1

This and other guidance documents are accessible on the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency 

& Renewable Energy web site at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/guidance/default.aspx?pid=2&spid=1.

Guidance Type: Test Procedures, Enforcement

Category: Residential Products

Product: Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers

Product Sub-type: 

Guidance Version: DRAFT

Issued: April 11, 2013

Comment Period Closes: May 14, 2013

The following is a draft U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) guidance document 

regarding the test procedure for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers (refrigeration 

products). This draft guidance document represents the Department’s interpretation of its existing 

regulations and is exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure 

Act. See 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(A). Nonetheless, the Department is accepting comments and suggestions from 

the public until May 14, 2013. Comments and suggestions should be provided in WordPerfect, Microsoft 

Word, PDF, or text file format by sending an email to ResRefrigGuidance2013TP-0012@ee.doe.gov. 

Please also include the docket number EERE-2013-BT-TP-0012. At the end of the comment period, this 

draft guidance document may be adopted, revised, or withdrawn.

Q: When do the DOE principles of interpretation located at 10 CFR 430.23(a)(10) and 10 CFR 

430.23(b)(7) (the “anti-circumvention” provisions) require a manufacturer to apply for a test 

procedure waiver? 

A: Whether a manufacturer must apply for a test procedure waiver depends on a number of factors. 

This answer (1) provides relevant background information related to this issue and (2) explains the 

process for determining whether the provisions found at 10 CFR 430.23(a)(10) or 10 CFR 430.23(b)(7) 

require a waiver for a specific component or feature. (The term “component” refers, throughout this 

guidance document, to both components and features.)

1. Background on DOE’s “Anti-Circumvention” Provisions

This question refers to the principles of interpretation of the DOE test procedure for assessing the 

energy consumption of residential refrigerators and refrigerator freezers found in 10 CFR 430.23(a)(10) 

and the same provisions for residential freezers in 10 CFR 430.23(b)(7). The provisions in 10 CFR 

430.23(a)(10) and 10 CFR 430.23(b)(7), which DOE has previously referred to generally as the “anticircumvention” provisions, were adopted in a final rule published on December 16, 2010. See 77 FR 

3559, 3568. References in this guidance document to the anti-circumvention language refer to 10 CFR 

430.23(a)(10) and the provisions in 10 CFR 431.23(b)(7), since the provisions in these two sections are 

identical. In addition, unless otherwise specified, references in this document to the DOE test 

procedures for these products are to the test procedures in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A1 for 

residential refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers and in appendix B1 for freezers. The interpretations in 

this document also apply to the amended versions of these procedures, found in appendix A and 

appendix B of subpart B to part 430. 
2

As explained in the December 16, 2010 final rule, DOE adopted the anti-circumvention provisions to 

reflect DOE’s view of the objective of the test procedure, which is to measure the product’s energy 

consumption during a representative average use cycle or period of use. DOE’s test procedures are 

carefully designed and circumscribed to attain an overall calculated measurement of average energy 

consumption during representative use, though certain conditions may not individually appear to be 

representative of the average use cycle. DOE has held the consistent view that products should not be 

designed in a way that would cause energy consumption to drop during testing as a result of these 

apparently unrepresentative conditions. Doing so would result in a biased measurement that would be 

unrepresentative of average consumer use and would circumvent the total test procedure. 

With respect to the representativeness of the test procedure for residential refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers, DOE specified certain conditions that are deemed to be typical conditions of 

consumer use, among them being the ambient temperature at which the product is expected to be used

by the consumer. As explained in the introductory text of the anti-circumvention provisions, the test is 

designed to simulate typical room conditions of approximately 70  ̊F (21  ̊C) with door openings by 

testing at an ambient temperature of 90  ̊F (32.2  ̊C) without door openings. Except for operating 

characteristics that are affected by ambient temperature, such as compressor percent run time, the 

unit, when tested under the DOE test procedure, shall operate in a manner equivalent to the unit in 

typical room conditions. Energy consuming components that operate in typical room conditions, 

including as a result of door openings or as a function of humidity, and that are not exempted by the 

DOE test procedure, shall operate in an equivalent manner during energy testing under the DOE test 

procedure, or be accounted for by all calculations as provided for in the DOE test procedure.

The language that follows this introductory text identifies operating characteristics for components that 

would violate these underlying principles and that would prevent the test from providing a 

representative value of expected energy consumption under conditions of typical consumer use. 

Essentially, if a basic model contains energy consuming components that operate differently during the 

prescribed testing than they would during representative average consumer use, and applying the 

prescribed test to that basic model would evaluate it in a manner that is unrepresentative of its true 

energy consumption (thereby providing materially inaccurate comparative data), a manufacturer must 

obtain a waiver in accordance with the relevant provisions of 10 CFR part 430 (found in section 430.27). 

The purpose of a waiver would be to provide a means for testing the basic model. Those means could 

involve disabling the component during testing or accounting for the difference in energy use through 

calculations.

2. Process to Determine Whether the Anti-Circumvention Provisions Require a Waiver 

Step 1: 

Q: Does the relevant component in fact operate differently during the prescribed testing than it 

would during representative average consumer use? 

(If the answer is “no,” the anti-circumvention provisions do not require a waiver. If the answer is 

“yes,” move on to “Step 2.”)

A: To determine whether the anti-circumvention provisions apply to the operation of a particular 

component, DOE first considers whether the component operates differently during the prescribed 

testing than it would during representative average consumer use. In some cases, this can be 
3

determined based solely on whether its operating state changes based upon ambient temperature, 

since this is the principal difference between the test conditions and expected conditions of consumer 

use other than the absence of door openings, which is specifically addressed by the anti-circumvention 

language. If the component would operate in the same manner during either the test or during 

consumer use, it is unaffected by these provisions.

