Federal Register I Vol. 55. No. 33 I Friday. February 16. 1990 I Notices 5653

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY·

Office of Conservation and

Renewable Energy

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products; Application for

interim Waiver and Petition for Waiver

of Refrigerator-Freezer Test

Procedures From General Electric

Appliances (RF-006)

AGENCY: Conservation and Renewable

Energy Office, DOE.

SUMMARY: Today's notice publishes a

letter denying an Application for Interim

Waiver from General Electric

Appliances fGE) of Louisville, Kentucky,

requestin8 relief from the existing

Department of Energy (DOE) test

procedure for refrigerator-freezers. DOE

is denying this Interim Waiver because

of conflicting and unsupported

information. In addition, today's notice

publishes GE's "Petition for Waiver,"

GE is a manufacturer of residential

appliances, including refrigeratorfreezers. In both the Application for

Interim Waiver and the Petition for

Waiver. GE requests that the

Department grant relief from the DOE

test procedure relating to testing of its

TFX27FK and TFX24FI< model

refrigerator-freezers. In addition to

providing through-the-door ice service.

these models also provide through-thedoor beverage service by way of a

second refrigerator (fresh food

compartment) door. GE has termed this

feature. the "Refreshment Center." GE

claims that while the TFX27FK and

TFX24FK model refrigerator-freezers are

capable of being tested in accordance

with the DOE refrigerator-freezer test

procedure for energy efficiency. the tpst

procedure does not give a true

representation of the energy

consumption of models with the

Refreshment Center feature. DOE is

soliciting comments, data, and

information respecting the Petition for

Waiver.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data,

and information not later than March 19.

1990.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

statements shall be sent to: Department

of Energy, Office of Conservation and

Renewable Energy, Case No. RF~6,

Mail Stop CE-132, Forrestal Building,

1000 Independence Avenue, SW.•

Washington, DC 20585.

Appendices to the GE Petition for

Waiver not reproduced in this notice are

available by writing to the above

address or telephoning (202) 586-9127.

FOR FURTHER INFORMAnON CONTACT:

Donglass S. Abramson, U.S. Department

of Energy, Office of Conservation and

Renewable Energy, Mail Station CE132, Forrestal Building, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington. DC 20585. (202) 586-9127.

Eugene Margolis, Esq.• U.S. Department

of Energy, Office of General Counsel,

Mail Station GG-l2, Forrestal

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue.

SW. Washington. DC 20585, (202) 586-

9507.

Background

The Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products (oLh.er than

automobiles) was established pursuant

to the Energy Policy and Conservation

Act EPCA), (Pub. L. 94-163), as amended

by the National Energy Conservation

Policy Act (NECPA). (Pub. L. 95-619), the

National Appliance Energy

Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA),

(Pub. L, 100(12), and the National

Appliance Energy Conservation

Amendments of 1988 (NAECA 1988),

Pub. L. 1~7) 1 The Act requires DOE

to prescribe standardized test

procedures to measure the energy

consumption of certain consumer

products, including refrigerator-freezers.

The intent of the test procedures is to

provide a comparable measure of energy

consumption that will assist consumers

J Part B of1'ille mofEPCA. as amended. is

refetTed to in this notice 8S the "Act." Part B of Title

1lI is codified at 42 U.s.c. 8291~.

Case No. RF-006 COMMENT 01

Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 33 I Friday. February 16, 1990 I Notices 5653 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY · 

Office of Conservation and 

Renewable Energy 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products; Application for 

interim Waiver and Petition for Waiver 

of Refrigerator-Freezer Test 

Procedures From General Electric 

Appliances (RF-OOS) 

AGENCY: Conservation and Renewable 

Energy Office, DOE. 

SUMMARY: Today's notice publishes a 

letter denying an Application for Interim 

Waiver from General Electric 

Appliances (GE) of Louisville, Kentucky, 

requesting relief from the existing 

Department of Energy (DOE) test 

procedure for refrigerator-freezers. DOE 

is denying this Interim Waiver because 

of conflicting and unsupported 

information. In addition. today's notice 

publishes GE's "Petition for Waiver." 

GE is a manufacturer of residential 

appliances. including refrigeratorfreezers. In both the Application for 

Interim Waiver and the Petition for 

Waiver, GE requests that the 

Department grant relief from the DOE 

test procedure relating to testing of its 

TFX27FK and TFX24FI< model 

refrigerator-freezers. In addition to 

providing through-the-door ice service, 

these models also provide through-thedoor beverage service by way of a 

second refrigerator (fresh food 

compartment) door. GE has termed this 

feature. the "Refreshment Center." GE 

claims that while the TFX27FK and 

TFX24FK model refrigerator-freezers are 

capable of being tested in accordance 

with the DOE refrigerator-freezer test 

procedure for energy efficiency, the tpst 

procedure does not give a true 

representation of the energy 

consumption of models with the 

Refreshment Center feature. DOE is 

soliciting comments. data. and 

information respecting the Petition for 

Waiver. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data. 

and information not later than March 19. 

1990. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

statements shall be sent to: Department 

of Energy. Office of Conservation and 

Renewable Energy, Case No. RF~6, 

Mail Stop CE-132, Forrestal Building. 

1000 Independence Avenue. SW .• 

Wa~hington. DC 20585. 

Appendices to the GE Petition for 

Waiver not reproduced in this notice are 

available by writing to the above 

address or telephoning (202) 586-9127. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMAnON CONTACT: 

Douglass S. Abramson. U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Conservation and 

Renewable Energy. Mail Station CE132, Forrestal Building, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington. DC 20585. (202) 586-9127. 

Eugene Margolis. Esq .• U.S. Department 

of Energy. Office of General Counsel. 

Mail Station GC-1Z, Forrestal 

Building. 1000 Independence Avenue. 

SW. Washington. DC 20585. (202) 586-

9507. . 

Background 

The Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products (other than 

automobiles) was established pursuant 

to the Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act EPCA). (Pub. L. 94-163). as amended 

by the National Energy Conservation 

Policy Act (NECPA). (Pub. L. 95-619). the 

National Appliance Energy 

Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA). 

(Pub. L. 100(12). and the National 

Appliance Energy Conservation 

Amendments of 1988 (NAECA 1988). 

Pub. L. 100-357) 1 The Act requires DOE 

to prescribe standardized test 

procedures to measure the energy 

consumption of certain consumer 

products. including refrigerator-freezers. 

The intent of the test procedures is to 

provide a comparable measure of energy 

consumption that will assist consumers 

J Part B of Title m ofEPCA. a8 amended. is 

refetTed to in this notice 8S the "Act." Part B of Title 

III is codified at 42 U.s.c. 11291~. 
5654

55FR5653

Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 33 I Friday, February 16, 1990 I Notices

in making purchasing decisions. These

test procedures appear at 10 CFR part

430, subpart B.

DOE amended the prescribed test

procedures on September 26, 1980. by

adding 10 CFR 430.27 creating the

waiver process. 45 FR 64108. DOE

further amended the Department's

appliance test procedure waiver process

to allow the Assistant Secretary for

Conservation and Renewable Energy

(Assistant Secretary) to grant an interim

waiver from test procedure requirements

to manufacturers that have petitioned.

DOE for a waiver of such prescribed test

procedures. 51 FR 42823, November 26,

1986.

The waiver process allows the

Assistant Secretary to waive

temporarily test procedures for a

particular basic model when a petitioner

shows that the basic model contains one

or more design characteristics which

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 as to provide materially

inaccurate comparative data. Waivers

generally remain in effect until final test

procedure amendments become

effective, resolving the problem that is

the subject of a waiver.

The interim waiver provisions, added ~y the 1986 amendment, allow the

.ssistant Secretary to grantan interim

waiver when it is determined that the

applicant will experience economic

hardship if the Application for 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.

