Vol. 78 Wednesday, 

No. 132 July 10, 2013 

Part IV 

Department of Energy 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedures for 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers; Proposed Rule 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41610 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2012–BT–TP–0016] 

RIN 1904–AC76 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Test Procedures 

for Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) today is issuing a notice 

of proposed rulemaking to amend the 

test procedures for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers that 

will be required for the testing of 

products starting September 15, 2014. 

DOE is proposing to amend the test 

procedure to address products with 

multiple compressors and to allow an 

alternative method for measuring and 

calculating energy consumption for 

refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators 

with freezer compartments. DOE is also 

proposing to amend certain aspects of 

the test procedure in order to ensure 

better test accuracy and repeatability. 

Additionally, DOE is soliciting 

comment on a potential test procedure 

to measure the energy use associated 

with making ice with an automatic 

icemaker. If adopted, that procedure 

would become effective in conjunction 

with any parallel energy conservation 

standards rulemaking that DOE would 

need to conduct pursuant to the six-year 

review process mandated under Federal 

law. 

DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting 

on July 25, 2013, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

in Washington, DC. The meeting will 

also be broadcast as a webinar. See 

section V, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for 

webinar registration information, 

participant instructions, and 

information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. DOE 

will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this notice of 

proposed rulemaking before and after 

the public meeting, but no later than 

September 23, 2013. See section V, 

‘‘Public Participation,’’ for details. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. To attend, 

please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at 

(202) 586–2945. See section V, ‘‘Public 

Participation’’ for details. 

Any comments submitted must 

identify the NOPR for Test Procedures 

for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, 

and Freezers, and provide docket 

number EERE–2012–BT–TP–0016 and/ 

or regulatory information number (RIN) 

number 1904–AC76. Comments may be 

submitted using any of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: #Res-Refrig-Freezer-2012– 

BT–TP–0016@ee.doe.gov. Include 

docket number EERE–2012–BT–TP– 

0016 and/or RIN 1904–AC76 in the 

subject line of the message. 

3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

CD. It is not necessary to include 

printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD. It is not 

necessary to include printed copies. 

For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section V, ‘‘Public Participation’’. 

The docket is available for review at 

regulations.gov, including Federal 

Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

regulations.gov index. However, not all 

documents listed in the index may be 

publicly available, such as information 

that is exempt from public disclosure. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2012-BT-TP0016. This Web page will contain a link 

to the docket for this notice on the 

regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov 

Web page will contain simple 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in the public meeting, contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by 

email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Lucas Adin, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC, 20585–0121, 202–287– 

1317, email: 

refrigerators_and_freezers@ee.doe.gov 

or Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–8145. Email: 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Authority 

II. Summary of the Proposal 

III. Discussion 

A. Products Covered by the Proposed Rule 

B. Proposed Dates for the Amended Test 

Procedures 

C. Proposed Test Procedure Amendments 

1. Icemaking Test Procedure 

2. Multiple Compressor Test 

3. Triangulation 

4. Anti-Circumvention Language 

5. Incomplete Cycling 

6. Mechanical Temperature Controls 

7. Ambient Temperature Gradient 

8. Definitions Associated with Defrost 

Cycles 

9. Elimination of Reporting of Product 

Height 

10. Measurement of Product Volume 

11. Corrections to Temperature Setting 

Logic Tables 

12. Minimum Compressor Run-Time 

Between Defrosts for Variable Defrost 

Models 

13. Treatment of ‘‘Connected’’ Products 

14. Changes to Confidentiality of 

Certification Data 

15. Package Loading 

16. Product Clearance to the Wall During 

Testing 

17. Other Minor Corrections 

18. Relocation of Shelving for Temperature 

Sensors 

D. Other Matters Related to the Test 

Procedure 

1. Built-In Refrigerators 

2. Specific Volume Measurement Issues 

3. Treatment of Products That Are 

Operable As a Refrigerator or Freezer 

4. Stabilization Period 

E. Compliance With Other EPCA 

Requirements 

1. Test Burden 

2. Changes in Measured Energy Use 

3. Standby and Off Mode Energy Use 

IV. Procedural Requirements 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41611 

1The signatories to these comments included the 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, the 

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 

the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Alliance 

to Save Energy, the Alliance for Water Efficiency, 

the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, the 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council, the 

Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, the 

Consumer Federation of America, the National 

Consumer Law Center, Earthjustice, and the 

California Energy Commission. 

2Subsequently referred to as ‘‘AHAM Draft Test 

Procedure’’ 

3Subsequently referred to as ‘‘AHAM Revised 

Draft Test Procedure’’ 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

V. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting 

B. Procedure for Submitting Requests to 

Speak 

C. Conduct of Public Meeting 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Background and Authority 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6291, et 

seq.; ‘‘EPCA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’) sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. (All 

references to EPCA refer to the statute 

as amended through the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA 2007), Pub. L. 110–140 (Dec. 19, 

2007).) Part B of title III (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6309), which was subsequently 

designated as Part A for editorial 

reasons, establishes the ‘‘Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles.’’ 

Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers (collectively referred to below 

as ‘‘refrigeration products’’) are all 

treated as ‘‘covered products’’ under 

this Part. (42 U.S.C. 6291(1)–(2) and 

6292(a)(1)) Under the Act, this program 

consists essentially of three parts: (1) 

Testing, (2) labeling, and (3) Federal 

energy conservation standards. The 

testing requirements consist of test 

procedures that manufacturers of 

covered products must use (1) as the 

basis for certifying to DOE that their 

products comply with the applicable 

energy conservation standards adopted 

under EPCA, and (2) for making 

representations about the efficiency of 

those products. Similarly, DOE must use 

these test requirements to determine 

whether the products comply with any 

relevant standards promulgated under 

EPCA. 

By way of background, the National 

Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 

1987 (NAECA), Public Law 100–12, 

amended EPCA by including, among 

other things, performance standards for 

refrigeration products. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(b)) On November 17, 1989, DOE 

amended these performance standards 

for products manufactured on or after 

January 1, 1993. 54 FR 47916. DOE 

subsequently published a correction to 

revise these new standards for three 

product classes. 55 FR 42845 (October 

24, 1990). DOE again updated the 

performance standards for refrigeration 

products on April 28, 1997, for products 

manufactured starting on July 1, 2001. 

62 FR 23102. 

EISA 2007 amended EPCA by 

requiring DOE to publish a final rule 

determining whether to amend the 

energy conservation standards for 

refrigeration products manufactured 

starting in 2014. (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(4)) 

Consistent with this requirement, DOE 

initiated an effort to consider 

amendments to the standards for 

refrigeration products. As part of this 

effort, DOE issued a framework 

document on September 18, 2008, that 

discussed the various issues involved 

with amending the standards and 

potential changes to the test procedure. 

73 FR 54089. DOE later prepared 

preliminary analyses that examined in 

greater detail the impacts amended 

standards would be likely to have on a 

national basis. DOE published a notice 

of proposed meeting (NOPM) to initiate 

a discussion of these analyses, 74 FR 

58915 (Nov. 16, 2009), and held a public 

meeting on December 10, 2009, to 

discuss its preliminary findings. At that 

meeting, and in submitted written 

comments, interested parties indicated 

that the energy conservation standards 

for refrigeration products should 

address the energy use associated with 

automatic icemakers. They added, 

however, that a test procedure to 

measure icemaking energy use had not 

yet been sufficiently developed to 

provide a basis for the standards. 

(Energy Conservation Standards for 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Freezers, Docket No. EERE–2008–BT– 

STD–0012; American Council for an 

Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), No. 

46 at p. 1; California Investor Owned 

Utilities (IOUs), No. 39 at p. 2; LG, No. 

44 at pp. 2–3; Natural Resources 

Defense Council (NRDC), No. 42 at p. 2; 

Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership 

(NEEP), No. 41 at p. 1; Northwest Power 

and Conservation Council (NPCC), No. 

36 at p. 1; Sub-Zero, No. 43 at pp. 2– 

3; Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project (ASAP), Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 28–29; 

Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM), No. 37 at p. 2; 

General Electric, No. 40 at p. 1) 

DOE also initiated a test procedure 

rulemaking to help address a variety of 

test procedure-related issues identified 

in the energy conservation standard 

rulemaking’s framework document. 

Taking these issues into account, DOE 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR) on May 27, 2010. 75 

FR 29824 (hereafter referred to as ‘‘the 

May 2010 NOPR’’). The May 2010 

NOPR proposed to use a fixed value of 

84 kWh per year to represent the 

icemaking energy use for those 

refrigeration products equipped with 

automatic icemakers. The NOPR also 

indicated that DOE would consider 

adopting an approach based on testing 

to determine icemaking energy use if a 

suitable test procedure could be 

developed. Id. at 29846–29847. A broad 

group of stakeholders 1 submitted a joint 

comment supporting DOE’s proposal to 

use a temporary fixed placeholder value 

to represent the energy use of automatic 

icemakers. It also urged DOE to initiate 

a rulemaking no later than January 1, 

2012, and publish a final rule no later 

than December 31, 2012, to amend the 

test procedures to incorporate a 

laboratory-based measurement of 

icemaking energy use. The joint 

comment further recommended that 

DOE publish a final rule by July 1, 2013, 

amending the energy conservation 

standards scheduled to take effect in 

2014 to account for the differences in 

energy use of icemakers measured using 

the new test procedure as compared 

with the 84 kWh per year fixed 

placeholder value. (Test Procedure for 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Freezers, Docket Number EERE–2009– 

BT–TP–0003; Joint Comment, No. 20 at 

5–6) 

In keeping with the timeline 

suggested in the comment, AHAM 

provided DOE in early January 2012 

with a draft test procedure that could be 

used to measure automatic icemaker 

energy usage. (AHAM Refrigerator, 

Refrigerator-Freezer and Freezer Ice 

Making Energy Test Procedure, Revision 

1.0—12/14/11,2 No. 4) Subsequently, 

consistent with the suggestions made by 

commenters and DOE’s previously 

stated intentions, DOE initiated work to 

develop today’s notice. On July 18, 

2012, AHAM provided DOE with a 

revised test procedure. (AHAM 

Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Freezer and 

Freezer Ice Making Energy Test 

Procedure, Revision 2.0—7/10/12,3 No. 

5) Today’s notice, which is based in part 

on the approach suggested by AHAM, is 

designed to help the agency improve the 

accuracy of certain aspects of the test 

procedure that it recently promulgated. 

To ensure that any potential technical 

issues are addressed, DOE is soliciting 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41612 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

comments from the public on the 

potential adoption of the icemaking 

energy use measurement test that is 

detailed in today’s notice. The 

procedure would be added as a new and 

separate section to the test procedure. 

Based on the comments received, DOE 

may adopt this testing approach (along 

with any necessary modifications) as 

part of the overall procedure but would 

require its usage to occur in parallel 

with any energy conservation standards 

rulemaking that would result from the 

mandatory review required under 

EPCA. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(m). 

DOE does not anticipate, based on 

collected preliminary data that its 

proposed changes to the current 

procedure would be likely to require an 

adjustment to those standards that 

manufacturers must meet starting in 

2014. Additional details regarding these 

adjustments are detailed below and 

explain why an adjustment to the 2014 

standards will not be necessary. 

General Test Procedure Rulemaking 

Process 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth 

the criteria and procedures DOE must 

follow when prescribing or amending 

test procedures for covered products. 

EPCA provides in relevant part that 

‘‘[a]ny test procedures prescribed or 

amended under this section shall be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results which measure energy 

efficiency, energy use . . . or estimated 

annual operating cost of a covered 

product during a representative average 

use cycle or period of use, as 

determined by the Secretary [of Energy], 

and shall not be unduly burdensome to 

conduct.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) 

In cases where DOE is considering 

amending a test procedure (or adding a 

new one), DOE publishes a proposal and 

offers the public an opportunity to 

present oral and written comments. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) When considering 

amending a test procedure, DOE must 

determine the extent to which, if any, 

the proposal would alter the measured 

energy use of a given product as 

determined under the existing 

procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If DOE 

determines that the amended test 

procedure would alter the measured 

energy use of a covered product, DOE 

must also amend the applicable energy 

conservation standard accordingly. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) 

Today’s rulemaking addresses 

amendments that, if adopted, would 

apply to the test procedures that 

manufacturers must use to demonstrate 

compliance with the energy 

conservation standards starting on 

September 15, 2014 (i.e., 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, appendices A and B). 

DOE has determined that none of the 

amendments to the test procedures 

proposed in this notice would be likely 

to significantly change the measured 

energy use of refrigeration products. 

DOE’s analyses demonstrate that the 

proposed amendments to Appendices A 

and B, along with the possible 

incorporation of an optional 

‘‘triangulation’’ method, will not affect 

measured energy use to any significant 

extent that would necessitate a change 

to any of the energy conservation 

standards for the products that would be 

affected by today’s proposal. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(e)(2)) Further, the preliminary data 

indicate that if DOE were to adopt the 

icemaking energy measurement test 

procedure detailed in today’s notice, an 

adjustment to the standards be 

unnecessary. To demonstrate the effects 

of these amendments under 

consideration, DOE has conducted a 

preliminary evaluation of the 

anticipated impacts presented by 

today’s proposal. This evaluation is 

discussed in further detail in section 

D.II of this notice. DOE notes that the 

proposed icemaking energy 

measurement test procedure 

amendments, if adopted, would not be 

required for manufacturers to use unless 

DOE were to set new or amended 

standards for refrigeration products after 

September 2014. Until such standards 

are developed, manufacturers would 

continue following the method that is 

laid out in Appendices A and B. 

Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers 

DOE’s test procedures for refrigerators 

and refrigerator-freezers are found at 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices A1 

(currently in effect) and A (required for 

rating products starting September 15, 

2014). DOE initially established its test 

procedures for refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers in a final rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 14, 1977. 42 FR 46140. 

Industry representatives viewed these 

test procedures as too complex and 

eventually developed alternative test 

procedures in conjunction with AHAM 

that were incorporated into the 1979 

version of HRF–1, ‘‘Household 

Refrigerators, Combination RefrigeratorFreezers, and Household Freezers’’ 

(HRF–1–1979). Using this industrycreated test procedure, DOE revised its 

test procedures on August 10, 1982. 47 

FR 34517. On August 31, 1989, DOE 

published a final rule establishing test 

procedures for variable defrost control 

(a control type in which the time 

interval between successive defrost 

cycles is determined by operating 

conditions indicating the need for 

defrost rather than by compressor run 

time) refrigeration products, dual 

compressor refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers equipped with ‘‘quick-freeze’’ (a 

manually-initiated feature that bypasses 

the thermostat and runs the compressor 

continuously until terminated). 54 FR 

36238. DOE amended the test 

procedures again on March 7, 2003, by 

modifying the test period used for 

products equipped with long-time 

automatic defrost (a control type in 

which defrost cycles are separated by 14 

hours or more of compressor run time) 

or variable defrost. 68 FR 10957. The 

test procedures include provisions for 

determining the annual energy use in 

kilowatt-hours (kWh) (54 FR 6062, Feb. 

7, 1989) and the accompanying annual 

operating costs. 42 FR 46140 (Sept. 14, 

1977). 