Note that, in general, evaluating potential circumvention associated with ambient temperature involves 

consideration only of operating characteristics in typical room ambient temperature expected for 

consumer use and in the ambient temperature of the test. That is, if differences in component operation 

occur only at ambient temperatures that are either significantly colder than the typical room ambient of 

70  ̊F specified in the anti-circumvention language or significantly higher than the 90  ̊F ambient 

temperature at which the basic model is tested, DOE will, in most cases, consider the modified 

operation to be exempt from the anti-circumvention provisions. DOE may, in certain cases, apply the 

anti-circumvention provisions to components that function outside this range if it appears likely that the 

component will function during a significant portion of consumer use, or at temperatures very close to 

70  ̊F or 90  ̊F, to ensure that the test provides a representative value of energy use. 

Step 2: 

Q: Is the component covered by the exemption for “operating characteristics that are affected by 

ambient temperature”?

(If the answer is “yes,” the anti-circumvention provisions do not require a waiver. If the answer is 

“no,” move on to Step 3.)

If a component would operate differently during the test than during conditions of expected consumer 

use, DOE then considers whether it falls within the exemption for operating characteristics that are 

affected by ambient temperature. As noted in the introductory text of the anti-circumvention 

provisions, this exemption applies to aspects of operation such as compressor run-time, which is 

affected directly by ambient temperature but in a necessary and predictable manner. DOE considers this 

to be a “passive” change in operating characteristics, in that it is not “actively” implemented by the 

control system—rather, it is the response of the thermostat to the more rapid warm-up of the cabinet 

interior due to the increased thermal load associated with the 90 ̊ F ambient temperature. The 

thermostat responds no differently to this increase in cabinet temperature than it would in a 70 ̊ F 

ambient temperature—it just starts the compressor sooner because of the warmer ambient 

temperature. Examples of other functions that DOE would consider to be passive changes include the 

frequency of defrost cycles in basic models with timer-based defrost systems and changes in the thermal 

resistance of the basic model’s insulation. 

Conversely, a change in a basic model’s operating state initiated automatically by its control system in 

response to a change in ambient temperature is considered an “active” change. DOE considers this type 

of change in operating characteristics to be covered by the anti-circumvention provisions. The intent, as 

expressed in the anti-circumvention provisions, is to reduce the probability that manufacturers could 

design a basic model that is able to sense test conditions and change its operating state to obtain a 

more favorable test result or for any other reason that may result in a value of tested energy use that is 

not representative of the conditions of consumer use that the test was designed to simulate. In such 

cases, DOE would require the manufacturer to obtain a waiver to test and rate the basic model properly. 
4

Step 3: 

Q: Would testing the basic model using the prescribed test procedure yield results that are 

unrepresentative of the basic model’s true energy consumption (thus providing materially inaccurate 

comparative data)?

(If the answer is “yes,” the anti-circumvention provisions require a waiver. If the answer is “no,” the 

anti-circumvention provisions do not require a waiver.)

A: DOE emphasizes that the anti-circumvention provisions do not automatically and uniformly require a 

waiver for any component that could be viewed as actively changing a basic model’s operating state. 

Specifically, the provisions apply only if the control action would make the prescribed test 

unrepresentative of the basic model’s true energy consumption, as described in 10 CFR 430.23(a)(10)(ii). 

In evaluating such components, DOE will consider the magnitude of the change in expected product 

performance resulting from use of the component in question to determine whether its impact justifies 

the need for a waiver. 

DOE recognizes that certain features and control schemes that involve an active change in operating 

state are designed for a legitimate purpose unrelated to circumventing the test procedure. DOE 

emphasizes that the anti-circumvention provisions are in no way intended to limit innovations that may 

yield legitimate improvements in product performance or utility to consumers.

Finally, in any case in which a manufacturer suspects that a feature or operational characteristic of a 

new basic model may require a waiver, DOE recommends that the manufacturer consult with DOE prior 

to testing and rating the basic model to ensure that it is fully in compliance with DOE regulations prior to 

its introduction into commerce. To make its determination, DOE may request additional technical details 

about the basic model’s design and operating characteristics so that any decision will be based upon full 

and fair evaluation. 

Example:

A basic model of refrigerator-freezer has a feature that automatically increases the condenser fan speed 

when the ambient temperature exceeds a threshold temperature that is between 70  ̊F and 90  ̊F. The 

purpose of such a feature is to improve the efficiency of heat rejection from the condenser, which 

improves the efficiency of the refrigeration system by reducing the frequency and length of compressor 

cycles and thus reduces the energy consumption that would otherwise have occurred without the 

change in fan speed. Since the resulting reduction in energy use of the refrigeration system’s 

compressor is likely to be greater in magnitude than the additional energy use of the fan, the overall 

operating efficiency of the basic model is effectively improved at 90  ̊F compared with operation under 

the same conditions without it. If evaluating this feature using the process described in this guidance, 

the basic model would satisfy the requirements for step 1 and not be exempted in step 2, leading to 

evaluation under step 3.

Because this feature represents an active change in operating state that is likely to result in operational 

performance at test conditions that is unrepresentative of consumer use, it satisfies the requirement for 

step 3 of the process, meaning that DOE would consider a feature like this to be subject to the anticircumvention provisions. More specifically, the value of energy consumption resulting from the test 
5

would be unrepresentative of consumer use because the tested energy use of a basic model with this 

feature is likely to be different than that of an identical basic model without this feature, and this 

feature does not operate at conditions of expected consumer use. Therefore, DOE’s view is that the test 

procedure does not account for the effects of this type of feature and would generally require a basic 

model with a feature like this to be tested using a waiver that in some way accounts for this difference 

in operational performance.