GE has requested an Interim Waiver

from the refrigerator-freezer test

procedure for the TFX27FK and

TFX24FK model refrigerator-freezers.

GE, in the Application for Interim

Waiver, requests this relief due to the

implementation of energy conservation

standards for refrigerator-freezers on

January 1, 1990. GE states that the DOE

test procedure overestimates the energy

consumed by refrigerator-freezers with a

Refreshment Center because it does not

provide energy credits for the reduced

door openings obtained with the

Refreshment Center feature. GE further

states that without a waiver it would

have to make additional design

improvements in order to increase the

energy effeciency to meet energy

consumption standards. GE claims that

the r-~t expended to add the additional

des mprovements cannot be

recouped due to the competition in the

market place. Should GE not make these

design improvements or receive an

Interim Waiver, the TFX27FK and

TFX24FK models could not be

manufactured after January 1, 1990,

because they would not comply with the

maximum energy consumption standard

level set for models with through-thedoor ice service. GE claims that the

expense to incorporate the design

improvements or the loss of sales for

these models will cause GE to suffer

economic hardship if the Application is

denied.

GE also claims that it is in the public

interest for an Interim Waiver to be

granted. Without a waiver, GE will

inaccurately represent energy

consumption and cost of operation

information because GE will not be able

to claim the electric energy saving

capabilities of the TFX27FK and

TFX24FK refrigerator/freezers.

DOE has reviewed GE's Application

for Interim Waiver and believes that

while the extant test procedures for

refrigerator-freezers may evaluate the

GE TFX27FK and TFXZ4FK refrigeratorfreezers in a manner unrepresentative of

its true energy consumption, the

Department has insufficient data to

conclude how much, if at all, this feature

would reduce energy consumption. The

Department, in its notice of proposed

rulemaking to amend the refrigeratorfreezer test procedures, identified

through-the-door features as one of a

number of various new designs that may

not be adequately evaluated by the test

procedures. 53 FR 37416, September 26,

1988 (September 1988 proposal). No

information was presented in response

to the September 1988 proposal. The

Department concluded in the final

rulemaking that the potential for energy

savings was directly affected by the

consumer and the usage pattern of the

feature. 54 FR 36238, August 31, 1989.

The test procedure proposed by GE

requires adjusting the unit's measured

energy consumption by an amount

based on GE's survey and field data.

The data provided by GE on total door

openings per day is contradicted by data

the Association of Home Appliance

Manufacturers provided in its comments

on the September proposal.

The Department believes that the use

of a refrigerator-freezer is so random

that limited field test such as GE's do

not support a specific number of door

openings. For this reason, the test

procedure has no requirement for door

openings or food loading in order to

provide a basis for fair comparison of

the representative unit energy'

consumption.

Therefore; GE's Application for an

Interim Waiver, requesting relief from

the DOE test procedures for its TFX27FK

and TFX24FK model refrigeratorfreezers with the Refreshment Center

feature, is denied. This is not a

determination, however, on GE's

Petition for Waiver. which is being

published today for comment.

GE's Petition for Waiver from the

DOE test provisions for refrigeratorfreezers requests an energy credit

because the TFXZ7FK and TFX24FK

model refrigerator-freezers include an

additional throu.sh-the-door feature

called the "Refreshment Center," The

Refreshment Center provides access to

beverages such as milk, soda, or juice in

addition to providing ice and cold water

by way of an additional door in the

refrigerator (fresh food compartment)

door,

GE has tested the TFXZ7FK and

TFX24FK model refrigerator-freezers in

accordance with the existing DOE

refrigerator-freezer test procedure. GE

claims that the test procedure does not

give a true representation of the energy

consumption or annual operating cost

since there is no credit for reduced

(regular refrigerator) door openings. The

existing test procedure is a no-dooropening test which is conducted at goOF

instead of 70°F to compensate for the

many variables, not included in the test

procedure, such as door openings or

food loading. As GE notes. the 90°F nodoor-opening test was prescribed by

DOE in order to obtain repeatable test

results under laboratory conditions that

represent typical consumer results. The

test results represent the unit's

anticipated energy consumption since it

is performed without a load, i.e., without

food or liquid, and with no door

openings during the test.

GE claims that the TFX27FK and

TFXZ4FK model refrigerator-freezers use

less energy than measured by the

existing test procedure because the

Refreshment Center feature reduces the

amount of moist ambient air that is

admitted to the unit during door

openings..

However, GE notes that there is a

small increase in heat transfer through

the Refreshment Center door due to the

additional door seal and reduced door

insulation. GE claims. however. that it is

more than offset by the reduced door

openings. GE. in a survey that included

TFX27FK refrigerator-freezer owners,

found that the Refreshment Center door

replaced 20 openings of the fresh-food

door openings per day in units so

equipped. GE claims that this results in

the existing test procedure overstating

the TFX27FK refrigerator-fieezer's true

Case No. RF-006 COMMENT 01

55FR5653 

5654 Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 33 I Friday, February 16, 1990 I Notices 

in making purchasing decisions. These 

test procedures appear at 10 CFR part 

430. subpart B. 

DOE amended the prescribed test 

procedures on September 26, 1980, by 

adding 10 CFR 430.27 creating the 

waiver process. 45 FR 64108. DOE 

further amended the Department's 

appliance test procedure waiver process 

to allow the Assistant Secretary for 

Conservation and Renewable Energy 

(Assistant Secretary) to grant an interim 

waiver from test procedure requirements 

to manufacturers that have petitioned . DOE for a waiver of such prescribed test 

procedures. 51 FR 42823, November 26, 

1986. 

The waiver process allows the 

Assistant Secretary to waive 

temporarily test procedures for a 

particular basic model when a petitioner 

shows that the basic model contains one 

or more design characteristics which 

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 as to provide materially 

inaccurate comparative data. Waivers 

generally remain in effect until final test 

procedure amendments become 

effective, resolving the problem that is 

the subject of a waiver. The interim waiver provisions, added ~y the 1986 amendment, allow the 

,ssistant Secretary to grant.an interim 

waiver when it is determined that the 

applicant will experience economic 

hardship if the Application for 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. 

GE has requested an Interim Waiver 

from the refrigerator-freezer test 

procedure for the TFX27FK and 

TFX24FK model refrigerator-freezers. 

GE, in the Application for Interim 

Waiver, requests this relief due to the 

implementation of energy conservation 

standards for refrigerator-freezers on 

January 1, 1990. GE states that the DOE 

test procedure overestimates the energy 

consumed by refrigerator-freezers with a 

Refreshment Center because it does not 

provide energy credits for the reduced 

door openings obtained with the 

Refreshment Center feature. GE further 

states that without a waiver it would 

have to make additional design 

improvements in order to increase the 

energy effeciency to meet energy 

consumption standards. GE claims that 

the -~ t expended to add the additional 

des mprovements cannot be 

recouped due to the competition in the 

market place. Should GE not make these 

design improvements or receive an 

Interim Waiver, the TFX27FK and 

TFX24FK models could not be 

manufactured after January 1, 1990, 

because they would not comply with the 

maximum energy consumption standard 

level set for models with through-thedoor ice service. GE claims that the 

expense to incorporate the design 

improvements or the loss of sales for 

these models will cause GE to suffer 

economic hardship if the Application is 

denied. 

GE also claims that it is in the public 

interest for an Interim Waiver to be 

granted. Without a waiver, GE will 

inaccurately represent energy 

consumption and cost of operation 

information because GE will not be able 

to claim the electric energy saving 

capabilities of the TFX27FK and 

TFX24FK refrigerator/freezers. 