DOE further amended the test 

procedures in a final rule published on 

December 16, 2010. 75 FR 78810. These 

amendments helped clarify how to test 

products for compliance with the 

applicable standards. The amendments 

clarified certain elements in Appendix 

A1 to ensure that regulated entities fully 

understand how to apply and 

implement the test procedure. These 

changes included clarifying how 

refrigeration products equipped with 

special compartments and/or more than 

one fresh food compartment or more 

than one freezer compartment should be 

tested. The amendments also accounted 

for the various waivers granted by DOE, 

specifically with regard to variable antisweat heater controls. The final rule also 

modified the regulatory definition of 

‘‘electric refrigerator-freezer’’ by 

requiring the storage temperatures in the 

fresh food compartment of such a 

product to be at a level that would 

effectively exclude the coverage of 

combination wine storage-freezer 

products. See 10 CFR 430.2. The 

definition for ‘‘electric refrigerator’’ had 

already been amended to clarify the 

characteristics that distinguish it from 

related products, such as wine storage 

products, as part of a final rule 

published on November 19, 2001. 66 FR 

57845. However, the December 2010 

final rule made additional refinements 

to the definition. 75 FR at 78817 (Dec. 

16, 2010). DOE is considering further 

modifying its product definitions to 

cover wine storage products as part of 

a separate rulemaking. See 77 FR 7547 

(Feb. 13, 2012) (announcing the 

availability of DOE’s framework 

document regarding wine chillers and 

other miscellaneous refrigeration 

products). 

In the December 16, 2010 notice, DOE 

also established a new Appendix A, via 

an interim final rule. The new 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41613 

4Multiplying 0.23 by 365 days per year yields 84 

kWh. 

Appendix A included a number of 

comprehensive changes to help improve 

the measurement of energy 

consumption of refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers. These changes 

included, among other things: (1) New 

compartment temperatures and volume 

adjustment factors, (2) new methods for 

measuring compartment volumes, (3) a 

modification of the long-time automatic 

defrost test procedure to ensure that the 

test procedure measures all energy use 

associated with the defrost function, 

and (4) test procedures for products 

with a single compressor and multiple 

evaporators with separate active defrost 

cycles. DOE noted that the compartment 

temperature changes introduced by 

Appendix A would significantly impact 

the measured energy use and affect the 

calculated adjusted volume and energy 

factor (i.e., adjusted volume divided by 

energy use) values. Lastly, the interim 

final rule also addressed icemaking 

energy use by including a fixed value 

for manufacturers to add when 

calculating the energy consumption of 

those products equipped with an 

automatic icemaker. Using available 

data submitted by the industry, this 

value was set at 84 kWh per year. See 

75 FR 78810, 78859 and 78871 (Dec. 16, 

2010) (specifying daily value of 0.23 

kWh for products equipped with an 

automatic icemaker).4 In light of 

stakeholders’ strong recommendations 

that the test procedure and energy 

conservation standards incorporate the 

energy use associated with icemaking, 

AHAM’s development efforts, and 

additional work performed by NIST and 

DOE, DOE is soliciting the public for 

feedback on a possible replacement for 

the ‘‘fixed value’’ approach by detailing 

a test procedure based on these 

collective efforts that relies on 

laboratory measurements to determine 

the energy use of automatic icemakers. 

Based on the comments received, DOE 

may adopt this approach or consider 

other alternatives. 

Freezers 

DOE’s test procedures for freezers are 

found at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendices B1 (currently in effect) and 

B (required for the rating of products 

starting in 2014). DOE established its 

test procedures for freezers in a final 

rule published in the Federal Register 

on September 14, 1977. 42 FR 46140. As 

with DOE’s test procedures for 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, 

industry representatives viewed the 

freezer test procedures as too complex 

and worked with AHAM to develop 

alternative test procedures, which were 

incorporated into the 1979 version of 

HRF–1. DOE revised its test procedures 

for freezers based on this AHAM 

standard on August 10, 1982. 47 FR 

34517. The subsequent August 31, 1989 

final rule established test procedures for 

freezers with variable defrost control 

and freezers with the quick-freeze 

feature. 54 FR 36238. A subsequent 

amendment occurred to correct that 

rule’s effective date. 54 FR 38788 (Sept. 

20, 1989). The current test procedures 

include provisions for determining the 

annual energy use in kWh and annual 

electrical operating costs for freezers. 

As with refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers, the December 16, 2010 notice 

also clarified compliance testing 

requirements for freezers under 

Appendix B1 and created a new 

Appendix B, the latter of which 

manufacturers are required to use 

starting in 2014. That new test 

procedure changed a number of aspects 

of the procedure detailed in Appendix 

B1, including, among other things: (1) 

The freezer volume adjustment factor, 

(2) methods for measuring compartment 

volumes, and (3) the long-time 

automatic defrost test procedure. In 

addition, Appendix B also addresses 

icemaking energy use by implementing 

for freezers the same procedure adopted 

for refrigerator-freezers in which a fixed 

energy use value is applied when 

calculating the energy consumption of 

freezers with automatic icemakers. 75 

FR 78810. 

Finalization of the Test Procedure 

Rulemaking for Products Manufactured 

Starting in 2014 

The December 2010 interim final rule 

established comprehensive changes to 

the manner in which refrigeration 

products are tested by creating new 

Appendices A and B. In addition to the 

changes discussed above, these new 

appendices also incorporate the 

modifications to Appendices A1 and B1 

that were finalized and adopted on 

December 16, 2010. 

DOE provided an initial comment 

period on the interim final rule, which 

ended on February 14, 2011, and 

subsequently reopened the comment 

period on September 15, 2011 (76 FR 

57612) to allow for further public 

feedback in response to the 

promulgation of the final energy 

conservation standards that were 

published on the same day. 76 FR 

57516. This re-opening permitted 

interested parties to comment on the 

interplay between the test procedure 

and the energy conservation standards, 

and provided DOE with additional 

information to consider before making 

any final changes to the test procedures 

of Appendices A and B prior to their use 

by manufacturers starting on September 

15, 2014. 76 FR at 57612–57613. That 

comment period ended on October 17, 

2011. DOE also considered comments 

related to a petition for a test procedure 

waiver that had a direct bearing on 

elements of the test procedures used in 

Appendix A. See 76 FR 16760 (March 

25, 2011) (petition no. RF–018, Samsung 

Electronics America, Inc. (Samsung)). 

During the comment periods that DOE 

provided, interested parties raised a 

number of issues for DOE to consider 

with respect to the test procedure. The 

submitted comments included 

suggestions that DOE modify the test 

procedure for multiple compressor 

systems to reduce test burden, modify 

the test period for the second part of the 

test for products with long-time or 

variable defrost to assure proper 

accounting of all energy use associated 

with defrost, develop separate test 

procedures and standards for products 

combining wine storage with fresh food 

compartments, allow use of an 

alternative three-test interpolation 

approach as an option to potentially 

improve measurement accuracy at the 

cost of greater test burden for those 

manufacturers choosing to use it, adjust 

the test procedure’s anti-circumvention 

provisions, and adjust the default values 

of CTL and CTM (the longest and 

shortest duration of compressor run 

time between defrosts) to be used in the 

energy use equations for products that 

do not have defined values for these 

parameters in their control algorithms. 

(Test Procedure for Refrigerators, 

Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, 

Docket Number EERE–2009–BT–TP– 

0003; Sub-Zero, No. 42; AHAM, No. 43, 

Whirlpool, No. 44) Stakeholders 

recommended that all but the last of 

these changes be adopted in the current 

test procedures (Appendices A1 and B1) 

as well as the test procedures that will 

be required for certification of 

compliance with the new energy 

standards starting September 15, 2014 

(Appendices A and B). The 

recommendation for changing the 

default values of CTL and CTM applied 

only to the latter set of test procedures. 

On January 25, 2012, DOE published 

a final rule setting out the test 

procedures for refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers (Appendix A) and 

freezers (Appendix B) that 

manufacturers must use starting in 

2014. 77 FR 3559. In finalizing the test 

procedures, DOE considered the 

changes recommended by stakeholders, 

including recommendations for certain 

amendments to be made to the current 

test procedures found in 10 CFR 430.23 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41614 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

5This guidance is posted in DOE’s online 

Guidance and FAQ database, and is available for 

viewing at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/guidance/ 

default.aspx?pid=2&spid=1 

and in Appendices A1 and B1. DOE 

declined to make the recommended 

amendments for these appendices 

because the supplementary comment 

period DOE provided had explicitly 

focused solely on issues related to 

Appendices A and B. Aspects of 

Appendices A1 and B1 had already 

been settled and finalized with the 

December 2010 final rule. Id. at 3568– 

3571. Additionally, DOE declined to 

adopt certain changes recommended for 

Appendices A and B. DOE declined to 

adopt these suggestions because the 

nature of those recommendations had 

not, in DOE’s view, been presented in a 

manner that would have afforded the 

public with a sufficient opportunity to 

adequately comment on those issues. Id. 

Nevertheless, after finalizing the rule 

setting out Appendices A and B, DOE 

reviewed these various suggestions and 

weighed their possible inclusion as part 

of the test procedure framework for 

refrigeration products. As a result of this 

review, DOE has decided to propose the 

inclusion of some of these 

recommended amendments in today’s 

NOPR, including modified test 

procedures for products with multiple 

compressor systems, use of an 

alternative method for measuring and 

calculating energy use consumption at 

standardized temperatures for 

refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators 

with freezer compartments, and the 

modification of the anti-circumvention 

language currently found in these 

appendices. 

Waivers 

DOE has granted a limited number of 

petitions for waiver from the test 

procedures for refrigeration products 

since the publication of the December 

2010 final rule. On January 10, 2012, 

DOE published a decision and order 

(D&O) responding to two waiver 

petitions from Samsung addressing 

products with multiple defrost cycle 

types. 77 FR 1474. That notice 

prescribed a procedure to account for 

the energy use associated with the 

multiple defrost cycles of a singlecompressor-based system. The approach 

is identical to the procedure established 

for Appendix A in the January 25, 2012, 

final rule that manufacturers will need 

to follow starting in 2014. 77 FR 3559. 

DOE also issued a Decision and Order 

(D&O) that granted a waiver to GE 

Appliances (GE) to use the same test 

procedure for similar products. See 77 

FR 75426 (Dec. 20, 2012) (GE waiver). 

In effect, these waivers permit these 

companies to address certain products 

that cannot be readily tested or that 

otherwise would produce 

unrepresentative energy consumption 

measurements under the currently 

required test in Appendix A1. 

DOE also granted a waiver to SubZero, Inc. (Sub-Zero) to address that 

company’s multiple-compressor 

products. See 77 FR 5784 (Feb. 6, 2012) 

(Sub-Zero waiver). That waiver 

permitted Sub-Zero to use the same test 

procedure that AHAM had 

recommended that DOE adopt for both 

Appendix A1 and Appendix A. (Test 

Procedure for Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers, Docket Number 

EERE–2009–BT–TP–0003; AHAM, No. 

43 at pp. 2–3) Today’s NOPR proposes 

to add a test procedure for multiple 

compressor products that is based on 

the Sub-Zero waiver procedure. 

Finally, on August 16, 2012, DOE 

granted a waiver to Sanyo E&E 

Corporation (Sanyo) to address a hybrid 

refrigeration product, i.e., a product 

combining wine storage compartments 

in a refrigerator. See 77 FR 49443 

(Decision and Order granting Sanyo’s 

petition (Sanyo waiver)). The waiver 

cites a guidance document that DOE 

published in February 2011, which 

indicates that products combining a 

wine storage compartment and a fresh 

food compartment are considered 

refrigerators and should be tested as 

such.5 The waiver further explains that 

the Sanyo hybrid product cannot be 

tested with its wine storage 

compartment at the standardized 

temperature required for testing 

refrigerators using Appendix A1 (i.e., 38 

°F), and that doing so would result in 

a non-representative energy use 

measurement. Hence, DOE granted 

Sanyo’s request that it be allowed to test 

the product using a standardized 

temperature of 55 °F for the wine 

storage compartment. Id. 

After granting a waiver, DOE waiver 

provisions generally direct the agency to 

initiate a rulemaking to amend its 

regulations to eliminate the continued 

need for the waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(m). 

Today’s notice addresses this 

requirement for the Sub-Zero waiver by 

proposing to amend Appendix A to 

include a test procedure for multiple 

compressor products that is based on 

the Sub-Zero waiver procedure. The 

Sub-Zero waiver would terminate on 

September 15, 2014, the same date that 

manufacturers must use the test 

procedures in Appendix A for testing. 

The Samsung and GE waivers have 

already been addressed by the January 

2012 final rule for products 

manufactured starting September 15, 

2014. DOE does not currently anticipate 

that additional products on the market 

with single-compressor-based systems 

using multiple defrost cycles will be 

introduced prior to 2014, since it is 

DOE’s understanding that this is a 

system design unique to those 

manufacturers who are currently 

covered by these waivers. Hence, at this 

time, DOE does not believe amending 

Appendix A1 to include this particular 

alternative test procedure is necessary. 

As for hybrid products such as the one 

identified by Sanyo, DOE will consider 

developing appropriate test procedures 

for these and similar products in a 

separate rulemaking. See 77 FR 7547 

(Feb. 13, 2012). 

II. Summary of the Proposal 

DOE’s December 2010 and January 

2012 notices made a number of changes 

to the previous versions of the test 

procedures. These changes included 

modifying the current procedure and 

creating a substantially revised 

procedure that manufacturers must 

begin to use when certifying and rating 

refrigeration products starting in 2014. 

While the final rules made a number of 

significant improvements to the test 

procedures, there remained some 

pending issues that DOE was unable to 

address. Today’s notice attempts to 

address those remaining issues. 

Some of the improvements proposed 

in this notice could be considered for 

implementation in the current test 

procedures as well as the procedures 

that will be required for certification 

starting in 2014. However, the current 

test procedures will continue to be used 

only for a limited time. Hence, DOE is 

not proposing to make any substantive 

amendments to these test procedures, 

which are contained in Appendices A1 

and B1. (The proposal does, however, 

include amendments that would correct 

certain cross-references in these 

appendices to sections of 10 CFR 429). 

DOE requests comments on its proposed 

amendments to Appendices A and B, 

along with its tentative decision to 

refrain from applying this approach to 

the currently required Appendices A1 

and B1. 

The proposed amendments and issues 

on which DOE seeks public comment 

are summarized below. 

First, DOE is soliciting comment on 

its proposal to incorporate laboratorybased test procedures for measuring 

energy use associated with automatic 

icemaking to replace the standardized 

value used to represent icemaking 

energy use that DOE adopted as part of 

the December 2010 test procedure 

interim final rule. See 75 FR at 78859 

(Appendix A, sec. 6.2.2.1.) and 78871 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41615 

6 DOE’s proposal is more consistent with the 

revised AHAM test procedure than with AHAM’s 

initial draft. However, it is instructive to consider 

the contrast between the initial and revised AHAM 

test procedures, since justification for certain 

complications present in the DOE proposal for 

testing products that cycle compressors during 

icemaking are best explained through comparison 

with the simpler, but potentially less accurate, 

method of the initial AHAM draft. 

