefrigerator‐freezermanufacturers.TherearenorequirementsforLicenseestobeAHAMmembers,althoughnon‐membercertificationprogramfeesarehigher,sinceAHAMmemberduescovercertificationprogramoverheadcosts.“ToparticipateintheVICP,amanufacturerwouldbeprecludedfromdistributinganybasicmodelsorequipmentcoveredbytheprogramunlessithadreportedtotheVICPtheenergyefficiencyorusage,asapplicable,ofthatbasicmodel,basedonmeasurementofthebasicmodel’sperformance.”ThisisarequirementofallAHAMprograms.AHAMdesignsaSealforuseontheproduct.TypicallytheSealisembossedontothenameplate,butthereareotheroptions.AdditionaloptionsforanAHAMrefrigerator‐freezerprogramneedtobediscussed.“TheVICPpublishesorotherwisemakesavailabletothegeneralpublicandtotheDepartment,theseefficiencyratings.”AHAMpublishesanonlinedirectoryforallcurrentcertificationprograms–thesamewillbedoneforarefrigerator‐freezerprogram.Theonlinedirectoryisupdatedreal‐time.Inaddition,printeddirectoriesaremadeavailabletwiceayear,byrequest.“TheVICPconductsperiodicverificationtestingonlistedequipment,suchthattheperformanceofeachbasicmodelischeckedandcomparedtoitsratedefficiencyvalueatleastonceeveryfiveyears.”Membershavedeterminedthatarealisticverificationtestingrequirementis6basicmodelsperyearor10%orbasicmodels,whicheverisless,randomlyselected.Asunitswillbeselectedrandomlyacrossallrefrigerator‐freezerproductclasses,thereisincentiveforLicenseestomaintaintheirstatedenergyratings.Sixbasicmodelsallowawiderangeofproductstotest,withoutmakingtheprogramprohibitivelyexpensive.Largermanufacturerswithmoreproductonthemarketwillhavemoreproductsverifiedthansmallermanufacturers.AHAMR‐FCertificationProgramPage1August27,2009DOEProposalAHAMProgram“TheVICPtestingpersonnelselectunitsforverificationtestingrandomlyfrommanufacturer’sstock.”AHAM’sproceduralguiderequiresthatunitsbeselectedrandomly.AHAMwillworkwiththethirdpartylaboratorytoensurethatarandomselectionprocessisusedandcanbeverified.“TheVICPconductsitsverificationtestingatanindependentlaboratory,orunderthesupervisionofindependentpersonnel,inaccordancewiththeprescribedDOEtestprocedures.”AHAMwillcontractwithathirdpartylaboratorytocompleteverificationtesting.PotentiallaboratoriesareUL,IntertekandCSAInternational–Toronto.RFPsareexpectedtobedistributedoncewehaveDOEsupport.Laboratorieswillbeauditedontheiralignmentwithandunderstandingoftherefrigerator‐freezertestprocedure,aswellastheirmaintenanceofqualityanddocumentationSOPs.“TheVICPverificationtestingmeetsindustrystandardsfortheaccuracyoftestingandofratingresultsfortheequipmentbeingtested,andtheprogramsatisfactorilydescribeshowitmeetsthesestandards.”AHAMwillworkwiththeselectedthirdpartylaboratoryandourmemberstoensuremeasureandauditthelab’stestingaccuracyandequipmentperformanceandcalibration.“TheVICPhasanappropriatestandardfordeterminingwhethertheefficiencyratingamanufacturerclaimsforaproductisvalid.”TheAHAMProceduralGuidedefinesatoleranceof+5%onthereportedenergyusevalue.“TheVICPprovidestothemanufacturercopiesofallrecordsofcompletedverificationtestingperformedonthemanufacturer’scoveredequipment.”AllAHAMcertificationprogramsrequirethatLicenseesreceivetheverificationprogramtestreports.Therefrigerator‐freezerprogramwillhavethesamerequirements.“TheVICPrequiresthat,ifabasicmodelfailsverificationtestingconductedbytheVICP,themanufacturerofthebasicmodelmustremoveitfromproductionandsaleiftheverificationtestingresultsshowitisnotincompliancewithEPCAefficiencystandards,orcorrectlyre‐rateitifitcomplieswithsuchstandards.TheprogrammustalsoprovidethataparticipatingmanufacturerwillbeexpelledfromtheVICPifitdoesnotcomplywithsuchrequirements,andthattheVICPwillreporttotheDepartmentverificationtestresultsthatfindtheperformanceofabasicmodelnottomeetEPCAefficiencystandards.”TheAHAMprogramprovidesthefollowingprocesswhichaLicenseemustfollowifamodelfailsverificationtesting:“TheManufacturerhasfouroptions:1.Requestthatmoreproductsbetestedinaccordancewiththetolerancesectionstatedbelow.2.Revisetheirrating.3.Addthenecessarycomponentstoensurethattheproductconformstothestandard.4.Withdrawitsproductfromthemarket.Themanufacturerhas90businessdaystocomeintocomplianceaftertestingiscompleteandafailureisrecorded.”“TheVICPprovidesforpenaltiesorotherincentivestoencouragemanufacturerstoreportaccurateandreliableefficiencyratings.”Ifabasicmodelfailsverificationtesting,theLicenseewillbesubjecttosignificantadditionalexpense,eitherintheformofadditionaltesting(seeitem1above),orratingrevisionsthatrequiresignificantmarketingandotherexpense.AHAMR‐FCertificationProgramPage2August27,2009AHAMR‐FCertificationProgramPage3August27,2009DOEProposalAHAMProgram“TheVICPprovidestotheDepartmentonanannualbasis,summarydatathatshowstheresultsofverificationtestingoneachbasicmodel,includingthemanufacturer’senergyefficiencyoruseratingforthemodel,themeasuredenergyefficiencyorusefromtheverificationtesting,andeithertheenergyconservationstandardforthetestedbasicmodeloradescriptionofthemodelsufficienttoenabletheDepartmenttodeterminethestandardthatappliestothebasicmodel.”AHAMdoesnotcurrentlysupplythisinformationtotheDOEfortheroomairconditioneranddehumidifierprograms;however,wewouldbehappytodoso.AHAMwillsupplythisinformationtotheDOEfortheproposedrefrigerator‐freezerthirdpartytestingprogram.