DOE has reviewed GE's Application 

for Interim Waiver and believes that 

while the extant test procedures for 

refrigerator-freezers may evaluate the 

GE TFX27FK and TFX24FK refrigeratorfreezers in a manner unrepresentative of 

its true energy consumption, the 

Department has insufficient data to 

conclude how much, if at all, this feature 

would reduce energy consumption. The 

Department,. in its notice of proposed 

rulemaking to amend the refrigeratorfreezer test procedures, identified 

through-the-door features as one of a 

number of various new designs that may 

not be adequately evaluated by the test 

procedures. 53 FR 37416, September 26, 

1988 (September 1988 proposal). No 

information was presented in response 

to the September 1988 proposal. The 

Department concluded in the final 

rulemaking that the potential for energy 

savings was directly affected by the 

consumer and the usage pattern of the 

feature. 54 FR 36238. August 31, 1989. 

The test procedure proposed by GE 

requires adjusting the unit's measured 

energy consumption by an amount 

based on GE's survey and field data. 

The data provided by GE on total door 

openings per day is contradicted by data 

the Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers provided in its comments 

on the September proposal. 

The Department believes that the use 

of a refrigerator-freezer is so random 

that limited field test such as GE's do 

not support a specific number of door 

openings. For this reason, the test 

procedure has no requirement for door 

openings or food loading in order to 

provide a basis for fair comparison of 

the representative unit energy 

consumption. 

Therefore; GE's Application for an 

Interim Waiver, requesting relief from 

the DOE test procedures for its TFX27FK 

and TFX24FK model refrigeratorfreezers with the Refreshment Center 

feature, is denied. This is not a 

determination, however, on GE's 

Petition for Waiver, which is being 

published today for comment. 

GE's Petition for Waiver from the 

DOE test provisions for refrigerator- freezers requests an energy credit 

because the TFX27FK and TFX24FK 

model refrigerator-freezers include an 

additional throu.sh-the-door feature 

called the "Refreshment Center." The 

Refreshment Center provides access to 

beverages such as milk, soda, or juice in 

addition to providing ice and cold water 

by way of an additional door in the 

refrigerator (fresh food compartment) 

door, 

GE has tested the TFX27FK and 

TFX24FK model refrigerator-freezers in 

accordance with the existing DOE 

refrigerator-freezer test procedure. GE 

claims that the test procedure does not 

give a true representation of the energy 

consumption or annual operating cost 

since there is no credit for reduced 

(regular refrigerator) door openings. The 

existing test procedure is a no-dooropening test which is conducted at 90°F 

instead of 70°F to compensate for the 

many variables. not included in the test 

procedure, such as door openings or 

food loading. As GE notes, the 90°F nodoor-opening test was prescribed by 

DOE in order to obtain repeatable test 

results under laboratory conditions that 

represent typical consumer results. The 

test results represent the unit's 

anticipated energy consumption since it 

is performed without a load, i.e., without 

food or liquid, and with no door 

openings during the test. . 

GE claims that the TFX27FK and 

TFX24FK model refrigerator-freezers use 

less energy than measured by the 

existing test procedure because the 

Refreshment Center feature reduces the 

amount of moist ambient air that is 

admitted to the unit during door 

openings .. 

However, GE notes that there is a 

small increase in heat transfer through 

the Refreshment Center door due to the 

additional door seal and reduced door 

insulation. GE claims, however, that it is 

more than offset by the reduced door 

openings. GE. in a survey that included 

TFX27FK refrigerator-freezer owners, 

found that the Refreshment Center door 

replaced 20 openings of the fresh-food 

door openings per day in units so 

equipped. GE claims that this results in 

the existing test procedure overstating' 

the TFX27FK refrigerator-fieezer's true 
55FR5653

Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 33 I Friday, February 16, 1990 I Notices 5655

energy consumption by 57 kilowatt

hours pel' year. GE requests that the

annual energy consumption of its

TFX27FK and TFX24FK refrigeratorfreezers be reduced by an amount

derived from a teat and calculation

method proposed in its petition.

. GE proposes a test method based on,

·to a significant extent, the existing test

procedures. For TFX27FK and TFX24.FK

models, GE proposes to add a

calculation method to determine the

energy comnimption adjustment for the

Refreshment Center. This adjustment is

balled on the a!!sumption that 20 daily

fresh food door openings are replaced

by 20 Refreshment center door openings.

This calculation method is found in

Appendix 11 of GE's Petition for Waiver.

The calculation method proposed by

GE considers the difference in heat

leakage of the refrigerator-freezer

between 9IJ OF and 70 OF which is then

adjusted by the heat gain resulting from

refrigerator section door openings and

refreshment center door openings. GE in

its Appendix 11 calculates the energy

savings of tb.e Refreshment Center to be

57 Kilowatt hours per year.

In addition, GE requests a method of

adjusting the energy savings of the

refreshment center when the

refrigerator-freezer is equipped w;th a

compressor with an efficiency (energy

efficiency ratio (EER)) other than 5.0.

The 5.0 EER compressor was the basis

for the tests and calculations performed

by CE. The method of adjustment is the

product of 57 kilowatt hours per year

(energy saved with a 5.0 EER

compressor) times the ratio of the new

compressor EER divided by 5.0. This

results in the kilowatt hours per year

saved with the new compressor. For

example; 57X (4.54/5.0]=51.7B or 52

KWH/YR.

In addition to the TFX27F'K and

TFX24FK refrigerator-freezers, GE

requests a waiver for future

Refreshment Center models, designated

with an "F" in the sixth character

(....·FO). The waiver process is limited

in scope to rr;odeis specifically identified

in the D<:-tit)UD. For this reason, DOE is

only cons'dering L~e two models listed

by GE in it.; filing.

Pursuant tu paragraph (b) of 10 CFR

430.27, DOE is hereby publishing the

"Petition for Waiver." GE's proposed

amencment to the test procedure,

Appendix II, &nd literature on its

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and

freezers are not being published in the

Federal Register. These appendices are,

however, available upon request at the

address provided at the beginning of

today's notice. DOE solicits comm.ents,

data. and information respecti!lg the

Petition.

Inadditiori,'pursuant to p~rairaph (e)

of § 430.27 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, the following letter denying

the Application for Interim Waiver was

issued to General Electric Appliances.

Issued in Wachington. DC. February 12,

1990.

J. Michael Davis,

Assistant Secretary. Conservation aIld

Renewable Energy.

Subjecl: Application for Interim Waiver

Augusl14, 1989.

Assistant Secretary for Conservation and

Renewable Energy,

U.S. Department ofEnergy Forrestal

Building. Room 1~E-234. 1()(}(}

Independence Ave., SW., Washington,

DC20585.

Dear Sir. GE Appliancell (GEA) hereby files

this Application for Interim Waiver pursuant

to 10ern 430.27 for waiver from the

refrigerator test procedure 10 crn Part 430.

Suh-part B. Appendix A-1. This exception is

necessary because GEA produces and ~~Ils

two models (TFX27FJ( and TFX24FI() of

refrigerator-freezer that Incorporate a "Refreshment Cenler" feature. These models.

when labeled according to the existing test

procedure. have energy !..he!s that

Inaccurately report the estimated annual cost

of operation. These labels overstate the

energy consumption by 3.5%.

In the event the Interim waiver is denied.

GEA will suffer irreparable injury because

the cost of its products that include L~e

Refreshment Center will be Increased when

the products are modified to meet the eneq,ly

consumption standards mandated by the

National Appliance Energy Conservation Act

(NAECA) for January 1. 1990. The existing

lest procedure produces energy consumption

results thot are overstated by 57 Kwh/yr.

Without the Interim waiver, GEAmust make

desien modifications that save at least 57

Kwh/yr for all models containing the

Refreshment Center. These costs cannot be

recovered ill the marketplace. The energy

labels. as required by the Federal Trade Commis~jon (FTC), inaccurately report

energy wnsurr.ption Bnd, therefore, thfme

models will be C1nfairly comrared to

competitive models and brands.