(Appendix B, sec. 6.2.1.1.). Responding 

to DOE’s preliminary analysis in 2009, 

a broad group of stakeholders agreed 

that DOE should regulate icemaking 

energy use as part of the refrigeration 

product energy conservation standards. 

The commenters recognized, however, 

that suitable test procedures were not 

yet available to allow their introduction 

in time for use with the 2014 energy 

conservation standards. (See Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Freezers, Docket No. EERE–2008–BT– 

STD–0012; ACEEE, No. 46 at p. 1; and 

AHAM, No. 37 at p. 2) With this 

understanding, many of these 

stakeholders collaborated to submit a 

joint comment recommending that DOE 

conduct a rulemaking in 2012 to amend 

its refrigeration product test procedures 

to incorporate icemaking energy use. 

(Test Procedure for Refrigerators, 

Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, 

Docket Number EERE–2009–BT–TP– 

0003; Joint Comment, No. 20 at pp. 5– 

6) AHAM submitted to DOE a ‘‘draft’’ 

version of this test procedure in January 

2012. Later, in July 2012, it submitted a 

revised version of this earlier draft and 

recommended that DOE adopt it. 

(AHAM Draft Test Procedure, No. 4; and 

AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure, 

No. 5) 6

Today’s notice solicits comment on an 

approach that would measure the 

energy use of automatic icemaking. That 

approach is based in part on the 

suggested approach from AHAM. 

Depending on the nature of any 

submitted comments, DOE may modify 

this approach. At this time, DOE is 

proposing that manufacturers would not 

be required to use this procedure until 

DOE amends the energy conservation 

standards for refrigeration products as 

part of the mandatory review required 

under EPCA. By linking this new 

measurement method with a new 

standards rulemaking, DOE can better 

ensure that all of these new 

requirements are coordinated within the 

context of a standards rulemaking 

(which would include any potential 

impacts related to icemaking energy 

use) and avoid any potential labeling 

issues that may arise, particularly since 

the new standards that DOE 

promulgated in 2011 will not be 

required for compliance purposes until 

2014. See 76 FR 57516. 

Further, DOE notes that 

manufacturers must base their written 

representations of energy usage on a 

new test procedure within 180 days of 

when the final rule for that procedure is 

published. See 42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2). 

Given the upcoming transition to the 

new standards for 2014, it is possible 

that this requirement, if adopted, could 

lead to confusion as consumers attempt 

to understand the meaning of the 

reported values, particularly if the 

reported values differ between two 

identical models that may have been 

tested under different provisions. 

Additionally, manufacturers would 

need to adjust their testing and labeling 

to account for the new icemaking energy 

measurement protocol. In light of these 

concerns, it is DOE’s tentative view that 

linking the timing of when 

manufacturers should begin using the 

icemaking energy use test method with 

the agency’s statutorily-mandated 

review of the 2014 standards would 

reduce consumer confusion and 

minimize the overall burdens faced by 

manufacturers while ensuring that a 

viable procedure is in place for 

measuring the energy use from 

icemaking. DOE notes that if it should 

adopt this measurement procedure, it 

would use that procedure in evaluating 

potential adjustments to the energy 

conservation standards as part of the 

mandatory review. This two-step 

approach should help ensure a 

smoother transition to a potential new 

set of standards based on any icemaking 

energy use test that DOE may adopt. 

DOE also notes that if this procedure 

were adopted in the manner described 

above, a manufacturer seeking to use the 

new procedure earlier than required 

would need to obtain a test procedure 

waiver from DOE in advance of doing 

so. 

Second, today’s notice proposes to 

add test procedures for products with 

multiple compressor systems. These 

proposed procedures are based on the 

waiver granted to Sub-Zero on February 

6, 2012. 77 FR 5784. They are proposed 

for inclusion only in Appendix A (i.e. 

procedures for these products required 

starting in 2014). The approach is not 

applicable to freezers and, hence, is not 

proposed for inclusion in Appendix B. 

Third, the proposal would address 

two issues raised by commenters during 

the previous refrigeration product test 

procedure rulemaking. The first would 

make modest changes to the ‘‘anticircumvention’’ language of 10 CFR 

430.23, which is found in paragraph 

(a)(10) for refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers, and paragraph (b)(7) for 

freezers. This proposed amendment 

would help clarify product design and 

control system issues to ensure that the 

measurements from testing are accurate 

and representative of expected 

consumer use. The second would allow 

the optional use of a new, alternative 

method for measuring and calculating 

the energy use of refrigerator-freezers 

and refrigerators with freezer 

compartments. This method, commonly 

known as ‘‘triangulation,’’ may, for 

some products, provide a more accurate 

measure of energy use—notably, for 

products with control systems that are 

not balanced to simultaneously match 

the standardized temperatures of both 

the freezer and fresh food compartments 

at the same positions of the temperature 

controls for these compartments. 

Triangulation involves the use of an 

additional test conducted using a third 

temperature control setting. (Under 

Appendix A, only two temperature 

control settings are used to calculate the 

energy usage of a given refrigeration 

product.) The proposal would allow 

manufacturers to use this test as an 

alternative for certification if a 

manufacturer believed that the more 

comprehensive triangulation test would 

provide a more accurate measurement of 

energy use than the simpler, ‘‘two 

temperature-control-setting’’ method 

already provided in DOE’s regulations. 

The proposal would also require that 

certification reports indicate whether 

triangulation has been used for testing. 

The NOPR proposes that triangulation 

be adopted in Appendix A. This test 

method is not applicable to freezers and, 

hence, is not proposed for inclusion in 

Appendix B. Additionally, while 

manufacturers would have the option of 

using either the two-part or 

triangulation test, DOE is proposing that 

it would use the triangulation test for 

assessment and enforcement testing in 

some cases. 

Today’s proposal also includes 

amendments associated with 

certification of compliance. First, it 

includes a proposal to eliminate the 

current requirement to report the height 

of refrigeration products in certification 

reports starting September 15, 2014. 

This information will no longer be 

necessary to classify products after this 

date, because the compact product 

classes will no longer have a height 

limit. See 76 FR 57515, 57538 (Sept. 15, 

2011) and DOE Guidance (Oct. 6, 2011) 

regarding compact products, http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/pdfs/refrfrz_faq_2011-10-06.pdf. This change in 

the certification report requirements of 

10 CFR 429.14(b)(2) would, in DOE’s 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41616 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

view, reduce the overall reporting 

burden faced by manufacturers. The 

proposal would also move the 

requirement to report whether a product 

has variable defrost or variable antisweat heaters from section 429.14(b)(3) 

to section 429.14(b)(2) to reflect that 

DOE intends for this information to be 

publicly available. 

As a measure intended to reduce 

testing burden and potentially improve 

the accuracy of reported data, today’s 

proposal would permit the use of 

volume calculations derived using 

computer aided design (CAD) tools in 

lieu of physical measurements of each 

basic model. To enable manufacturers to 

use this option, DOE is proposing 

changes to the requirements of 

Appendices A and B for measuring 

volume, adding a new section 429.72 

establishing requirements applicable to 

volume measurement, and adding a 

process in a new section 10 CFR 

429.134 for verifying the rated volume 

of a product. Finally, the references in 

section 5.1 of Appendices A and B to 

certification test reports would be 

corrected, changing references from 10 

CFR 429.14 to 10 CFR 429.71. 

The proposal also includes several 

clarifying amendments. These include: 

(a) Clarifying the term ‘‘incomplete 

cycling’’ as it applies to tested products 

and also modifying the test period for 

these products to ensure more accurate 

energy use measurement, (b) more 

specific instructions for setting 

mechanical temperature controls at their 

warmest and coldest settings, (c) 

clarifying the requirements for 

measuring ambient temperature and for 

maintaining ambient temperature 

gradients during testing, (d) establishing 

definitions for several commonly 

understood (but undefined) terms used 

in the test procedures, (e) a correction 

to the definition of the term ‘‘E’’ as used 

in section 6.2.2.2 of Appendix A to 

reference the proper section of the 

procedure, (f) required conditions for 

‘‘connected’’ products during testing, (g) 

more specific instructions regarding the 

required clearance to the rear wall 

during testing, and (h) more specific 

instructions for relocation of interior 

components, such as shelving, to allow 

placement of temperature sensors in the 

required locations. In DOE’s view, 

adopting these proposed amendments 

would improve test accuracy and would 

help ensure consistency when tests are 

carried out by different testing 

laboratories. These proposals, which are 

not expected to lead to any changes in 

measured energy usage, would be 

adopted in Appendices A and B. 

Today’s proposal also includes 

corrections to the temperature setting 

tables—Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix A 

and Table 1 of Appendix B. These tables 

would be modified in the CFR to 

properly reflect the intended 

temperature-setting progression from 

the initial test through the final test. The 

proposal would eliminate some 

horizontal lines in these tables to clarify 

the temperature-setting logic. 

Further, DOE is seeking comments on 

a specific aspect related to built-in 

products, namely, whether testing these 

products in their built-in conditions 

would provide more representative and 

accurate energy consumption 

measurements. Under the current 

procedures, manufacturers are not 

required to test these products in a 

built-in condition. However, data 

recently collected by DOE, described in 

section III.D.1, suggest that some builtin products may yield different energy 

use measurements depending on 

whether they are tested in a built-in 

condition. 

Finally, DOE has proposed 

amendments to address issues that DOE 

has identified through product testing. 

The first involves products with 

variable defrost, which are tested using 

provisions in Appendices A and B that 

are designed to account for variation in 

compressor run time between defrost 

cycles. DOE has observed in some cases 

that the actual minimum time between 

defrosts during testing was less than the 

minimum value reported to DOE in the 

model’s certification report. To ensure 

that measured values of energy use are 

representative of the actual operation of 

models with variable defrost, DOE 

proposes to require use of the minimum 

observed compressor run time between 

defrosts if it is less than the certified 

value. The second proposal is to include 

more specific instructions regarding 

loading of packages in freezers, as 

required by Appendix B, which DOE 

believes will result in more consistent 

performance of this aspect of the test 

procedure. 

The proposed amendments discussed 

in this notice would, if adopted, take 

effect 30 days after issuance of the final 

rule. However, manufacturers would be 

required to use the modified versions of 

Appendices A and B for rating products 

starting on the compliance date for the 

2014 standards, which is September 15, 

2014. 76 FR 70865 (Nov. 16, 2011). With 

the exception of the proposed test 

method for icemaker energy use, which 

would be addressed separately from the 

other proposed amendments to 

Appendices A and B, these changes 

either involve clarifications or provide 

alternatives to those methods that 

manufacturers already must use—or 

otherwise permit manufacturers to use a 

procedure that the industry has already 

largely developed and vetted. None of 

these amendments would, to DOE’s 

knowledge, alter the measured energy 

use to any significant extent, and DOE 

does not anticipate that manufacturers 

will need to make substantial efforts to 

adjust to any of these proposed changes. 

With respect to the adoption of the 

proposed icemaker-related amendments 

for Appendices A and B, none of these 

changes would be required until DOE 

prescribes new or amended standards 

for refrigeration products. Until that 

time, manufacturers would continue 

using the fixed value approach 

prescribed in the regulations to account 

for icemaking energy use. Should these 

proposed amendments be adopted, 

manufacturers seeking to use this 

procedure prior to DOE’s promulgation 

of new or amended standards would 

need to obtain a test procedure waiver 

in advance of doing so. 

III. Discussion 

This notice contains a number of 

proposed modifications to the 

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and 

freezer test procedures, and DOE 

encourages stakeholders to submit 

comments on any aspect of these 

proposals. Comments are especially 

encouraged if stakeholders wish to 

provide supporting data, propose 

alternate approaches, and express 

support for (or objections to) DOE’s 

tentative views on the issues discussed 

in this notice. 

The following section discusses in 

further detail the various issues 

addressed by today’s notice. Table III– 

1 below lists the subsections of this 

section and indicates where the 

proposed amendments, along with the 

potential icemaking energy 

measurement test that DOE is 

considering, would appear in each 

appendix. Section A identifies the 

products covered by the proposal; 

section B specifies the compliance dates 

that would apply to the proposed 

amendments; section C discusses the 

test procedure amendments; section D 

discusses testing of built-in products 

and requests comment on the discussion 

without proposing a test procedure 

amendment; and section E discusses 

compliance of the proposal with other 

EPCA requirements. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41617 

TABLE III–1—DISCUSSION SUBSECTIONS

Section Title 

Affected appendices 

A B 

III.A .............. Products Covered by the Proposed Rule ...................................................................................... No proposed changes. 

III.B .............. Proposed Dates for the Amended Test Procedures ..................................................................... X X 

1 ................... Icemaking Test Procedure ............................................................................................................. X X 

2 ................... Multiple Compressor Test .............................................................................................................. X ........................

3 ................... Triangulation .................................................................................................................................. X ........................

4 ................... Anti-Circumvention Language ....................................................................................................... * 

5 ................... Incomplete Cycling ........................................................................................................................ X X 

6 ................... Mechanical Temperature Controls ................................................................................................ X X 

7 ................... Ambient Temperature Gradient ..................................................................................................... X X 

8 ................... Definitions Associated with Defrost Cycles ................................................................................... X X 

9 ................... Elimination of Reporting of Product Height ................................................................................... ** 

10 ................. Measurement of Product Volume *** ............................................................................................ X X 

11 ................. Corrections to Temperature Setting Logic Tables ........................................................................ X X 

III.C.12 ......... Default Minimum Compressor Run-Time Between Defrosts for Variable Defrost Models ........... X X 

III.C.13 ......... Treatment of ‘‘Connected’’ Products ............................................................................................. X X 

III.C.14 ......... Changes to Confidentiality of Certification Data ........................................................................... *** 

III.C.15 ......... Package Loading ........................................................................................................................... ........................ X 

III.C.16 ......... Rear Clearance During Testing ..................................................................................................... X X 

III.C.17 ......... Other Minor Corrections † .............................................................................................................. X X 

III.C.18 ......... Relocation of Shelving ................................................................................................................... X X 

III.D.1 ........... Built-In Refrigerators ...................................................................................................................... No proposed changes. 

III.D.2 ........... Products that are Operable as a Refrigerator or a Freezer .......................................................... ........................ ........................

1 ................... Test Burden ................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

2 ................... Changes in Measured Energy Use ............................................................................................... ........................ ........................

3 ................... Standby and Off Mode Energy Use .............................................................................................. ........................ ........................

* This amendment would appear in 10 CFR 430.23, but would affect testing using all four appendices. 

** This amendment would appear in 10 CFR 429.14, but would affect certification reporting for products tested using Appendices A and B. 

*** This amendment includes proposed modifications to 10 CFR 429.14. 

†This section also proposes an amendment to 10 CFR 430.2. 

A. Products Covered by the Proposed 

Rule 

Today’s amendments cover those 

products that meet the definitions for 

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and 

freezer, as codified in 10 CFR 430.2. The 

definitions for refrigerator and 

refrigerator-freezer were amended in the 

December 16, 2010 final rule. 75 FR at 

78817 and 78848. 