GEA is not aware of any adverse impact on any other company or person which would

rcsult from the granting of this Inierim

waiver. On the other hand. GEA is

imm:Jdiately harmed since we m':;,! pre;>ared

for the NAECA stendard3 by inarilrC'~lriately

adding energy-saving design chang"s to these

medels.

PuLlic policy. as stated In Public Law g4-

153 as amended, encourages encrgy

conservation. A more accurate estimate of

annual operating cost of our refrigeratorfreezer models will provide potential

purchasers with the ap,ropriate comparison

with comparable models. Because the l:nergy

consumption is actually less than the current

ldbel indicates, potentia! purchasers will be more motivated to purcha8e these muce!s

and thereby conserve more energy.

GEA has test"d these products ulilizing the

existing test procedures These procedures ere based on no door openings during the

test. Because the Refreshment Center has a

profound effect on the number of door

openings in actual use. the existing test

procedure without modification cannot

provide reasonably accurate results. Utilizing

rP.sults from the existing test procedure will

mislead consumers regarding the p.oduct's

operating cost.

Concurrent with the filing of Ihis

Application for Interim Waiver we are Wing

. a petition for waiver pursuant to 10 CFR

'430.27 with the Office of Conservation and

Renewable Energy. A copy of that petition.

whieh p.ovides the underlying support

ralionale for the merits of waiver, is attschd

for your reference. GEA believes a strong

argument for waiver of the test procedure in

this instance is presented al1d that is will be

granted.

We appreciate your prom;>t action, alld. if

you have questions regarding lhis

application. please contact the unde,sign",d.

Respectfuliy submitted,

Robert M. Brown,

J.fanager-Regulatory Relatior.s. AP3-215

Appliallce Park. Louisville. KY 40225. (502)--

452-3404,

Petition for Waiver Refrigerator-rreezer

Test Procedures

10 CFR 430. Subpart B. Appendix A-I

Pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27, GE

Appliances (G~,) respectfully petitions

for a waiver to the requirements 10 CFR

part 430. Subpart B. Appendix A-I

adoptcd August 10, IB82.

BackgIVundL~formation

GE Appliances (GEA) manufacturers

and sells refrigcrator-freezers a'mong

many other major horne appliances. It

has been and continues to be the

objective of GEA to provide the users of

its products with the highest quality and

performance. One imvrovement we have

developed for refrige;ator-freezers

provides a substantial benefit to the

owner and a major convenience

imp.ovement to the use,s of certain

modds. We call thill improvment a

"Refreshment Center". This featnre

provides users with easy access to the

most used items in the fresh-food

section of these models without openi"g

the large door. The use of this feature

results in considerable energy savings;

however, the existing test procedure

does not accurately renect the energy

consumption during in-house usage.

Refreshment Center Description

The Refreshment Center is a stal'age

compartffit:nt within the door of the

fresh-food section of refrigeratorfreezers. The Refr'esb7lent Center if!

currently used in the side-by-sid~

product c!"qS of refrigerator-freezers.

App.mdix 1i,dudes a hrachure which

has photographs of the Hefreshment

Center. A h:lllt-in counter. which scac:>

Case No. RF-006 COMMENT 01

55FR5653 

Federal Register I Vol. 55, No. 33 I Friday, February 16, 1990 I Notices 5655 

energy consumption by 57 kilowatt 

hours per year. GE requests that the 

annual energy consumption of its 

TFX27FK and TFX24FK refrigeratorfreezers be reduced by an amount 

derived from a test and calculation 

method proposed in its petition. 

. GE proposes a test method based on, 

. to a significant extent, the existing test 

procedures. For TFX27FK and TFX24FK 

models. GE proposes to add a 

calculation method to determine the 

energy con!!Umption adjustment for the 

Refreshment Center. This adjustment is 

based on the assUmption that 20 daily 

fresh food door openings are replaced 

by 20 Refreshment center door openings. 

This calculation method is found in 

Appendix II of GE's Petition for Waiver. 

The calculation method proposed by 

GE considers the difference in heat 

leakage of the refrigerator-freezer 

between 9IJ OF and 70 OF whkh is then 

adjusted by the heat gain resulting from 

refrigerator section door openings and 

refreshment center door openings. GE in 

its Appendix 11 calculates the energy 

savings of tb.e Refreshment Center to be 

57 Kilowatt hours per year. 

In addition. GE requests a method of 

adjusting the energy savings of the 

refreshment center when the 

refrige,ator-freezer is equipped w;!h a 

compressor with an efficiency (energy 

efficiency ratio (EER)) other than 5.0. 

The 5.0 EER compressor was the basis 

for the tests and calculations performed 

by CEo The method of adjustment is the 

product of 57 kilowatt hours per year 

(energy saved with a 5.0 EER 

compressor) times the ratio of the new 

(;()mpressor EER divided by 5.0. This 

results in the kilowatt hours per year 

saved with the new compressor. For 

example; 57X (4.54/5.01 =51.7B or 52 

KWH/YR. 

In addition to the TFX27FK and 

TFX24FK refrigerator-freezers. GE 

requests a waiver for future 

Refreshment Center models. designated 

with an "F" in the sixth character 

(*····F·). The waiver process is limited 

in scope to rr.odeis specifically identified 

in the p<?titlOn. For this reason. DOE is 

only cons.'.dering t.~e two models listed 

by GE in it.; filing. 

Pursuant to paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 

430.27. DOE is hereby publishing the 

"Petition for Waiver." GE's proposed 

amencment to the test procedure. 

Appendix II. and literature on its 

refrigerators. refrigerator-freezers. and 

freezers are not being published in the 

Federal Register. These appendices are, 

how·ever. 8valbble upon request at the 

address provided at the beginning of 

today's notice. DOE solicits COmf,'lellts. 

data . and information J'espectmg the 

Petition. 

Inadditiori.'pursuant to p~rairaph (e) 

of § 430.27 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. the following letter denying 

the Application for Interim Waiver was 

issued to General Electric Appliances. 

Issued in Wabhington. DC. February 12. 

1990. 

J. Michael Davis • 

Assisti1nt Secretary. Conservation afld 

Renewable Energy. 

Subject: Application for Interim Waiver 

August 14. 1989. 

Assistant Secretary for Conservation and 

Renewllble Energy. 

u.s. Departmellt of Energy FOiTestal 

Building. Room I~E-:?34. 1000 

Independence Ave .• SW .• WashiIlgton. 

DC 20585. 

Dear Sir. GE Appliance!! (GEA) hereby files 

this Application for Interim Waiver pursuant 

to 10 crn 430.27 for waiver from the 

refrigerator fest procedure 10 CFR Part 430. 

Suh-part B. Appendix A-1. This exception is 

necessary because GEA produces and ~i!lls 

two models (TFX27FJ( and TFX24FI() or 

refrigerator-freezer that incorporate a 

"Refreshment Cenler" feature. These models. 

when labeled according to the existing test 

procedure. have energy lahels that 

inaccurately report the estimated annual cost 

of operation. These labels overstate the 

energy consumption by 3.5%. 

In the event the interim waiver is denied. 

GEA will suffer ilTeparable injury because 

the cost of its products tha t include L~e 

Refreshment Center will be increased when 

the producta are modified to meet the enel"';y 

consumption standards mandated by the 

National Appliance Energy Conservation Act 

(NAECA) for January 1. 1990. The existing 

test procedure produces energy consumption 

results thot are overstated by 57 Kwh/yr. 