B. Proposed Dates for the Amended Test 

Procedures 

This notice proposes amendments 

that would be made in sections 429.14 

and 430.23 and in Appendices A and B. 

The proposed amendments to sections 

429.14 and 430.23 would be effective 30 

days after publication of a final rule. 

Manufacturers would not be required to 

use the amended test procedures to rate 

their products until 180 days after 

issuance of the final rule. See 42 U.S.C. 

6293(c)(2). 

Some of the proposed amendments 

that aim to improve measurement 

accuracy by clarifying certain aspects of 

the test procedures or to reduce test 

burden could potentially be considered 

for adoption in the current test 

procedures (i.e., Appendices A1 and 

B1). However, these appendices are 

scheduled to be obsolete after 

September 2014, so DOE is not 

proposing to amend them. DOE requests 

comments on this approach. 

The proposed amendments that 

would apply to Appendices A and B 

would be effective 30 days after 

issuance of a final rule, but 

manufacturers would not be required to 

use this procedure prior to September 

15, 2014. Once that date arrives, 

however, Appendices A and B will be 

mandatory for making representations 

regarding the energy use or operating 

costs of refrigeration products. 

Manufacturers would be permitted to 

use Appendices A and B before this 

2014 date if they choose to do so, 

provided that they indicate in their 

certification submissions that their 

ratings are based on Appendix A or B 

and that the products satisfy the 2014 

standards. 

As discussed in section I, this NOPR 

addresses the joint comments of a broad 

group of stakeholders who urged DOE to 

initiate a rulemaking to amend the test 

procedures for refrigeration products to 

incorporate a laboratory-based 

measurement of icemaking energy use. 

The joint comment further 

recommended that DOE publish a final 

rule by July 1, 2013, and amend the 

energy conservation standards 

scheduled to take effect in 2014 to 

account for the differences in measured 

energy use of icemakers when using the 

new test procedure as compared with 

the 84 kWh per year fixed placeholder 

value. (Test Procedure for Refrigerators, 

Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, 

Docket Number EERE–2009–BT–TP– 

0003; Joint Comment, No. 20 at 5–6) 

However, as discussed in section 1, DOE 

has tentatively determined that its 

proposal to address icemaking energy 

use would not affect measured energy 

use to any significant extent. Hence, 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41618 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

7 DOE has published guidance documents 

clarifying how to render icemakers ‘‘inoperative’’ 

during a test. See, for example, ‘‘Additional 

Guidance Regarding Application of Current 

Procedures for Testing Energy Consumption of 

Refrigerator-Freezers with Automatic Ice Makers’’, 

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

appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/ 

rf_test_procedure_addl_guidance.pdf. 

8Subsequently referred to as ‘‘AHAM Ice Making 

Test Update’’. 

DOE believes at this time that adjusting 

the energy conservation standards as 

suggested would not be necessary. 

Section 1 discusses DOE’s preliminary 

assessment of the likely impact of the 

icemaking test procedure detailed in 

today’s notice on energy consumption 

measurements. Supporting data are 

provided to help illustrate this impact. 

As pointed out earlier, the proposed 

icemaking test procedure would not be 

required until DOE prescribes new or 

amended standards for refrigeration 

products. Until that time, manufacturers 

would continue using the fixed value 

approach currently prescribed in DOE’s 

regulations to account for icemaking 

energy use. Should these proposed 

amendments be adopted, manufacturers 

seeking to use this procedure prior to 

DOE’s promulgation of new or amended 

standards would need to obtain a test 

procedure waiver in advance of doing 

so. 

C. Proposed Test Procedure 

Amendments 

The following discussion addresses 

aspects of DOE’s proposal to amend 10 

CFR 430.23 and Appendices A and B. 

DOE seeks comment on all aspects of its 

proposal as described below. 

1. Icemaking Test Procedure 

Nearly all refrigerator-freezers 

currently sold either have a factoryinstalled automatic icemaker or are 

‘‘icemaker-kitable’’—i.e., they are 

manufactured with the necessary water 

tubing, valve(s), and icemaker mounting 

hardware to allow quick installation of 

an automatic icemaker at any time after 

the product leaves the factory. Ice 

production increases the energy use of 

a refrigerator-freezer in two ways: (1) 

Some icemaker components (e.g., the 

mold heater and the gear motor) 

consume energy, and (2) additional 

refrigeration is required to cool and 

freeze incoming water and to remove 

the heat generated by icemaker 

components (e.g., the mold heater). 

The current test procedure for 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers 

does not measure the energy use 

associated with ice production. 

Specifically, HRF–1–1979, section 7.4.2 

(which is incorporated by reference into 

the current test procedures of Appendix 

A1) states, ‘‘Automatic icemakers are to 

be inoperative during the test’’.7 In the 

May 2010 NOPR, DOE indicated that 

energy use associated with automatic 

icemaking represents 10 percent to 15 

percent of the rated energy use of 

typical refrigeration products. See 75 FR 

at 29846–29847 (May 27, 2010). As 

discussed in section I of this notice, 

stakeholders commented in response to 

DOE’s presentation of its preliminary 

analysis supporting the recently 

completed energy conservation standard 

rulemaking that the test procedures and 

energy conservation standards for 

refrigeration products should address 

icemaking energy use (see, for example, 

Energy Conservation Standards for 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Freezers, Docket No. EERE–2008–BT– 

STD–0012; ACEEE, No. 46 at p. 1). 

However, stakeholders also 

commented that a test procedure to 

measure icemaking energy use had not 

yet been sufficiently developed. (Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Freezers, Docket No. EERE–2008–BT– 

STD–0012; AHAM, No. 37 at p. 2: 

General Electric, No.40 at p. 1) To avoid 

delaying the energy conservation 

standard rulemaking, DOE published 

the new Appendix A test procedure and 

related energy conservation standard 

with a fixed placeholder energy use 

value of 84 kWh/year for products with 

automatic icemakers, to represent the 

average amount of energy consumed in 

ice production. 75 FR at 78842–78843 

(Dec. 10, 2010) and 76 FR at 57538 

(Sept. 15, 2011). (The 84 kWh/year 

value is equivalent to the 0.23 kWh/day 

value found in Appendices A and B, 

Section 6.2.2.1. That 0.23 kWh/day 

value is multiplied by 365 (see, for 

example, 10 CFR 430.23(a)(1)), which 

yields an annual consumption of 84 

kWh/year.) 

As part of the 2010 industry and 

efficiency advocate consensus 

agreement, AHAM agreed to develop an 

icemaking test procedure before January 

1, 2012. (Test Procedure for Residential 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Freezers, Docket No. EERE–2009–BT– 

TP–0003, Joint Comment, No. 20 at p. 

5). 

Summary of AHAM’s Initial Draft and 

Revised Draft Icemaking Test 

Procedures 

A key aspect to determining annual 

energy use associated with icemaking is 

the average daily ice production. AHAM 

presented some information to DOE in 

late 2009 regarding this value in a 

document summarizing the status of its 

test procedure development work, titled 

‘‘AHAM Update to DOE on Status of Ice 

Maker Energy Test Procedure— 

November 19, 2009’’.8 (AHAM Ice 

Making Test Update, AHAM, No. 7 at p. 

5). That document also included data 

suggesting that using a daily production 

rate of 1.8 pounds of ice per 

refrigeration product would be 

appropriate. This value was based on a 

total ‘‘sample size’’ of 155. However, the 

document did not elaborate further on 

the sample size other than to indicate 

that it had been derived using the 

combined data from three consumer 

surveys and three separate field tests. 

In early January 2012, AHAM 

provided DOE with a draft of its 

icemaking test procedure, ‘‘AHAM 

Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Freezer, and 

Freezer Ice Making Energy Test 

Procedure, Revision 1.0—12/14/11’’. 

(AHAM Draft Test Procedure, No. 4) 

That draft indicated that it applies to 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and 

freezers, as defined in 10 CFR 430.2, 

that were equipped with a single 

automatic icemaker (including nonicemaker-equipped models that could 

be readily retrofitted with an optional 

automatic icemaker). 

In July 2012, AHAM provided DOE 

with a revision of its icemaking test 

procedure, ‘‘AHAM Refrigerator, 

Refrigerator-Freezer, and Freezer Ice 

Making Energy Test Procedure, Revision 

2.0—07/10/12’’. (AHAM Revised Draft 

Test Procedure, No. 5) The AHAM 

Revised Draft Test Procedure applies to 

products that have one or more 

automatic icemakers. In addition, it 

includes several revisions to the AHAM 

Draft Test Procedure. The paragraphs 

below summarize the AHAM Revised 

Draft Test Procedure and highlight 

provisions from the AHAM Draft Test 

Procedure relevant to the detailed 

procedure on which DOE seeks 

comment. 

The AHAM Revised Draft Test 

Procedure does not address the average 

ice production rate and does not include 

a value to apply when converting the 

measured icemaking energy use into a 

value of energy use per daily cycle. In 

contrast, the earlier AHAM Draft Test 

Procedure retained the current assumed 

1.8-pound daily ice production rate 

through the use of an annual ice 

consumption value set at 657 pounds. 

Dividing this value by 365 days yields 

an ice production rate of 1.8 pounds per 

day. (AHAM Draft Test Procedure, No. 

4 at pp. 7–8) 

The AHAM Revised Draft Test 

Procedure would require an ambient 

test room temperature of 90 °F, which 

is consistent with the DOE procedures 

(see, e.g., Appendix A, section 2.1). It 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41619 

9 Gauge pressure is absolute pressure minus 

barometric pressure, i.e., the pressure that a 

pressure gauge connected to the water supply 

piping would indicate. 

would also require target compartment 

temperatures of 39 °F for fresh food 

compartments and 0 °F for freezer 

compartments. These temperatures 

match the standardized temperatures 

prescribed by the DOE energy tests (see 

Appendix A, section 3.2 for refrigeratorfreezers and Appendix B, section 3.2 for 

freezers). While the AHAM revised draft 

test does not mention the freezer 

compartment standardized temperature 

for refrigerators, which the DOE test sets 

at 15 °F (see Appendix A, section 3.2), 

it does indicate that its scope would 

extend to refrigerators. See AHAM 

Revised Draft Test Procedure, section 

2.1. 

In view of the above, DOE requests 

comment on whether any refrigerators 

(i.e., ‘‘electric refrigerator’’ as defined in 

10 CFR 430.2, and not a refrigeratorfreezer) are sold with automatic 

icemakers (including non-icemakerequipped models that could be readily 

retrofitted with an optional automatic 

icemaker). (DOE’s review found none.) 

If so, DOE also seeks comment on 

whether test procedures for automatic 

icemakers should cover these ‘‘electric 

refrigerators’’ and to what extent, if any, 

the test procedure would need to be 

modified to accommodate the testing of 

these products. DOE is seeking 

comment on this issue in part to 

ascertain whether this aspect of today’s 

proposal should apply to refrigerators as 

opposed to only refrigerator-freezers. 

DOE is currently unaware of any 

refrigerator that is sold equipped with 

an automatic icemaker. 

The AHAM Revised Draft Test 

Procedure also does not mention 

whether the test procedure would apply 

to refrigeration products with manual 

defrost. Such products are tested with 

frozen food packages in their freezer 

compartments (see, for example, 

Appendix B, section 2.2 and HRF–1– 

2008, sections 5.5.3 and 5.5.5.3). Any 

icemaking test procedure would likely 

require that such products be tested 

with the frozen food packages removed, 

since some of the test operations, such 

as removing ice from the ice bin, may 

be impossible if the freezer 

compartment is full of packages. DOE 

requests comment on whether any 

manual defrost refrigerator-freezers or 

freezers are sold with automatic 

icemakers and whether any test 

procedure modifications would be 

required to address such products. 

The AHAM Revised Draft Test 

Procedure specifies the use of target 

compartment temperatures, equal to the 

standardized compartment temperatures 

already prescribed in Appendices A and 

B, for a baseline test involving no 

icemaking. However, rather than 

following the DOE procedure of 

requiring tests to measure icemaking 

energy use at the median and cold (or 

warm) settings of the temperature 

controls and calculating energy use as a 

weighted average of the measurements 

at the two selected settings (see 

Appendix A, section 3.2.1), the AHAM 

Revised Draft Test Procedure, if 

adopted, would require that a single test 

be conducted with the temperature 

controls adjusted to achieve a 

compartment temperature within 2 °F of 

the target temperature. The temperature 

controls would not be adjusted further 

during the phases of the test in which 

the product is producing ice. 

The AHAM Revised Draft Test 

Procedure would also require that the 

test setup be in accordance with the 

setup already prescribed by the DOE test 

procedure (or ‘‘DOE energy test’’). It also 

specifies that the supply water for the 

icemaker must have a temperature range 

of 90 +/¥ 2 °F and a pressure range of 

60 ±15 pounds per square inch gauge 

pressure (psig).9 No further setup 

requirements are provided. 

In calculating the energy use per 

pound of ice produced, the AHAM 

Revised Draft Test Procedure would 

require subtracting the average energy 

use per day (in kWh/day) measured 

during a baseline test (during which the 

product is not making ice) from the 

average energy use per day (in kWh/ 

day) measured during an icemaking test, 

and dividing the difference between the 

results of the two tests by the average 

rate of ice production (pounds per hour) 

during the icemaking test. This 

calculation would yield a final value in 

kilowatt-hours per pound (kWh/lb). The 

energy use for both the baseline and 

icemaking tests would be measured 

under the proposed procedures during 

steady-state operation and not during a 

defrost. 

The test period for the baseline test 

could consist of at least seven hours of 

operation equivalent to the procedure 

for confirming steady-state conditions 

during the DOE energy test (see 

Appendix A, section 2.9). For products 

with cycling compressors, this test 

period would include two periods of at 

least two hours each, both comprising a 

whole number of compressor cycles, 

separated by one period of at least three 

hours. Although this test period is used 

only to confirm steady-state conditions 

in the DOE test procedure, the AHAM 

Revised Draft Test Procedure would also 

use this period as the test period for 

measuring energy use when the product 

is not making ice. 

According to the AHAM Revised Draft 

Test procedure, the icemaking part of 

the test for products that do not cycle 

their compressors during icemaking 

would require a test period of at least 24 

hours and consist of multiple complete 

icemaker cycles. If the test is interrupted 

by a defrost or if the ice storage bin fills 

before 24 hours have elapsed, the test 

period would be the maximum time 

between defrost cycles or the maximum 

time before the ice bin is filled with ice. 

The AHAM Revised Draft Test 

Procedure would calculate icemaking 

energy use in products that cycle their 

compressors during icemaking 

differently from the initial AHAM Draft 

Test Procedure. Specifically, the AHAM 

Revised Draft Test Procedure would use 

a measurement of average ice 

production per hour that would be 

adjusted to account for differences in 

compressor run time of a first test 

period based on compressor cycles 

(which would be used to determine 

average energy use during icemaking) 

and a second test period based on 

icemaker cycles (which would be used 

as the basis for measuring the energy 

use per icemaking cycle and the mass of 

harvested ice). (AHAM Revised Draft 

Test Procedure, No. 5 at p. 8). The 

adjustment would be based on the two 

measurements of energy use associated 

with the two test periods. In contrast, 

the AHAM Draft Test Procedure relied 

on energy use and harvested ice mass 

measured for a single test period based 

on icemaker cycles, irrespective of 

whether the compressor cycles during 

icemaking (AHAM Draft Test Procedure, 

No. 4 at p. 7). The contrast between 

these two approaches is highlighted 

because, as discussed in more detail 

below, the approach DOE is considering 

would include the more comprehensive 

approach of the AHAM Revised Draft 

Test Procedure. 