Without the interim waiver. GEAmust make 

dllsifn modifications that save at least 57 

Kwh/yr for all models containing the 

Refreshment Center. These costs cannot be 

recovered ill the marketplace. The energy 

labels. a s required by the Federal Trade 

Commi8~ on (FTC). inaccurately report 

energy wnsl!Ir.ption and. therefore. the~e 

modcls will be ;Jnfairiy comrared to 

competitive models and brands. 

GEA is not aware of any adverse impact on 

any other company or person which would 

result from the granting of this inierim 

waivflr. On the other hand. GEA is 

imm~diately harmed since we nl ,,"t prepared 

for the NAECA stendards by inartlropriately 

adding energy-saving design d:ang" s to these 

medels. 

PuLlic policy. as stated in Public Law g4--

153 as amended. encourages energy 

conservation. A more accurate estimate of 

arulUal operating cost of our refrigeraiorfreezer models will provide potential 

purchasers with the ap;:oropriale comparison 

with comparable models. BeCIi:lse !h~ energy 

consumption is actually less than the current 

lilbel indicates, rotentia! pUrCh88 !) ~S will be 

more motivated to purchase these muce!s 

and thereby conserve mnre energy. 

GEA has test"d these products utilizing the 

exi3ting test procedures These procedures 

arc based on no door openings during the 

test. Because the ReCreshment Center has a 

profound effect on the number of door 

openings in actual use. the existing test 

procedure without modification cannot 

provide reasonably accuTate results. Utilizing 

results Crom the existing test procedure will 

mislead consumers regarding the p.oduct's 

operating cost. 

Concurrent with the filing of this 

Application for Interim Waiver we are Wing 

. a petition for waiver pursuant to 10 eFR 

'430.27 with the Dence of Conservation and 

Renewable Energy. A copy of that petition. 

which provides the underlying support 

ralionale for the merits of waiver. is attflchd 

for your reference. GEA believes a strong 

argument for waiver of the test procedure in 

this instance is presented and that is will be 

granted. 

We appreciate your prompt action. alld. if 

you have questions regarding this 

application. please contact the unde ~sign t'd. 

Respectfuliy submitted. 

Robert M. Brown. 

J.1anoger-Regu/atory Re/utiar.s. AP3-215 

Appliauce Park. Louisville, KY 40225. (502)-

452-3404. 

Petition for Waiver Refrigerator-freezer 

Test Procedures 

10 CFR 430, Subpart B. Appendix A-1 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27. GE 

Appliances (GEA) respectfully petitions 

for a waiver to the requirements 10 CFR 

part 430. Subpart B. Appendix A-l 

adopted August 10. 1982. 

Background Information 

GE Applisnces (GEA) manufacture;s 

and sells refrigerator-freezers a·mong 

many other major home appliances. It 

has been and continues to be the 

objective of GEA to provide the users of 

its products with the highest quality and 

performance. One imvrovement we have 

developed for refrige;ator-freezers 

provides a substantial benefit to the 

owner and a major convenience 

imp,ovement to the usels of cr::rtain 

modds. We call thiN improvment a 

"Refreshment Center". This feature 

provides users with easy access to the 

most used items in the fresh-food 

section of these models without openj"g 

the large door. The use of this feature 

results in considerable energy savings; 

however. the existing test procedure 

does not at:curately reflect the energy 

consumption during in-house usage. 

Refreshment Center Descriptio!! 

The Refreshment Center is a st01'8ge 

compartmt:nt within the door of the 

fresh-food section of refrigeratorfreezers. The Refl'e sb ;;ant Center is 

currently used in the side-by-sid ~ 

produc! cl"qs of refrigerator-fraezers. 

Appendix 1 ildudes a hrachure which 

has photographs of the Refreshment 

Center. A h:lllt·in counter. which scac:; 
5656

•

55FR5653

Federal Register I Vol. 55. No. 33 I Friday, February 16, 1990 I Notices

The total openings per day are 90 ~ith

or without the Refreshment Center. The

results of the calculations show t..'lat the

existing test procedure overstates the

energy consumption by 57 Kilowatt

hours per year. The energy consumption

on Model TFX27F is overstated by 3.5%.

Existing Test Procedure Problems

The existing test procedures is

performed without door openings even

though it is recognized that the doors

wiU be opened in actual use. This

procedure was adopted in order to

obtain repeatable test results under

laboratory conditions. To compensate

for not opening the doors., the ambient

temperature was increased to 90 OF

instead of the more normal level of

70 -F. This, of course, increases the heat

flow through the insulation in the

refrigerator-freezer. The resulting energy

consumption at 90 OF with no door

openings was sho1o\'Il to correlate

resonably well with in-house usage. at

the time the test procedure was adopted.

Since the Refreshment Center has a

profound effect on the number of times

the fresh food section of the product i,s

opened. the existing test procedlll'e

cannot accurately reflect the energy

consumption of the models containing

the Refreshment Center. The exisiting

procedure includes the effect of heat

gain through the Refreshment Center

door seaL but it does not correct for the

savings due to the reduction in fresh

food door openings.

GEA Laboratory Test Results

In an attempt to demonstrate the

energy consumption overstatement

effect of the existing test procedure.

GEA tested two samples of Model

TFX27F in Qur laboratory. Mechanisms

to operate the fresh food door and the

Refreshment Center door were installed.

The mechanisms held the fresh food

door open 12 seconds and the

Refreshment Center door open 18

ser-onds.

Appendix ill includes the resltlts of tlj~IS with differing door opening

schedules. Tests were run with 60 fresh

food door openings and 0 Refreshment

Door openings per 24 hour period. and

with 40 fresh food door openings and 20

Refreshment Center door openings per

24 hour period. The resulte of these tests

illustrate that with the Refreshment

Center door opening replacing one-third

as the access door of the Refreshment

Center. drops down to pro\;de a handy

sen'iug space for snacks and beverages.

In the down position the user has instant

acc(.-ss to items in the Refreshment

Center is such that very large

cGr..tainers. such as one-gallon milk and

j:J.ice containers and three-liter bottles.

can be stored for easy access. Milk.

s("Jftdrinks and juice are among the m~t

often used items in the fresh-food

storage. The availability of cold water.

cubed and crushed ic-e dispenser

conveniently located adjacent to the

Refreshment Center provides a complete

refreshment center that substantially

reduces the number of times per day

that the main fresh-food door needs to

be opened.

\....hen the fresh-food door is opened.

t:;e cold air sriils out of tbe storage

cavity because it is heClvie.r than the

ambient air. The air exchange adds

moisture to the storage ca-..ity and.

therefore. increases the need for defrost

Opening of the Refreshment Center

access door does not allow spilling of

the air in the fresh-food section because

the rear of the Refreshment Center

cadty is closed. except for small

openings on the rear panel; therefore.

the only air exchange is the small

amount in the Refreshment Center

cavity.

Re!i'eshment Center Effect on Energy

Djnsumption

The Refreshment Center affects the

energy consumption of refrigeratorfreezer models that incorporate this·

feature. compared to models without the

feature. in two distinct ways. First. there

is a small increase in energy

consumption due to the Refreshment

Center door seal. Second. there is a

subs~.d.11tial reduction in e:1ergy due to

the reduced door openings. A survey of

test panel users of the refrigeratorfreezer provided results &howing that

L'1e Refreshment Center was opened 55%

as many times as the main fresh-food

door. On a different test panel

monitored over the course of a year. we

have measured door openings of the

fresh-food section and found the mean

to be 60 openings per day.

Appendix II contains calculations

bnsed on the following door opening

schedule per day:

r;;;;: Ii:;; Star ~:le sectIOn I p;;'"

I aay

-~'--<-~~-·~-··-;-'~-···R·"-C-·:·-.:·:-·::-::~-.::-:::-:::-:::....,:::-:::-::~-.::-::~-.::-::~

Storage section

Fresh Food with RG _ _ . Refreshment Center IRC) ._._ • _ 40

.20

of the fresh food door openings. the

energy consumption is reduced by 66

Kilowatt-hours per year for the two

samples tested. To compare these

results with the calculated results. a

correction to the test rsults must be

made to estimate the savings because

these samples used a 5.0 ERR

compressor. Our current production

models that contain the Refreshment

Center utilize a 4.54 EER compressor. To

calculate the savings if 8 4.54 ERR

compressor were used instead of the 5.0

EER. the following equation must be

used:

F.e... Eo.o x 4.54

where

Eo...= Energy cllsing 4.54 EER compressor

E..•= Energy using 5.0 EER compressor

5.0

Eo.... = 66 (KwhI)'!') X - == 73 Kwh/yr

4.54

Comparing the test results in

Appendix ill with the calculated reaults

in Appendix n, the calculations appear

to be conservative in estimating the

annual energy savings. . Test Results=73 ICwh/yr

Calculated results=57 Kwh/yr

GEA's New Model Refrigerator-Freezers

ORA currently offers two Refreshment

Center models: TFX24FK and TFX27FK.

We may choose to have more models at

some future date. If so, the models can

be readily identified since they will

contain the letter UF' in the sixth alphanumeric designator: for example.

xxxxxFx. We are requesting,a waiver

for all models that include the

Refreshment Center. The energy use

correction for the current models will

be-57Kwhfyr applied to the existing rest

results.

GRA Should Not Be Required To Use

The Existing Test Procedure

IfGEA is not granted a waiver from

the existing test procedure. it will be

forced to add cost to the product in

order to meet the energy· consumption

standards established by llte National

Appliance Energy Conservation Act

(NAECA) effective January 1. 1990. This

additional cost will be Inappropriate

because the existing test procedure does

not recognize the energy saving .

characteristic of the RefreshmentCase No. RF-006 COMMENT 01

55FR5653 

5656 Federal Register I Vol. 55. No. 33 I Friday, February 16, 1990 I Notices 

• 

as the access door of the Refreshment 

Center. drops down to pro\;de a bandy 

sen'ing space for snacks and beverages. 

In the down position the user has instant 

acc(.-ss to items in the Refreshment 

Center is such that very large 

cGr..tainers. such as one-gallon mille and 

j:J.ice containers and three-liter bottles. 

can be stored for easy access. Milk. 

s("Jftdrinks and juice are among the m~t 

often used items in the fresh-food 

storage. The availability of cold water. 

cubed and crushed ic-e dispenser 

conveniently located adjacent to the 

Refreshment Center provides a complete 

refreshment center that substantially 

reduces the number of times per day 

that the main fresh-food door needs to 

be ope:led. 

\Vhen the fresh-food door is opened. 

t:;e cold air sriils out of tbe storage 

cavity because it is heClvie.r than the 

ambient air. The air exchange adds 

moisture to the storage ca-..ity and. 

therefore. increases the need for defrost 

Opening of the Refreshment Center 

access door does not allow spilling of 

the air in the fresh-food section because 

the rear of the Refreshment Center 

cadty is closed. except for small 

openings on the rear panel; therefore. 

the only air exchange is thesman 

amount in the Refreshment Center 

cavity. 

Fiefl't!shment Center Effect on Energy 

Djnsumption 

The Refreshment Center affects the 

energy consumption of re.frigeratorfreezer models that incorporate this' 

feature. compared to models without the 

feature. in two distinct ways. First. there 

is a small increase in energy 

consumption due to the Refreshment 

Center door seal. Second. there is a subs~.d11tial reduction in e:1ergy due to 

the reduced door openings. A survey of 

test panel users of the refrigeratorfreezer provided results &howing that 

L'1e Refreshment Center was opened 55% 

as many times as the main fresh-food 

door. On a different test panel 

monitored over the course of a year, we 

have measured door openings of the 

fresh-food section and found the mean 

to be 60 openings per day. 

Appendix II contains calculations 

bi1sed on the following door opening 

schedule per day: 

F 

F, 

I Open1'1QS Ston:}e sectIOn I p;;'" 

I aay 

<~~~';f~"RC::::::::::=:::::::::::::::::::=::::=::::J ~ 

Storage section 

Fresh Food with RC .......................................... .. Refreshment Center IRC) ._._ ........ ____ • __ _ 40 

.20 

The total openings per day are 90 ~ith 

or without the Refreshment Center. The 

results of the calculations show t.'1at the 

existing test procedure overstates the 

energy consumption by 57 Kilowatt 

hOllrs per year. The energy consumption 

on Model TFX27F is overstated by 3.5%. 

Existing Test Procedure Problems 

The existing test procedures is 

performed without door openings even 

though it is recognized that the doors 

wiU be opened in actual use. This 

procedure was adopted in order to 

obtain repeatable test results under 

laboratory conditions. To compensate 

for not opening the doors, the ambient 

temperature was increased to 90 OF 

instead of the more normal level of 

70 -F. This, of course. increases the heat 

flow through the insulation in the 

refrigerator-freezer. The resulting energy 

consumption at 90 OF with no door 

openings was sho1o\'Il to correlate 

resonably well with in-house usage. at 

the time the test procedure was adopted. 

Since the Refreshment Center has a 

profound effect on the number of times 

the fresh food section of the product i,s 

opened. the existing test procedure 

cannot accurately reflect the energy 

consumption of the models containing 

the Refreshment Center. The exisiting 

procedure includes the effect of heat 

gain through the Refreshment Center 

door seaL but it does not correct for the 

savings due to the reduction in fresh 

food door openings. 

GEA Laboratory Test Results 

In an attempt to demonstrate the 

energy consumption overstatement 

effect of the existing test procedure. 

GEA tested two samples of Model 

TFX27F in (lur laboratory. Mechanisms 

to operate the fresh food door and the 

Refreshment Center door were installed. 

The mechanisms held the fresh food 

door open 12 seconds and the 

Refreshment Center door open 18 

ser-onds. 

Appendix m Includes the reslIlts of 

tlj~I.S with differing door opening 

schedules. Tests were run with 60 fresh 

food door openings and 0 Refreshment 

Door openings per 24 hour period. and 

wi th 40 fresh food door openings and 20 

Refreshment Center door openings per 

24 hour period. The resulte of these tests 

illustrate that with the Refreshment 

Center door opening replacing one-third 

of the fresh food door openings, the 

energy consumption is reduced by 66 

Kilowatt-hours per year for the two 

samples tested. To compare these 

results with the calculated results. a 

correction to the test rsults must be 

made to estimate the savings because 

these samples used a 5.0 ERR 

compressor. Our current production 

models that contain the Refreshment 

Center utilize a 4.54 EER compressor. To 

calculate the savings if a 4.54 ERR 

compressor were used instead of the 5.0 

EER. the following equation must be 

used: 

E.... Eo.o x 4.54 

where 

Eo... = Energy .using 4.54 EER compressor 

E. .• = Energy using 5.0 ERR compressor 

5.0 

Eo,.. = 66 (Kwh/yr) X - == 73 Kwh/yr 

4.54 

Comparing the test results in 

Appendix III with the calculated reaults 

in Appendix n. the calculations appear 

to be conservative in estimating the 

annual energy savings. . Test Results =73 Kwh/yr 

Calculated results=57 Kwh/yr 

GEA 's New Model Refrigerator-Freezers 

ORA currently offers two Refreshment 

Center modelS! TFX24FK and TFX27FK. 

We may choose to have more models at 

some future date. If so, the models can 

be readily identified since they will 

contain the letter UF' in the sixth alphanumeric designator; for example. 

xxxxxFx. We are requesting,a waiver 

for all models that include the 

Refreshment Center. The energy use 

correction for the current models will 

be-57Kwhfyr applied to the existing rest 

results. 