Under the AHAM Revised Draft Test 

Procedure, the final calculated result 

would be the incremental icemaking 

energy use per mass of ice in kilowatt 

hours per pound of ice. There would be 

no further conversion of this value into 

energy use per daily cycle or per year. 

In contrast, the AHAM Draft Test 

Procedure included a conversion 

calculation to yield an annual ice 

production rate. (AHAM Draft Test 

Procedure, No. 4 at p. 7–8) 

Potential Approach Under 

Consideration 

The approach DOE is considering for 

measuring icemaking energy use is 

based on the AHAM Revised Draft Test 

Procedure. It differs from that draft in 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41620 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

that the DOE approach would include 

greater detail to improve clarity and 

testing consistency. If adopted, DOE 

would likely add this icemaking energy 

measurement procedure as a new 

section 8 for both Appendices A and B. 

While this discussion touches on a 

number of key aspects related to the 

potential approach, DOE encourages 

interested parties to review it carefully 

and to comment on all of its aspects. 

The key modifications DOE is 

considering compared with the AHAM 

test procedure would attempt to: 

(1) Establish a definition for ‘‘ice 

piece’’ in addition to the definitions 

suggested by the AHAM Revised Draft 

Test Procedure. 

(2) Clarify that the anti-sweat heater 

must be turned off during the icemaking 

test period, and that the water filter 

must be installed. 

(3) Require that measurements be 

recorded during testing at time intervals 

not exceeding one minute. 

(4) Clarify the points at which an 

icemaker cycle begins and ends. Many 

icemakers have mold heaters that are 

energized with 100W or more power 

input for more than a minute. This 

temporary increase in power is easily 

recognizable when evaluating the 

wattage data for a refrigerator test. 

Icemakers without mold heaters do not 

provide such an indication that one 

icemaking cycle has ended and the next 

has started. These icemakers would 

require the use of an alternative method 

to identify the beginning and end of 

icemaker cycles. The proposal would 

specify three alternative options: 

measuring the icemaker mold 

temperature, measuring the water 

supply temperature, or monitoring the 

activation of the water supply solenoid 

valve. 

(5) Require that each compartment’s 

average temperature during the baseline 

part of the test be no more than 1 °F 

warmer than its standardized 

temperature 

(6) Require that each compartment’s 

average temperature during icemaking 

be no more than 1°F (0.6 °C) warmer 

than its temperature during the baseline 

test, and require adjustment of 

temperature control settings if necessary 

to meet this temperature requirement. 

Also, the proposed test procedure 

would require products with a feature 

that automatically reduces the freezer 

compartment temperature setpoint or 

maintains compressor operation at an 

elevated duty cycle or speed during 

icemaking to be tested with this feature 

enabled. 

(7) Prescribe the use of a baseline test 

period consistent with the test period 

specified in the DOE test procedure in 

Appendix A, section 4.1, rather than 

using the stabilization test period as the 

test period for baseline energy use 

calculation. 

(8) Prescribe the use of equations that 

are equivalent, but not identical to, 

those of the AHAM Revised Draft, 

making more direct use of values 

measured during the test and involving 

fewer intermediate calculations. 

(9) Apply a temperature stability 

criterion to the icemaking test period. 

(10) Specify that icemaking would be 

initiated earlier than specified in the 

AHAM Revised Draft after completion 

of defrost. 

(11) Address refrigeration products 

with multiple icemakers by requiring 

that such units be tested with only one 

of these icemakers operating during the 

test, rather than all of them 

simultaneously. The approach DOE is 

considering would also specify which 

icemaker to operate. 

(12) Specify a daily ice production 

rate of 1.8 pounds per day in order to 

allow calculation of the contribution of 

icemaking to annual energy use. DOE is 

also considering requiring that products 

that cycle their compressors during 

icemaking would have their energy use 

calculated in a manner similar to the 

AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure 

(i.e., calculate energy use both for test 

periods comprising a complete (whole) 

number of compressor cycles and for 

test periods comprising complete 

icemaker cycles). The two calculations 

would be performed using the data from 

the same single icemaking test, as 

recommended in the AHAM Revised 

Draft. Using this approach would, in 

DOE’s view, help improve measurement 

accuracy for the reasons described 

below. 

Potential Icemaking Section 

As noted above, DOE is considering 

incorporating an icemaking test based 

on AHAM’s Revised Draft Test 

Procedure into Appendices A and B (i.e. 

the test procedures manufacturers must 

use starting in September 2014) by 

adding a new Section 8 to both 

appendices. Separating this new method 

from the other sections would, in DOE’s 

view, help reduce the risk of confusion 

and improve the overall clarity of the 

procedures. 

Icemaking Definitions 

To help ensure clarity during testing, 

DOE proposes to add four definitions to 

provide background for the terminology 

that would be used in conjunction with 

whatever potential icemaking test 

procedure DOE adopts. Two of these 

definitions are identical to those used in 

the AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure 

and are commonly understood in the 

industry but are currently undefined: 

‘‘Harvest’’ means the process of 

freeing or removing ice pieces from an 

automatic icemaker. 

‘‘Ice Storage Bin’’ means a container 

in which ice can be stored. 

In addition, DOE proposes to define 

‘‘Ice Piece’’ as a piece of ice made by an 

automatic icemaker and that has not 

been reduced in size by crushing or 

other mechanical action. Although 

people often refer to ice pieces as ice 

‘‘cubes’’, DOE proposes to use ‘‘pieces’’ 

instead to (a) avoid the suggestion that 

ice pieces must have a specific shape, 

and (b) avoid confusion with DOE’s 

energy conservation standards for 

automatic commercial ice makers, 

which include a definition for ‘‘cube 

type ice’’. (See 10 CFR 431.132) DOE 

also notes that the AHAM Revised Draft 

Test Procedure does not use the term 

‘‘cube’’ and has established the 

precedent of using the term ‘‘ice piece’’, 

as seen in the definition for ‘‘harvest’’ 

discussed above. 

Finally, since neither the test 

procedures in Appendices A and B nor 

the HRF–1–2008 test procedure 

specifically define the term ‘‘throughthe-door ice/water dispenser’’ and 

because this term or similar terms are 

used both in the sections addressing 

measurement of ice making energy use 

and in the volume calculation method, 

DOE proposes to incorporate a 

definition for this term in both 

Appendices A and B to read as follows: 

‘‘Through-the-door ice/water dispenser’’ 

means a device incorporated within the 

cabinet, but outside the boundary of the 

refrigerated space, that delivers to the 

user on demand ice or water from 

within the refrigerated space without 

opening an exterior door. This 

definition includes dispensers that are 

capable of dispensing ice and water, ice 

only, or water only. 

DOE requests comment on these 

proposed definitions. 

Anti-Sweat Heater Operation 

To minimize test variation and 

potential error, particularly for products 

with variable anti-sweat heater control, 

the proposed procedure would require 

all anti-sweat heater switches to be in 

the ‘‘off’’ position for the test. Variable 

anti-sweat heater control is a feature 

that energizes the anti-sweat heaters 

only as much as needed, depending on 

ambient humidity and other conditions, 

to prevent the condensation of water 

vapor on the door gaskets and cool 

surfaces near them. 

This requirement is proposed for two 

reasons: (1) To avoid the random 

activation of variable anti-sweat heaters 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41621 

during testing should the ambient 

humidity levels in the test room vary 

during the test and (2) to help clarify the 

power input measurement of the test by 

removing the power consumption 

associated directly with anti-sweat 

heaters. Because random activation of 

variable anti-sweat heaters could add 

extra power consumption to one part of 

the test and not the other, complete 

removal of anti-sweat heater power use 

from the measurement may ease the 

interpretation of power consumption 

signals measured during the test. Hence, 

DOE proposes that the heaters be turned 

off both to avoid change in anti-sweat 

heater energy between portions of the 

icemaking test and to allow for better 

evaluation of the power input 

measurements that will be used to 

define test periods and the number of 

icemaker cycles—these factors would 

improve the accuracy and repeatability 

of the test. 

A potential issue with this proposal is 

that it may be susceptible to 

circumvention by products that have an 

anti-sweat heater switch if the 

icemaker’s operation is modified once 

the switch is turned off. For example, a 

manufacturer may be able to reduce 

icemaking energy use at a lower ice 

production rate by reducing fan and/or 

compressor speed when the switch is 

turned off, which would violate the 

anti-circumvention provision. An 

alternative proposal to address the 

potentially random activation of 

variable anti-sweat heaters would be to 

require that icemaking tests be 

conducted with the anti-sweat heater 

switch turned on and the test chamber 

humidity level set sufficiently low to 

prevent heater activation—this 

proposed change would apply to 

products without anti-sweat heater 

switches, as described below. However, 

this approach would add more testing 

burden, since it would require that all 

refrigerators with variable anti-sweat 

heating be tested in this fashion, which 

requires using test facilities capable of 

reducing humidity levels as needed. 

Another approach would be to require 

that humidity levels in the test facility 

be maintained within a narrow range for 

which the variation in energy use of any 

variable anti-sweat heater would be 

insignificant. However, this could also 

add significantly to test burden, since 

many existing test facilities do not have 

the necessary equipment to control 

humidity levels. If it subsequently 

becomes clear that some manufacturers 

are exploiting this flexibility in a 

manner that would yield 

unrepresentative measurements of 

energy use, DOE may implement one of 

the alternative proposals in a future 

rulemaking. 

For products with variable anti-sweat 

heater control but with no anti-sweat 

heater switch, the proposal would 

require that the test be performed in an 

ambient condition with humidity levels 

sufficiently low to prevent the antisweat heater from being energized. The 

proposal would not specify the 

humidity level required to assure that 

the heater is not energized, which DOE 

expects would maximize testing 

flexibility and minimize the burden 

associated with meeting this 

requirement since not all variable antisweat heater control systems will start 

to energize the heaters at the same 

humidity level. Data regarding the 

humidity levels at which variable antisweat heater systems energize are 

provided to DOE by manufacturers of 

products with this feature in 

certification reports. (See 10 CFR 

429.14(b)(3)) These data suggest that 

this threshold humidity level is close to 

35 percent relative humidity. DOE may 

consider the possibility of specifying an 

ambient humidity level depending on 

the nature of the feedback it receives in 

comments to this proposal. 

DOE is aware of potential issues with 

its proposal for products with variable 

anti-sweat heater control but without 

anti-sweat heater switches and may 

consider alternative options to ensure 

that the objectives of the proposal are 

met. One potential issue is that some 

test facilities may not have the 

capability to sufficiently control 

humidity levels to assure that variable 

anti-sweat heaters would not be 

energized during testing. Based on 

DOE’s review of available refrigeration 

products, every product examined that 

is equipped with a variable anti-sweat 

heater control also uses an anti-sweat 

heater switch. As a result, it is DOE’s 

belief that, in spite of the potential 

inability of some existing test facilities 

to reduce humidity sufficiently to avoid 

variable anti-sweat heater activation, all 

or nearly all variable anti-sweat heater 

products can be readily tested using the 

proposed procedure by turning off their 

anti-sweat heater switches, which 

would reduce or eliminate the need for 

upgrades to testing facilities. 

Accordingly, DOE does not anticipate 

any new burdens associated with its 

proposed humidity requirements. 

DOE requests comments on whether 

there are other alternative approaches it 

should consider to help ensure that 

random activation of variable anti-sweat 

heaters will not affect the accuracy of 

the measurements. DOE also seeks 

comment on the testing approaches it 

has proposed in today’s notice to 

address this issue. 

Setup for Icemaking 

The test procedures in Appendix A 

and Appendix B do not require water 

lines or water filters to be connected or 

installed; they do, however, require the 

ice storage bin to be empty of ice. To 

properly execute the icemaking test that 

DOE is considering, DOE would revise 

sections 2.6(a) and 2.6(g) of Appendix A 

and sections 2.4(a) and 2.4(g) of 

Appendix B to read as follows: 

(a) Connection of water lines and 

installation of water filters are required 

only when conducting the icemaking 

test described in section 8; 

* * * * * 

(g) Ice storage bins shall be emptied 

of ice, except as required for the 

icemaking test described in section 8. 

These modifications would ensure 

that testing would be conducted 

consistent with current practice when 

measuring the energy use not associated 

with icemaking, but would clarify that 

these requirements would change when 

conducting the icemaking test. Also, the 

new section 8 would indicate that water 

lines and water filters must be installed 

for the icemaking test. 

DOE seeks comments on this 

approach. 

Ambient Temperature and Water Inlet 

Specifications 

Currently, DOE is considering 

requiring that the icemaking test be 

conducted in a 90 °F ambient condition, 

identical to the condition required by 

the current test. While this temperature 

is not a typical household condition, it 

is intended to account for the energy use 

associated with door openings and other 

thermal loads (e.g., cooling down warm 

food) that would occur during usage in 

a typical household environment (with 

an ambient temperature of 

approximately 70 °F), and its use in the 

DOE tests has been reaffirmed through 

rulemakings several times since DOE 

initially adopted the Appendix A1 and 

Appendix B1 test procedures in a final 

rule published August 10, 1982. 47 FR 

34517. DOE would apply this condition 

to the icemaking test to reduce the 

complexity that would be incurred by 

imposing a different ambient 

temperature requirement. Using the 

same temperature will allow all tests to 

be conducted sequentially without 

waiting for the test chamber to adjust 

and stabilize at a different temperature. 

Water inlet temperature affects the 

thermal load (i.e., heat) that refrigeration 

systems must remove from the cabinet 

to make ice, and water inlet pressure 

could potentially affect the water 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41622 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

quantity that flows into the icemaker 

mold during each icemaker cycle. For 

the reasons that follow below, adopting 

the same inlet conditions specified in 

the AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure 

(i.e., 90±2 °F inlet water temperature 

and 60±15 psig inlet water pressure) is 

also under consideration. 

DOE recognizes that the water inlet 

temperature noted above is not 

consistent with typical household water 

supply temperatures. However, due to 

the intermittent flow of water supplying 

an icemaker, and the relatively long 

periods between successive fillings of 

the icemaker mold with water, the 

temperature of water entering the 

refrigeration product’s water supply 

system will always be very close to the 

ambient temperature since most of the 

supply line is located outside the 

refrigerated cabinet. For example, the 

ice production rate of automatic 

icemakers in refrigeration products 

tested by DOE ranged from 4 to 5.5 

pounds per day, with icemaker cycle 

times of an hour or more. Unless there 

is significant use of water for features 

other than icemaking, such as the water 

dispenser of a product with through-thedoor ice and water dispensing, the water 

that will be supplied to the cabinet at 

the start of each icemaker cycle will 

have been stagnant in the supply tube 

of the product for at least one hour. This 

is sufficient time for the temperature of 

the supply water to equilibrate (i.e., 

achieve balance) with the ambient air 

temperature, and the same equilibration 

will occur during an icemaking test. 

Supplying water to the cabinet at any 

temperature other than ambient would 

require using a water temperature 

conditioning system located adjacent to 

the cabinet, or a recirculating loop to 

ensure that the supply temperature at 

the cabinet water inlet remains at a 

specified temperature other than the 

ambient temperature. DOE believes that 

requiring such a system would represent 

an undue test burden because specifying 

an inlet water temperature equal to a 

typical household ambient condition 

rather than 90 °F would have a limited 

impact on the overall test result. The 

heat that must be removed from the 

water to make ice at 0 °F (i.e. ‘‘Q’’) is 

equal to the sum of three separate 

components: (a) The heat capacity of 

water (1 Btu/lb¥°F) multiplied by the 

temperature reduction from the supply 

temperature down to 32 °F, (b) the heat 

of fusion of water (144 Btu/lb), and (c) 

the heat capacity of ice (0.5 Btu/lb¥°F) 

multiplied by the temperature reduction 

from 32 °F to 0 °F. This value equals 218 

Btu/lb for testing with a water inlet 

temperature of 90 °F—see below. 

In contrast, requiring an inlet water 

temperature of 72 °F, which would 

occur in 72 °F ambient conditions more 

typical for a household, the heat 

removed during icemaking would be 

200 Btu/lb, only 8 percent less. Because 

the impact of using a 90 °F water supply 

temperature is modest and because the 

test burden associated with attempting 

to simulate a more typical household 

water supply temperature would be 

significant, the DOE proposal retains the 

water inlet temperature requirement, 

90±2 °F, as specified in the AHAM 

Revised Draft Test Procedure. 

DOE also recognizes that the pressure 

range under consideration is broad. 

However, refrigeration products are 

designed to be used in settings that can 

have a wide range of water supply 

pressures. For example, the installation 

instructions for a typical refrigeration 

product indicate that it can be used with 

water supply pressures ranging from 20 

to 125 psig. See Typical Water Line 

Installation Instructions, No. 3 at p. 1 

(providing instructions for installing the 

water dispenser line for a typical 

refrigeration product, including 

indication of the acceptable water 

pressure range). The quantity of water 

supplied for each icemaker cycle is 

regulated by the product to be within a 

narrow range regardless of the water 

supply pressure. Because these products 

are designed to operate consistently 

with a relatively wide range of water 

supply pressures, and because allowing 

the proposed range will reduce the 

potential need for test facilities to boost 

or reduce the pressure of the supply 

water, DOE may adopt the same wide 

range of allowable pressures as 

suggested in the AHAM Revised Draft 

Test Procedure. Adopting this approach 

would minimize the testing burden 

faced by manufacturers when compared 

with an equally viable alternative that 

would require testing facilities to finetune water pressure during testing. 

DOE seeks comment on the approach 

discussed above regarding water 

temperature and pressure conditions. 

Frequency of Measurement 

DOE is considering requiring that the 

temperature, input power, and energy 

use measurements needed to evaluate 

steady-state conditions and calculate 

energy use be recorded at intervals not 

exceeding one minute. DOE is aware 

that most test facilities record data for 

refrigeration product energy tests at a 

frequency of once per minute. The 

current DOE test procedures allow a 

recording interval of up to four minutes 

(see, for example, Appendix A1, section 

5.1.1). Because the icemaking test 

involves multiple recurring events (i.e., 

icemaker cycles and compressor cycles) 

that are not synchronized, a shorter 

recording interval would improve the 

accuracy of the measurements. 

Additionally, updating the requirements 

to reflect the increased accuracy of the 

equipment routinely employed by test 

facilities would ensure that the 

procedure adequately accounts for the 

improved technology already used in 

the field. DOE believes that the test 

burden associated with this 

requirement, if any, would be 

insignificant since most, if not all, test 

facilities already use one-minute 

recording intervals during testing. 

DOE requests comment on the 

requirement for this proposed limit on 

the data acquisition time interval and its 

assumptions. 

Icemaker Cycle Indication 

Determining the start and end of 

icemaker cycles is essential for the 

icemaking test in order to properly 

correlate ice production with the energy 

used to produce the ice. Most automatic 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP10JY13.028</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41623 

icemakers used in refrigeration products 

have a mold heater (or harvest heater) 

that is used to release ice from the mold. 

The input power measurements for the 

cabinet can readily be used to determine 

when this heater is energized, thus 

allowing for easy identification of the 

start and end of icemaker cycles. 

The AHAM Revised Draft Test 

Procedure indicates that the icemaker 

harvest cycle test period starts and ends 

upon the initiation of harvest. (AHAM 

Revised Draft Test Procedure, No. 5 at 

p. 7) In contrast, DOE would define the 

icemaking cycle as starting and ending 

when the icemaker mold heater shuts 

off. DOE is considering this delineation 

between icemaker cycles to ensure that 

both the energy used to freeze the ice 

(which occurs prior to the harvest) and 

to operate the harvest heater are 

associated with the harvested ice for 

purposes of calculating overall energy 

use. DOE requests comment on this 

specification for icemaker harvest 

cycles. 

DOE notes that icemakers in some 

refrigeration products use harvesting 

methods that do not involve mold 

heaters. One example is the ‘‘twist tray’’ 

icemaker, which has a plastic ice mold 

and employs a motor that rotates one 

end of the ice mold at slow speed, 

turning the mold upside-down, and 

then twisting the mold as the rotation is 

stopped by a catch at the mold’s other 

end, thus releasing ice into the ice 

storage bin. To address icemakers of this 

type, and future designs that may be 

able to harvest ice without mold heaters, 

DOE would require one of three 

alternative methods to be used to 

determine when ice is harvested, since 

the examination of the power input data 

may not reliably reveal the time of 

harvest. 

The three alternative methods under 

consideration are: (1) measuring mold 

temperature, (2) measuring water supply 

temperature, or (3) detecting actuation 

events of the icemaker water supply 

solenoid valve. Each of these methods 

would provide an equally reliable and 

readily identifiable indication of when 

water for the next batch of ice flows into 

the mold. Hence, DOE would define 

icemaker cycles for these methods based 

on when the given method indicates 

that water starts flowing or has entered 

the mold. 

In addition, each of these methods has 

certain practical advantages that readily 

lend themselves to being appropriate 

indicators of ice harvesting. The ice 

mold temperature can reliably indicate 

the occurrence of ice harvesting because 

it rapidly rises when the solenoid valve 

dispenses warm water into the ice mold. 

Similarly, the water supply temperature 

can reliably indicate ice harvesting 

because the solenoid valve must 

dispense water into the ice mold for 

every round of ice production. Although 

water supply temperatures must remain 

in the 90 ± 2 °F range at all times during 

the test, the temperature of water in the 

inlet tube typically may change slightly 

during the filling of the icemaker mold 

due to temperature gradients within the 

test laboratory. If this change in water 

supply temperature is large enough, for 

example greater than 0.5 °F, this 

temperature change could be used to 

indicate the start of an icemaker cycle. 

NIST test data show a shift in water 

inlet temperature of roughly 0.9°F (0.5 

°C) when the solenoid valve opens 

during testing of a refrigerator that has 

an icemaker without a mold heater. 

(NIST Technical Note 1759, No. 6 at p. 

22–23) Finally, monitoring of the 

solenoid valve input voltage, current, or 

power will indicate that a new harvest 

cycle has started because the solenoid 

valve must be energized to supply water 

to the icemaker mold. To accommodate 

differences in individual product design 

or laboratory instrumentation 

capabilities which may favor one 

method over another, and because DOE 

sees no apparent difference in precision 

among these three methods, DOE 

proposes to include these three 

approaches and require that one of them 

be used if the icemaker has no mold 

heater. Further, the approach would 

require that the test report state in these 

cases which of these methods is used. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed requirement to monitor 

harvest cycles if the product does not 

have a mold heater, the details of the 

three proposed alternate methods to 

accomplish this monitoring, and the 

proposed requirement that the test 

report indicate which one of these three 

methods was used. DOE further requests 

comment on whether other alternative 

methods could be used and/or should 

be allowed in the test procedure, 

including details of these alternative 

methods. DOE also seeks comment on 

whether it should specifically identify 

when one of these three alternative 

approaches must be used. 

DOE’s method would also clearly 

specify the start and end points of 

icemaker cycles for icemakers without 

mold heaters. As mentioned above, 

under the proposal, these time periods 

would occur when the mold heater is 

de-energized for products with mold 

heaters. For products without mold 

heaters, the proposed test procedure 

would indicate that the start and end 

points would occur when frozen ice 

drops into the ice storage bin and/or at 

the initiation of water flow into the 

icemaker mold. DOE requests comment 

on this proposed specification. 

Control Settings 

DOE would adopt generally the 

AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure’s 

requirement to use a single 

compartment temperature setting for the 

baseline test and the icemaking test, 

rather than specifying separate tests at 

median and warm or cold settings. 

Following this approach would limit the 

overall test burden faced by 

manufacturers. 

However, DOE is concerned that 

significant differences in compartment 

temperatures between the baseline and 

icemaking tests could result in 

unrealistic indications of icemaking 

energy use. In particular, if the 

temperature of either compartment rises 

significantly during the icemaking test, 

the portion of the measured energy use 

associated with maintaining 

compartment temperatures would 

decrease significantly, which could 

potentially result in a value of energy 

use associated with icemaking that is 

lower than the actual amount. The 

AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure 

approach would treat any such 

deviation in temperature between 

baseline and icemaking operation for 

fixed positions of the temperature 

control settings as typical for operation 

in the field, since homeowners are not 

expected to adjust temperature control 

settings when the icemaker starts 

making ice. (AHAM Revised Draft Test 

Procedure, No. 5 at p. 5) 

However, DOE notes that there are 

some distinct differences between 

icemaking in the laboratory and 

icemaking in the field that weigh in 

favor of making temperature 

adjustments in some circumstances. 

First, the icemaking test would be 

conducted with no load in either the 

freezer or fresh food compartment, 

while a refrigerator in the field would 

generally be stocked with food. This 

load in a typical refrigerator, acting as 

a thermal mass, significantly dampens 

variations in compartment temperatures 

during icemaking. In an icemaking test 

conducted in a refrigeration product 

without any loaded food products, the 

compartment temperature could 

respond much more rapidly to the 

added load associated with icemaking. 

Second, the icemaking test would be 

conducted with the icemaker operating 

at full capacity, meaning that for the 

entire icemaking test period, it would 

continually produce successive batches 

of ice without stopping. In contrast, in 

the field, continuous icemaking would 

typically occur only for the initial filling 

of the bin, and successive icemaker 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41624 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

cycles would occur after a portion of ice 

has been withdrawn from the ice bin. 

The comparison of daily ice production 

with the ice production rate of tested 

refrigerators discussed in the following 

paragraph helps illustrate this point. 

AHAM’s ice production value of 1.8 

pounds per day represents typical daily 

average ice production (AHAM Ice 

Making Test Update, No. 7 at p. 5). DOE 

compared this value to measured 

icemaking production rates when 

typical refrigerators operate 

continuously. The production rates 

measured by the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) for 

four tested residential refrigeratorfreezers ranged from 3.7 to 10.6 lb/day, 

at least double AHAM’s average daily 

production rate. (NIST Technical Note 

1697, No. 6). Hence, even the icemaker 

of this test with the lowest production 

rate would operate less than half a day 

to produce the amount of ice specified 

by the AHAM estimate (1.8 lb/day). This 

means that the product does not 

continually make ice and would have 

time to recover compartment 

temperatures between icemaker cycles. 

As a result, even if the compartment 

temperatures rise slightly during 

icemaking, they could recover to their 

‘‘baseline’’ levels before the next 

icemaker cycle starts. 

The tendency of the food product 

thermal mass to limit the compartment 

temperature rise that could occur during 

icemaking and the ability of the system 

to recover to steady state temperatures 

between icemaking cycles suggests that 

the average increase in cabinet 

temperatures during icemaking in the 

field may be significantly less than 

would occur for a laboratory test of 

continuous icemaking in an empty 

cabinet. This observation casts 

significant doubt on the premise of the 

AHAM position that the compartment 

temperature rise in the field would be 

comparable to that in the test, and 

likewise casts doubt on AHAM’s 

suggestion that allowing the 

temperature to rise in this fashion 

during the test would lead to energy use 

measurements for icemaking that are 

representative of field operation. For 

these reasons, DOE believes that a 

laboratory-based icemaking energy use 

measurement for a product whose 

temperatures drift upwards during 

icemaking would be more representative 

of field energy use if an adjustment were 

made during the icemaking portion of 

the test to ensure that the compartment 

temperatures are no warmer than their 

temperatures measured during the 

baseline test, perhaps within a 1 °F 

allowance. Hence, DOE’s approach 

would require controls to be adjusted to 

cooler settings during the icemaking 

portion of the test, if necessary, to 

ensure that the compartment 

temperatures are no warmer than 1 °F 

above their averages during the baseline 

test. 

DOE selected this 1 °F maximum 

compartment temperature rise between 

the baseline and icemaking tests by 

considering the one percent maximum 

threshold for uncertainty discussed in 

the section above and reviewing the 

results of icemaking tests conducted by 

NIST (NIST Technical Note 1697, No. 6; 

NIST Technical Note 1759, No. 8). Test 

Samples 3 and 4 of NIST Technical Note 

1697 and Test Samples 1 and 2 of NIST 

Technical Note 1759 were tested using 

an icemaking test procedure consistent 

with the approach under consideration 

but using three sets of temperature 

control settings for the baseline and for 

icemaking portions of the test rather 

than the single set being proposed. The 

results obtained using the three 

temperature control settings permit one 

to calculate the results that would be 

expected for any desired combination of 

compartment temperatures close to 

those measured during the tests—these 

results can be calculated using the 

triangulation approach. See section 

III.C.3. DOE used this approach to 

calculate total annual energy use, 

including the energy use associated 

with icemaking for the tested samples, 

for compartment temperature conditions 

matching the standardized temperatures 

(0 °F in the freezer and 39 °F in the fresh 

food compartment), and for conditions 

in which either the fresh food or freezer 

compartment temperature shifts 1 °F or 

2 °F from its standardized temperature 

during the icemaking test. (Assessment 

of Icemaking Test Temperature Control 

Setting Tolerance, No. 9). The results of 

the calculations are summarized in 

Table III–2 below. 

TABLE III–2—IMPACT ON ENERGY USE OF SHIFT IN COMPARTMENT TEMPERATURE DURING ICEMAKING

Product class 

Change in annual energy use 

2011 Sample 3 2011 Sample 4 2012 Sample 1 2012 Sample 2 

5A 

(percent) 

5A 

(percent) 

5 

(percent) 

5 

(percent) 

Fresh Food Compartment Temperature Change 

¥2 °F ............................................................................... +0.4 +0.3 +0.1 +13.5 

¥1 °F ............................................................................... +0.2 +0.1 +0.1 +6.6 

+1 °F ................................................................................ ¥0.2 ¥0.1 ¥0.1 ¥6.3 

+2 °F ................................................................................ ¥0.4 ¥0.3 ¥0.1 ¥12.3 

Freezer Compartment Temperature Change 

2 °F .................................................................................. +1.2 +3.5 +1.8 -1.5 

¥1 °F ............................................................................... +0.6 +1.7 +1.0 ¥0.8 

+1 °F ................................................................................ ¥0.6 ¥1.5 ¥1.0 +0.9 

+2 °F ................................................................................ ¥1.3 ¥2.9 ¥2.1 +1.8 

‘‘2011’’ samples are those discussed in NIST Technical Note 1697, while ‘‘2012’’ samples are those discussed in NIST Technical Note 1759. 