GRA Should Not Be Required To Use 

The Existing Test Procedure 

If GEA is not granted a waiver from 

the existing test procedure. it will be 

forced to add cost to the product in 

oroer to meet the energy· consumption 

standards established by llte National 

Appliance Energy Conservation Act 

(NAECA) effective January 1. 1990. This 

additional cost will be Inappropriate 

because the existing test procedure does 

not recognize the energy saving . 

characteristic of the Refreshment -
55FR5653

Federal Rogister I Vol. 55, No. 33 I Friday, February 16, 1990 I NotIces .... AEJ

5657

Center. Without a waiver the energy

label required by the Federal Trade

Commission will cause GEA to be

disadvantaged because the label will

overstate the energy consumption and

GEA's medels will be unfairly compared

to competitive products.

Substitute Test Procedilre

GEA believes that a suitable

substitute test procedure can be urli.zed

to more accur:l~ely rdlect the ae!lie]

energy usage of n'odels equipped with a

Refreshment Center. V:il propoge to

reduce the results f"om DOE's stsndarrl

test procedure through celculations of

the effect of changing :118 cloor openings

from Dormal operaHon, Heat gain

calculations should be made to

demor.strate the rrw.gnHude of the

overstatement of enGrgy Gong~nptlon in

the DOE test procedu?a. The heat gain

difference should be translated to

Kilowatt-hours per year, and L'1en

subtracted from the measured re[m!ts at

goOF NDO DOE test. The translat.ion of

the heat gain to Kilowatt-hours per year

should be accomplishf~das shown on

page 8 of Appendix n. This translation

takes into account the EER of the

compressor applied to the refrigeratorf.'eezer, If t.l,e compressor EP...R changes,

the value to be subtracted from the

existing test results would change. For

example. the test results in Appendix III

were obtained using a 5.0 EER

compressor. The overstatement of

energy consumption using the 5.0 EER in

the calcualtions in Appendix II would

be: .

4.54

57 X --= 52 Kwh/yr.

5.00

AffectedPersons

GEA knows of no person or persons

that will be adversely affected by

granting this waiver.

Similar Design Models

GEA's Refreshment Center design is

patented by us and we know of tlo

similar designs. However. there are

competitive models that have an access

door within the fresh-food door. We are

not aware of the energy consumption

characteristics of these competitive

models.

Public Policy Considerations

The objective of Public Law 94-163 is

energy conservation as mandated by

sectiona 324 and 325. The test

procedures established under section

323 should be modified to take into

account new technological

developments that can contribute to the

achievenwnt of energy conservation

objectives. 10 crn 430,27 provides the

means to accomplish test procedure

modifications and it is in the public

interest to do so in this case, thereby

facilitating more accurate energy

consumption and cost of operation

information.

Re€pectfullysubmitted,

Rubert M, Brown,

Mana,qer-Regu!atoryl Relatiam;. CE

APPLI/1NCF. AP3-215, Appliance Park,

Louisn'lle. KY40225, (5C:!) 452-3404,

February 12, 1990.

Mr. Robe,t ~l Brown,

Manager-Regulator)' Re!arions, General

J::lectric Appliances, /lP 3-215 AppNance

Park, Lm.tis,'ilie, KY 40225.

Dear Mr. Brown: This is in responllC to your

August 14, 1909, Application for Interim

Waiver from the Department of Enel"sY'(DOE)

test procedure £01' reiriger aters and

refrigerator.free7.ers used to rale General

Electric Appliances' (GEl models TFX27FK

and TFX24FK with the "Refmshment Center"

feature.

GE seeks an interim waiver from the DOE

test procedures for refrigerator-freezers for its

TFX27FK and TFX24FK models bepause they

include an eddilionalthrough-the-door

fea~ure called the "Refreshment Center." The

Refreshment Center is a second refrigerator

door that provides access to beverages such

as miik, soda, or juice stored all a door shelf.

GE states that while the TFX27FK and

TFX24FK model refrigerator-freezers are

capable of being tested for energy

consumption and annual operating cost in

accordance,with the existing DOE test

procedure, the test procedure does not give a

true representation of the energy

consumption or annual operating cost. This

statement is based on the fact that the DOE

test is a no-door-opening test and no credit is

given to features that reduce the number of

refrigerator door openings. GE claims that the

TFX27FK and TFX24FK models save energy

because access to beverages through a

second. smaller door causes for less transfer

of moist ambient air. reducing the heat gain

and thereby reducing energy consumption.

GE requests that a credit for the energy

8avings from Refreshment Center models in

the amount of 57 kilowatt hours be

subtracted from the anftual kilowatt hoUr

(KWH) consumption.

GErequests permission to test and rate the

TFX27Fl< and TFX24FI< refrigerator-freezer

models with the "Refreshment Center" by

using the existing DOE test procedure and

applying a credit determined by a calculation

formula that replaces the heat gain from 20

regular refrigerator door openings with the

heat gain of 20 of the Refreshment Center

door openings in the daily energy

consumption. GE believes that the

Refreshment Center feature credit to annual

energy consumption is estimated at 57 KWH/

YR. GE also provides 8 method by which the

energy consumption credit of models

equipped with different efficiency

compressors can be calculated.

DOE has reviewed GE's Application far

Interim Waiver and beHeves that whih: t!,e

exta;:.t lest procedures for refngerstcrfreezers may evaluate the GE TFY:Z7FK and

TFX24.FK model refrigerator-freezers in a

manner unrepresentative of its true ellergy

ccnsultlption, insuffident data is available

from which to conclude how much ener-,jY in

saved. The Department, in its nolice of

proposed rulemaki.ng to Bmend the

refrigerator-freezer test procedures (the

Septen:ber proposal), identified th:'ough-tbedour kOltures a~ one of a numb'll' of various

ne'.... designs which had the potential to save

e;,8rgy (53 F.R. 37416, September 26,1988).

DOE concluded that the jJntt:ntial for energy

sl.1\-ings was directly affected by the

«ollsumer and the use of the feature.

The test procedure proposed by GE

. requires adjusting the unil's measured en~rgy

consumfttbn by an amount based on GE's

survey and field data. The data provide':! by

GE on lolel door openings per day is

contrad;;;ted by dllta from the Al!60datio!1 of

Home Appliance Manufacturers provided in

its comments on the September proposal.

The Department believes that the use of a

refrigerator-freezer il'l so random that limited

field tests such as GE's do not support a

specific number of door openings. For this'

reason, the test procedure has no requirefilenl

for door openings or food loading in oruillto

provide a basis for fajr comparison of th<;

representative unit energy consumption.

Therefore, GE's Appiicalion for an Interim

Waiver requesting relief from the DOE test

procedures for its TFX27FK and TFX24f1(

model refrigerstor-freezers, with the

Refreshment Center feature, is denied.

The Department does not infer by this

denial that the Petition for Waiver will be

unsuccessful. DOE is reserving judgement

until it obtains sufficient information to make

a fair and impartial decision,

Sincerely,

J. Michael Davis,

Assistant Secretary. Conservation and

Renewable Energy.

[FR Doc. 90-3724 Filed 2-15-90; 8:45 am)

BiLLING CODE 1450..en....

Federal Energy RegUlatory

Commission

[Docket No. QF90-81-OO0]

Cogentrlx of Richmond, Inc.;

Application for Commission

Certification of Qualifying Status of a

Cogeneration Facility

Febru<iry 9, 1990.