The calculations reflected in the 

above table show that the 1 °F shift in 

compartment temperature during 

icemaking can change the annual energy 

use measurement by as much as 6.6 

percent. However, this extreme case 

occurred for the one test sample among 

the group of four that is not typical of 

most products in the U.S. market. (NIST 

Technical Note 1759, No. 8 at p. 20) The 

calculated annual energy use results for 

the other three products showed little 

sensitivity to temperature shifts in the 

fresh food compartment during the 

icemaking test. One of the test samples 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41625 

showed a calculated change in annual 

energy use as high as 1.7 percent when 

the freezer compartment temperature 

shifted 1 °F. This change would yield a 

variation of 11 kWh over an entire 

year—the annual energy use of this 

product was calculated to be 671 kWh 

assuming all compartment temperatures 

match their standardized temperatures 

during all tests. This analysis shows that 

even the 1 °F compartment temperature 

tolerance that DOE has considered for 

the icemaking test leads to overall 

measurement uncertainty larger than the 

desired one percent threshold discussed 

in the section above. 

On the other hand, limiting 

compartment temperature variation to 

less than 1 °F between the baseline and 

icemaking tests could pose considerable 

test burdens because of the potential 

difficulty of achieving such tight control 

for both compartments of a refrigeration 

product. To mitigate these burdens, 

DOE would allow an increase in 

compartment temperatures of no more 

than 1 °F between the two tests, and 

would not impose a lower limit on the 

compartment temperatures for the 

icemaking test. In cases where the 

compartment temperature increases for 

the icemaking test, DOE would require 

adjustment of the temperature control to 

the warmest settings for which the 

compartment temperature is no more 

than 1 °F warmer than measured during 

the baseline test. 

DOE’s method would not allow 

disabling of ‘‘quick freeze’’ operation 

during icemaking for products that use 

this feature to accelerate icemaking. 

Quick freeze is an operating mode that, 

when selected by the user, runs the 

compressor without stopping for a 

specified interval in order to rapidly 

reduce the compartment temperature 

(see Appendix B1, section 1.9). DOE 

tested a product with a control system 

that automatically activated a ‘‘quick 

freeze’’ operation whenever the product 

was making ice. Such a product clearly 

would be incurring additional energy 

use associated with continuous 

compressor operation during icemaking 

in the field. Hence, DOE would require 

that such control features remain active 

(not disabled) during the icemaking test. 

Additionally, the AHAM Revised 

Draft Test Procedure contained a 

requirement that compartment 

temperatures be within 2 °F of their 

standardized temperatures for the 

baseline test, and that if both the freezer 

and fresh food compartments cannot be 

maintained in this range, then the 

freezer compartment must be 

maintained in this range and the fresh 

food compartment must be maintained 

as close to this range as possible (AHAM 

Revised Draft Test Procedure, No. 5 at 

p. 5). DOE conducted an analysis using 

the NIST icemaking test data discussed 

above to determine the impact of 

deviation in compartment temperatures 

from their standardized temperatures for 

the baseline test. The analysis, 

summarized in Table III–3, shows that 

the 2 °F allowance can result in an 

increase in the total annual energy use 

measurement of 2 percent or more. 

(Assessment of Icemaking Test 

Temperature Control Setting Tolerance, 

No. 9) Hence, DOE considered 

proposing a tighter tolerance of 1 °F, 

which, for most products, would limit 

the variation on the total annual energy 

use measurement to roughly one 

percent. However, DOE recognizes that 

the precision with which compartment 

temperatures can be set during testing 

may be insufficient to use a 1 °F 

tolerance. In recognition of this 

limitation, DOE would require 

temperature controls to be set during 

baseline testing in the warmest settings 

for which the compartment 

temperatures are no more than 1 °F 

warmer than their standardized 

compartment temperatures. Using this 

approach would mean that the fresh 

food and freezer compartment 

temperatures would be no warmer than 

40 °F and 1 °F, respectively, during the 

baseline test. 

TABLE III–3—IMPACT ON ENERGY USE OF DEVIATION IN COMPARTMENT TEMPERATURE FROM STANDARDIZED

TEMPERATURES

Product class 

Change in annual energy use 

2011 Sample 3 2011 Sample 4 2012 Sample 1 2012 Sample 2 

5A 

(percent) 

5A 

(percent) 

5 

(percent) 

5 

(percent) 

Fresh Food Compartment Temperature Deviation from 39 ≥F 

¥2 °F ............................................................................... ¥0.1 ¥0.1 ¥0.4 +1.5 

¥1 °F ............................................................................... ¥0.1 0.0 ¥0.2 +0.7 

+1 °F ................................................................................ +0.1 0.0 +0.2 ¥0.7 

+2 °F ................................................................................ +0.1 +0.1 +0.4 ¥1.4 

Freezer Compartment Temperature Deviation from 0 ≥F 

2 °F .................................................................................. +0.7 +2.3 +0.4 ¥0.6 

¥1 °F ............................................................................... +0.4 +1.1 +0.2 ¥0.3 

+1 °F ................................................................................ ¥0.4 ¥1.0 ¥0.2 +0.4 

+2 °F ................................................................................ ¥0.7 ¥1.9 ¥0.5 +0.8 

‘‘2011’’ samples are those discussed in NIST Technical Note 1697, while ‘‘2012’’ samples are those discussed in NIST Technical Note 1759. 

As discussed above, DOE is 

considering using the warmest 

temperature control settings that satisfy 

the compartment temperature 

requirements for the baseline and 

icemaking tests. By preventing the use 

of excessively cold settings, this 

approach would help to ensure 

consistency between tests conducted by 

different laboratories. For products with 

mechanical temperature controls, DOE 

proposes requiring that the temperature 

settings be those for which the 

temperature setting indicator aligns 

with a control symbol. This provision 

will prevent setting the indicator at 

undefined positions between the 

symbols and thus will also help to 

ensure consistency between tests 

conducted by different laboratories. 

DOE requests comment on all aspects 

of its approach regarding temperature 

settings. 

Test Periods 

DOE is considering using an approach 

that would modify the test periods 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41626 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

suggested in AHAM’s Draft Test 

Procedure in two key ways. The 

proposal would include: (a) A test 

period for the baseline test that is more 

consistent with the existing DOE test 

procedure and (b) an energy use 

calculation based upon two test periods 

for products that undergo compressor 

cycles during icemaking. The first of 

these proposed changes diverges also 

from the AHAM Revised Draft Test 

Procedure, while the latter one is 

consistent with the more recent AHAM 

approach. 

Baseline Test Period 

The AHAM Revised Draft Test 

Procedure would allow use of the 

stabilization test period for measuring 

baseline energy use. In contrast, DOE is 

proposing that the stabilization and 

energy measurement test periods be 

defined as they are in the DOE test 

procedure (see, for example, Appendix 

A, sections 2.9 and 4.1). However, in 

order to minimize testing burden, DOE 

is proposing to permit the overlap of 

these test periods in order to avoid the 

three or more hours of additional test 

time that would be required if no 

overlap were allowed. The proposal 

would permit this overlap only if the 

baseline test period ends no later than 

the stabilization test period ends. 

Icemaking Test Period 

For products that do not cycle their 

compressors during icemaking, there is 

no potential distinction between 

compressor cycles and icemaker cycles. 

For such products, DOE is considering 

adopting the same icemaking test period 

suggested in both the initial and revised 

AHAM Draft Test Procedures. This test 

period would incorporate a complete 

(whole) number of icemaker cycles, 

beginning when the first of these cycles 

starts and ending with the completion of 

the last cycle. 

On the other hand, for products that 

cycle their compressors during 

icemaking, DOE considered whether 

energy use measurements should be 

based on compressor cycles or icemaker 

cycles. The initial AHAM Draft Test 

Procedure suggested a test period based 

on icemaker cycles for the icemaking 

portion of the test, but AHAM later 

altered this approach in its revised draft, 

suggesting instead that both compressor 

and icemaker cycles be part of the test 

period. NIST reviewed several 

icemaking test procedure approaches 

and concluded that average power input 

is a much stronger function of 

compressor cycles than icemaker cycles. 

(NIST Technical Note 1759, No. 8 at p. 

48) Hence, when subtracting the average 

power of the baseline test from the 

average power of the icemaking test, as 

is done to determine the energy use 

associated with icemaking (AHAM Draft 

Test Procedure, No. 4 at p. 7), a much 

more stable and repeatable result is 

attained if the average power is 

calculated for a test period based on 

compressor cycles. 

In contrast to the average power input 

during icemaking, the ice mass must be 

correlated with the icemaker cycles 

rather than with compressor cycles 

because ice production occurs in 

batches that are harvested at the end of 

icemaker cycles. Furthermore, the NIST 

work shows that, assuming the product 

is in stable operation during icemaking, 

the energy use per icemaker cycle stays 

relatively constant, even though the 

time between harvests may vary. NIST 

recommended an approach that 

calculates average power based on 

compressor cycles and average energy 

use per pound of ice produced using the 

same test data. Without increasing test 

time, the approach improves accuracy 

and repeatability in determining the 

energy use associated with ice 

production, as compared to the use of 

the same calculation based only on 

icemaker cycles. NIST’s suggested 

calculation of energy use expended per 

pound of ice produced, abbreviated as 

EIM, in kilowatt-hours per pound, can 

be expressed as follows: 

Where: 

PI3 is the icemaking test average power input 

in Watts, measured based on compressor 

cycles; 

PI1 is the baseline test average power input 

in Watts; 

EPI2 is the energy use in kilowatt-hours, 

measured based on icemaker cycles; 

MICE_CYC is the mass of ice in pounds 

produced per icemaker cycle; and 

NCYC is the number of icemaker cycles in the 

test period associated with the energy 

measurement EPI2. 

This equation uses the icemaking test 

average power based on compressor 

cycles (the more stable test period for 

measuring average power) when 

subtracting the average power of the 

baseline test. This approach of using the 

more stable power measurement based 

on compressor cycles in the calculation 

helps to minimize the potential error 

associated with the measurement, since 

any variation in the measurement of PI3 

is amplified by subtracting the baseline 

test average power PI1. However, to 

maximize accuracy, the calculation 

must also use the measurement based 

on the icemaker cycles, since the energy 

use measurement based on compressor 

cycles is not correlated to the ice 

production. The improvement in 

accuracy afforded by this approach is 

illustrated in Table III–4 below, which 

shows test data for an icemaking test for 

a 22 cu. ft. refrigerator-freezer with a 

bottom-mounted freezer and no 

through-the-door ice service. The table 

compares successive icemaker cycles 

from results based on the AHAM Draft 

Test Procedure against those results 

obtained using the NIST-recommended 

approach of the AHAM Revised Draft 

Test Procedure. The data show that it 

takes more than roughly 15 icemaker 

cycles for the results of the two tests to 

be consistently close to each other. 

The data also indicate that test results 

using the AHAM Draft Test Procedure 

fluctuate between icemaker cycles 

during testing, indicating that this test 

method’s accuracy depends on whether 

the test period ends on a cycle that 

happens to experience no fluctuations— 

an extremely unlikely event based on 

the inherent variability built into the 

AHAM Draft Test Procedure. In cases 

where the test must terminate early due 

to the filling of the ice storage bin or 

initiation of a defrost, the test would 

end and the error would not be 

corrected by the additional icemaker 

cycles exhibited for this test. Because of 

its significantly improved accuracy over 

the AHAM Draft Test Procedure, and 

the absence of any increase in testing 

time, DOE is considering the approach 

recommended by NIST that the AHAM 

Revised Draft Test Procedure ultimately 

adopted for products with cycling 

compressors during icemaking. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP10JY13.029</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41627 

TABLE III–4—COMPARISON OF DRAFT AHAM AND NIST ICEMAKING TEST RESULTS

Icemaker cycle No. 

Cumulative energy use per ice 

produced 

(kWh/lb) 

AHAM Draft 

Test 

NIST recommended 

test 

(AHAM revised draft) 

1 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0.010 0.165 

2 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0.151 0.186 

3 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0.192 0.189 

4 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0.148 0.191 

5 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0.177 0.191 

6 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0.194 0.192 

7 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0.169 0.192 

8 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0.186 0.193 

9 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0.196 0.193 

10 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.178 0.193 

11 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.189 0.193 

12 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.194 0.193 

13 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.180 0.192 

14 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.188 0.192 

15 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.194 0.192 

16 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.182 0.192 

17 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.189 0.192 

18 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.194 0.192 

19 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.184 0.192 

20 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.191 0.193 

21 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.193 0.193 

In light of these recorded data, DOE 

seeks comment on whether the NIST 

approach it is considering would be 

reasonably sufficient for purposes of 

assessing icemaking energy use. 

Icemaking Test Stability 

The AHAM Revised Draft Test 

Procedure does not require temperature 

stability during the icemaking portion of 

the test. DOE has tested a product that 

significantly reduces its freezer 

temperature during icemaking, from 0 

°F to roughly ¥12 °F. This reduction in 

temperature requires three to four 

icemaker cycles to occur. During the 

initial reduction in freezer compartment 

temperature, the energy use per 

icemaker cycle was much higher than 

after the compartment temperature 

stabilized, starting at 0.28 kWh/lb and 

dropping to 0.20 kWh/lb. A test that 

included the initial icemaker cycles, 

during which the compartment 

temperature was dropping significantly, 

would have resulted in a significantly 

higher measurement of icemaking 

energy use. The data also showed that 

selecting a temperature stability 

threshold of 3 °F (i.e. the maximum 

allowable variation for the freezer 

compartment temperature from its 

average during the selected test period) 

is sufficient to reduce the potential error 

to less than one percent of the product’s 

overall energy use. (Examination of 

Icemaking Test Period Stability, No. 10) 

These test data show that a stability 

requirement for the icemaking test is 

important in order to obtain repeatable 

results. Hence, DOE is weighing 

whether to include a requirement that 

the temperature for the freezer 

compartment remain within 3 °F of the 

compartment’s temperature average for 

the full test period for the icemaking 

part of the test. For products with noncycling compressors, the proposal 

would apply this requirement by 

comparing the freezer compartment 

temperatures for complete icemaker 

cycles. For products with cycling 

compressors, the requirement would be 

applied by comparing average 

temperatures for complete compressor 

cycles and would also be applied to the 

freezer compartment. 

DOE seeks comment on this potential 

approach. 