On FebrUary 1, 1990, Cogentrix of

Richmond, L'lc. (Applicant) of 9405

Arrowpoint Boulevard, Charlotte, North

Carolina, 28217, submitted for filing an

application for certification of a facility

as a qualifying cogeneration facility

pursuant to § 292.207 of the

Commission's regulations. No

Case No. RF-006 COMMENT 01

55FR5653 

Federal Rogister I Vol. 55, No. 33 I Friday, February 16. 1990 I NotIces 5657 

Center. Without a waiver the energy 

label required by the Federal Trade 

Commission will cause GEA to be 

disadvantaged because the label will 

overstate the energy consumption and 

GEA's models will be unfairly compared 

to competitive products. 

Substitute Test Procedilre 

GEA believes that a suitable 

substitute test procedure can be urHzed 

to more accUf:l!ely rdlect the aelue] 

energy usage of n'odels equipped with a 

Refreshment Center. "':8 propoge to 

reduce the results f;'om DOE's stsndarrl 

test procedure throegh czlculations of 

the effect of changing :118 cloor openings 

from Dormal operaHon, Heat gain 

calculations should be made to 

demor.strate the rrw.gnitude of the 

overstatement of en(lrgy Gong~nption in 

the DOE test procedu;-I? The heat gain 

difference should be translated to 

Kilowatt-hours per year. and L'1en 

subtracted from the measured re[mlts at 

goOF NDO DOE test. The transla~.ion of 

the heat gain to Kilowatt-hours per year 

should be accomplishp.d as shown on 

page S of Appendix n. This translation 

takes into account the EER of the 

compressor applied to the refrigeratorf.'eezar. If t.l,e compressor EP....R changes. 

the value to be subtracted from the 

existing test results would change. For 

example. the test results in Appendix III 

were obtained using a 5.0 EER 

compressor. The overstatement of 

energy consumption using the 5.0 EER in 

the calcualtions in Appendix II would 

be: . 

4.54 

57 X --= 52 Kwh/yr, 

5.00 

Affected Persons 

GEA knows of.no person or persons 

that will be adversely affected by 

granting this waiver. 

Similar Design Models 

GEA's Refreshment Center design is 

patented by us and we know of no 

similar designs. However. there are 

competitive models that have an access 

door within the fresh-food door. We are 

not aware of the energy consumption 

characteristics of these competitive 

models. 

Public Policy Considerations 

The objective of Public Law 94-163 is 

energy conservation as mandated by 

sections 324 and 325. The test 

procedures established under section 

323 should be modified to take into 

account new technological 

developments that can contribute to the 

achievem.ent of energy conservation 

objectives. 10 CFR 430.27 provides the 

means to accomplish test procedure 

modifications and it is in the public 

interest to do so in this case, thereby 

facilitating more acclJ:'atc energy 

consumption and cost of operation 

information. 

Re€pectfully submitted. 

Rubert M, Brown. 

Mano,qer-Regu/atolY Relutioflf;, CE 

APPLI/1NCF. AP3-215. AppJiance Park, 

Louisn'lle. KY 40225, (5C:!) 452-3404. 

February 12, 1990, 

Mr. Robe,t ~l Brown, 

Manager-Regulator)' Rf:!arions. General 

J::lectric Appliances. AP 3-215 AppNance 

Park. LmJis"jJie, KY 40225. 

Dear Mr. Brown: This is in response to your 

August 14. 1909. Application for Interim 

Waiver from the Department of Enel"gY' (DOE) 

test procedure hr refrigerators and 

refrigerator.frBe7.ers used to rate General 

Electric Appliances' (GEl models TFX27FK 

and TFX24FK with the "Refmshment Center" 

feature. 

GE seeks an interim waiver from the DOE 

test procedures for refrigerator-freezers for its 

TFX27FK and TFX24FK models bepause they 

include an edditionalthrough-the-door 

fea~ure called the "Refreshment Center." The 

Refreshment Center is a second refrigerator 

door that provides access to beverages such 

as miik. soda. or juice stored all a door shelf. 

GE states that while the TFX27FK and 

TFX24FK model refrigerator-freezers are 

capable of being tested for energy 

consumption and annual operating cost in 

accordance, with the existing DOE test 

procedure. the test procedure does not give a 

true representation of the energy 

consumption or annual operating cost..This 

statement is based on the fact that the DOE 

test is a no-door-opening test and no credit is 

given to features that reduce the number of 

refrigerator door openings. GE claims that the 

TFX27FK and TFX24FK models save energy 

because access to beverages through a 

second. smaller door causes for less transfer 

of moist ambient air. reducing the heat gain 

and thereby reducing energy consumption. 

GE requests that a credit for the energy 

savings from Refreshment Center models in 

the amount of 57 kilowatt hours be 

subtracted from the anftual kilowatt hoUr 

(KWH) consumption, 

GErequests permission to test and rate the 

TFX27FK and TFX24FK refrigerator-freezer 

models with the "Refreshment Center" by 

using the existing DOE test procedure and 

applying a credit determined by a calculation 

formula that replaces the heat gain from 20 

regular refrigerator door openings with the 

heat gain of 20 of the Refre~hment Center 

door openings in .the daily energy 

consumption. GE believes that the 

Refreshment Center feature credit to annual 

energy consumption is estimated at 57 KWHI 

YR. GE also provides a method by which the 

energy consumption credit of models 

.... AEJ 

equipped with different efficiency 

compressors can be calculated. 

DOE has reviewed GE's Application for 

Interim Waiver and believes that whih: t!,e 

exta;:.! lest procedures for refrigeratcrfreezers may evaluate the GE TF:Y:Z7FK and 

TFX24.FK model refrigerator-freezers in a 

manner unrepresentative of its true energy 

ccnsumption. insuffident data is avaiiabie 

from which to conclude how much ener-,jy in 

saved. The Department, in its nolice of 

proposed rulemaki.ng to ilmend the 

refrigerator-freezer test procedures (the 

Septerr:ber propoRalj. identified th:'ough-tl'.edour kOltUl'cS a~ one of a numbar of various 

ne' .... designs which had the potential to save 

e:i8rgy (53 F,R. 37416, September 26. 1988). 

DOE concluded that the yn\;:ntial for energy 

sl.1\·ings was directly affected by the 

<\onsumer and the use of the feature. 

The test procedure proposed by GE 

. requires adjusting the unil's measured em,rgy 

consumptbn by an amount based on GE's 

survey and field data, The data provide,:! by 

GE on tolel door openings per day is 

conirad;;;ted by dllta from the Al!6ociatio!1 of 

Home Appliance Manufacturers provided in 

its comments on the September proposal. 

The Department believes that the use ol a 

refrigerator-freezer il'l 80 random that limited 

field tests such as GE's do not support a 

specific number of door openings. For this' 

reason. the test procedure has no requirefilenl 

for door openings or food loading in oruill to 

provide a basis for fair comparison of tit.; 

representative unit energy consumption. 

Therefore. GE's Appiication for an Interim 

Waiver requesting relief from the DOE test 

procedures for its TFX27FK and TFX24f1( 

model refrigers tor-freezers. with the 

Refreshment Center feature, is denied. 

The Department does not infer by this 

denial that the Petition for Waiver will be 

unsuccessful. DOE is reserving judgement 

until it obtains sufficient information to make 

a fair and impartial decieion, 

Sincerely. 

J. Michael Davis, 

Assistant Secretary, Conservation and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 00-3724 Filed 2-15-90; 8:45 am) 

BiLLING CODE 1450-01 .... 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. QF90-81-OO0] 

Cogentrix of Richmond, Inc.; 

Application for Commission 

Certification of Qualifying Status of a 

Cogeneration Facility 

Febru;iry 9. 1990. 

On February 1. 1990. Cogentrix of 

Richmond, L'lc. (Applicant) of 9405 

Arrowpoint Boulevard, Charlotte, North 

Carolina, 28217. submitted for filing an 

application for certification of a facility 

as a qualifying cogeneration facility 

pursuant to § 292.207 of the ' 

Commission's regulations. No