Duration of the Icemaking Test Period 

and Initiation of Icemaking 

The AHAM Revised Draft Test 

Procedure would require test periods 

lasting 24 hours, if this is possible 

during steady icemaking operation 

between defrost cycles, and that the ice 

storage bin be able to hold 24 hours of 

ice production. The AHAM Revised 

Draft Test Procedure also specifies that 

if 24 hours of icemaking operation are 

not possible between two defrost cycles, 

the icemaker would be enabled after the 

product has recovered from a defrost. 

DOE would adopt nearly identical 

requirements for the test duration and 

initiation of test, except that the DOE 

approach would specify that icemaking 

should be initiated shortly after the start 

of compressor operation following a 

defrost cycle. The DOE approach would 

reduce the overall testing time 

compared to the AHAM Revised Draft 

Test Procedure approach because the 

AHAM approach may lead to the start 

of a second ‘‘recovery’’ period after the 

initiation of icemaking, since the 

cabinet temperatures may shift after 

icemaking starts. The shifting of these 

temperatures would require additional 

time for the unit under test to reach the 

new steady operating condition. 

DOE seeks comment on these 

potential durations and initiation 

periods. 

Ice Mass 

Measuring the ice mass produced by 

a test sample is a necessary prerequisite 

to determine the energy use required per 

pound of ice produced. The AHAM 

Revised Draft Test Procedure requires 

that the amount of ice produced during 

the test be determined by weighing the 

ice storage bin with the ice in it and 

subtracting the weight of the empty ice 

storage bin. It would also provide that 

the weight measurement must not 

include the ice harvested prior to the 

test period or after the initiation of the 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41628 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

last harvest cycle. (AHAM Revised Draft 

Test Procedure, No. 5 at p. 8) 

To properly correlate total ice 

production with the test period used for 

the energy use measurement, DOE’s 

approach would require calculating the 

mass of ice produced per icemaker cycle 

in pounds. This value would be 

multiplied by the number of icemaker 

cycles within the test period in the 

equation used to calculate energy use 

per pound of ice produced (see the 

equation for EIM above). This approach 

would enhance test accuracy by 

explicitly assuring proper correlation of 

ice production with the test period used 

for measuring energy use. 

DOE seeks comment on its potential 

approach. 

Products with Multiple Icemakers 

DOE is aware of very few refrigerator 

models with multiple icemakers. The 

only such products of which DOE is 

aware are French Door refrigeratorfreezers with one icemaker serving a 

through-the-door ice dispenser and a 

second icemaker located in the bottommounted freezer compartment. The 

AHAM Draft Test Procedure did not 

address multiple icemaker products. 

(AHAM Draft Test Procedure, No. 4 at 

p. 4) However, the AHAM Revised Draft 

Test Procedure included methods for 

testing products with multiple 

icemakers. Specifically, the test would 

require that all icemakers make ice 

during the icemaking part of the test. 

(AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure, 

No. 5 at p. 10) The icemaking test would 

continue for 24 hours, until interrupted 

by a defrost, or until all ice bins are full. 

For products with one icemaker 

serving a through-the-door dispenser 

and another that does not, DOE is 

considering requiring that 

manufacturers account for icemaking 

energy use by measuring the energy 

consumption only for the icemaker 

serving the through-the-door dispenser. 

This approach would minimize the 

testing burden while providing a 

measurement of energy use that should 

be reasonably representative of actual 

usage since the icemaker serving the 

through-the-door dispenser would likely 

be more frequently used. This 

expectation of more frequent use of the 

through-the-door icemaker is based on 

the fact that this ice is much more 

convenient for consumers to access. 

Taking this approach would also make 

the test simpler to perform. As 

discussed above, one of the 

complications of measuring the energy 

use associated with icemaking is the 

lack of coordination between icemaker 

and compressor cycles. The test 

approach described above is a 

compromise that balances the need for 

accuracy and the need to limit test 

burden by using two test periods based 

on the same icemaking test. If two 

icemakers were operating, the test 

procedure would have to address the 

non-synchronized cycles of two 

icemakers and the compressor. The 

AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure 

does not fully address how this issue 

should be handled other than indicating 

that icemaking for both icemakers 

would be initiated after recovery from 

defrost and that the test may continue 

until both ice bins are full. Because of 

these unresolved complications and 

DOE’s expectation that most of the ice 

would be produced by the icemaker 

serving the through-the-door feature, 

DOE’s approach would involve testing 

only this icemaker. DOE seeks comment 

on its tentative approach and 

expectations. 

Additionally, DOE’s approach would 

not address other configurations of 

products with multiple icemakers. As a 

result, DOE seeks comment on (a) 

whether any such products exist or are 

likely to exist, (b) what their 

configuration details might be, and (c) 

what test procedure modifications 

should be developed to address these 

products. 

Ice Production Rate 

DOE initially obtained ice production 

rate information from AHAM, based on 

available survey data it reviewed. That 

data indicated that 1.8 pounds per day 

would be a representative ice 

production rate. (AHAM Ice Making 

Test Update, No. 7 at p. 5). DOE used 

this production rate as the basis for the 

fixed icemaking energy use placeholder 

it adopted in the Appendix A and B test 

procedures. 75 FR at 78842–3 (Dec. 16, 

2010). 

Subsequently, NEEA sponsored a 

field study that monitored daily 

refrigerator energy use, kitchen ambient 

temperature, and the number of 

icemaking harvest cycles for 

refrigerators at 80 sites. (NEEA 

Icemaking Field Study Data Summary 

Spreadsheet, No. 11). The study showed 

that the average number of icemaking 

cycles per day for the field test sites was 

3.3 cycles/day. The spreadsheet did not 

include data indicating the mass of ice 

produced per icemaking cycle for any of 

the test sites. Hence, calculating the 

average ice production per refrigerator 

per day requires applying a 

representative value of ice production 

per icemaking cycle to the NEEA data. 

Values of this parameter measured 

during tests conducted by DOE and 

NIST are summarized in Table III–5 

below. The average of these 

measurements is 0.21 lb/cycle. 

Multiplying the 3.3 cycles/day of the 

NEEA study by this average gives an 

average daily ice production rate of 0.7 

lb/day. 

TABLE III–5—ICE PRODUCTION PER

ICEMAKING CYCLE

Data Source Product 

class 

Ice 

production 

(lb) per cycle 

NIST 2011 

Sample 1 ..... 3 0 .31 

NIST 2011 

Sample 2 ..... 7 0 .21 

NIST 2011 

Sample 3 ..... 5A 0 .15 

NIST 2011 

Sample 4 ..... 5A 0 .12 

NIST 2012 

Sample 1 ..... 5 0 .2 

NIST 2012 

Sample 2 ..... 5 0 .15 

DOE Sample 1 7 0 .19 

DOE Sample 2 3 0 .26 

DOE Sample 3 5A 0 .26 

Average 0 .21 

‘‘NIST 2011’’ samples are those discussed 

in NIST Technical Note 1697, ‘‘NIST 2012’’ 

samples are those discussed in NIST Technical Note 1759, and ‘‘DOE’’ samples are 

those tested by DOE. 

The NEEA data suggest that daily ice 

consumption rate may be half of the 1.8 

lb/day initially selected for the test 

procedure. However, the field study was 

limited to sites in the northwest region 

of the United States and its 

representativeness as a national average 

ice production rate is not certain. The 

1.8 lb/day value was initially proposed 

by AHAM as a representative value 

based on its own testing, and DOE has 

insufficient information about the 

details of its development to question its 

validity. Hence, DOE is considering 

retaining the 1.8 lb/day production rate 

for use in the test procedure. 

Impact of the Icemaking Test Procedure 

on Energy Consumption Measurement 

DOE conducted testing to validate the 

feasibility of its potential icemaking test 

procedure. The test results can be 

examined to determine if they suggest 

that icemaking energy measurements 

using the proposed test procedure 

would differ significantly from the 84 

kWh/year fixed value currently used in 

Appendices A and B. As noted above, 

this annual energy use is based on a 

daily production rate estimate of 1.8 lb/ 

day (1.8 lb/day multiplied by 0.128 kWh 

per pound of ice multiplied by 365 days 

per year). The section above discusses 

the daily ice production rate. This 

section examines data currently 

available to DOE regarding icemaking 

energy use per pound of ice and 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41629 

calculations of annual energy use based 

on these data. 

Table III–6 summarizes the icemaking 

energy test results conducted by DOE 

and NIST. Measured icemaking energy 

consumption per pound values range 

from 0.092 kWh/lb to 0.192 kWh/lb, 

with an average of 0.139 kWh/lb. Note 

that this average includes the 

measurement for DOE test 3B but not 3A 

(see Table III–6, below), since these 

measurements were made for separate 

icemakers of a single product. In DOE’s 

view, the product used in tests 3A and 

3B is not sufficiently representative of 

icemaking in refrigeration products, in 

large part because it has two automatic 

icemakers, an uncommon feature 

currently. As a result, DOE sought to 

prevent double-counting (i.e., results 

from both icemakers of this one unit 

which may not be representative of the 

market) when calculating the average 

energy usage measurements and, 

therefore, DOE included only one of its 

measurements in the average. Consistent 

with the approach contained in today’s 

notice, DOE included only the 

measurement for the ice maker serving 

the through-the-door dispenser of this 

product to determine the average for the 

tested samples. DOE requests additional 

data indicating the energy use 

associated with icemaking, using test 

methods as nearly identical as possible 

to the test method detailed in today’s 

notice. 

TABLE III–6—ICEMAKING TEST RESULTS

ID No. Product class 

Through-thedoor (TTD) 

ice delivery? 

Ice mold 

heater? 

Icemaking 

energy use 

(kWh/lb) 

Icemaking 

energy use 

(kWh/year) 

NIST 

2011–1 ............................................................................... 3 No ............... Yes .............. 0.143 94 

2011–2 ............................................................................... 7 No ............... Yes .............. 0.150 99 

2011–3 ............................................................................... 5A TTD ............. Yes .............. 0.170 112 

2011–4 ............................................................................... 5A TTD ............. Yes .............. 0.113 74 

2012–1 ............................................................................... 5 No ............... Yes .............. 0.125 82 

2012–2 ............................................................................... 5 No ............... No ................ 0.092 60 

DOE 

1 ......................................................................................... 7 TTD ............. Yes .............. 0.134 88 

2 ......................................................................................... 3 No ............... Yes .............. 0.134 88 

3A ...................................................................................... 5A No ................ No ................ 0.169 111 

3B ...................................................................................... 5A TTD ............. Yes .............. 0.192 126 

Averages 0.139 92 

Note: The averages include data for DOE icemaker 3B but not icemaker 3A (both are part of the same test sample refrigerator-freezer).

The test data show that the initial 

icemaking energy use estimate of 0.128 

kWh per pound of ice is a very good 

approximation, as is the 84 kWh annual 

energy use. The samples tested by NIST 

and by DOE were selected to provide a 

range of icemaker styles with which to 

evaluate the icemaking test procedure, 

rather than to provide the actual average 

of the icemaking performance of 

refrigeration products currently on the 

market. Hence, DOE does not consider 

the 8 kWh difference in annual energy 

use measurement (84 kWh as compared 

with 92 kWh) to be significant. Given 

the closeness of these values, DOE may 

also consider, as an alternative to the 

test procedure detailed in today’s 

notice, retaining the 84 kWh/year value 

to denote the energy usage stemming 

from icemaking. 

DOE requests comments and 

alternative data addressing the energy 

use expended for production of a pound 

of ice, and DOE’s tentative conclusion 

that the impact of the proposed test 

procedure changes on energy use 

measurements is not significant. 

2. Multiple Compressor Test 

Refrigerator-freezers combine a fresh 

food compartment and a freezer 

compartment in a single cabinet. Most 

refrigerator-freezers use a singlecompressor refrigeration system that 

directly cools the freezer compartment; 

cooling for the fresh food compartment 

is achieved by circulating air between 

the two compartments. This approach 

cools the fresh food compartment with 

cold freezer air and allows the freezerlocated refrigeration system to remove 

heat gained by the fresh food 

compartment. However, some 

refrigerator-freezers have a separate 

refrigeration system serving each 

individual compartment. This approach 

has been adopted by some 

manufacturers to improve food 

preservation in the fresh food 

compartment. By preventing the 

introduction of dry freezer air into the 

fresh food compartment, its humidity 

can be maintained at higher levels, 

which can improve food preservation. 

(See, e.g., Sub-Zero Dual Refrigeration 

User Manual Excerpt, No. 2 at p. 1) 

DOE first recognized that testing 

products with more than one 

compressor requires different test 

procedures from those that apply to 

single compressor system-based 

products as early as 1989. See 54 FR 

36238 (introducing a dual compressor 

system test procedure). The 1989 

proposal introduced a two-part 

procedure that separately measures each 

compressor system’s energy use. The 

first part measures the energy use 

during stable operation between 

defrosts, while the second, conducted 

separately for each defrost, measures the 

energy use contribution of the defrost 

cycle for each compressor system. This 

second part of the test, like the second 

part of the test for products with longtime or variable defrost, measures total 

energy use during the defrost cycle. See 

10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix 

A1, section 4.2.3. 

In order to determine the amount of 

energy use associated with defrost using 

the measurements for the second part of 

the test, the test procedure requires that 

the average energy use for stable 

operation for a period of time exactly 

equal to the elapsed time of the second 

part of the test be subtracted from the 

total energy use measured for the 

second part of the test. This difference 

is then adjusted by the defrost frequency 

in order to calculate its contribution for 

each 24-hour daily cycle (see, e.g., 

Appendix A1, section 5.2.1.2). 

However, when measuring the defrost 

energy use for one of the compressors of 

a dual-compressor system, the second 

compressor continues to operate. If its 

average energy use per unit of time 

during the second part of the test 

exactly matches its average energy use 

per unit of time expended during the 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41630 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

first part of the test, this compressor’s 

energy use cancels out in the equation, 

and the calculation provides an accurate 

indication of the first compressor’s 

defrost energy use. The timing of cycles 

of the two compressors generally is not 

synchronized. If the average duty cycle 

(i.e. the fraction of time the compressor 

runs) of the second compressor is 

different during the second part of the 

test than it was during the first part of 

the test, the equation does not properly 

cancel out its energy use, which would 

create an error in the calculated defrost 

energy use. As an example, the second 

compressor may have completed a 

whole number of compressor cycles 

during the first part of the test, but may 

have completed 4.5 compressor cycles 

during the second part of the test. The 

additional half compressor cycle may 

represent the time period when the 

second compressor is not running. 

Hence, the average duty cycle for the 

second part of the test would be less 

than for the first part of the test, and the 

defrost energy use for the first 

compressor would not be correctly 

calculated. 

The same issue applies during the 

first part of the test. Each of the two 

compressors has an average duty cycle 

and a cycle time, which are not likely 

identical. In order to ensure that the 

single time period selected to measure 

the energy use of both compressors 

reflects the average duty cycle for both, 

this time period must be equal to a 

whole number of compressor cycles for 

both. However, this is not generally 

possible unless the cycle times of the 

two compressors are identical or are 

perfect multiples of each other. If they 

are not, a portion of one of the 

compressor’s last cycles is cut from the 

test period, resulting in a ‘‘truncated’’ 

test period. If the average energy use of 

this compressor for this truncated time 

is different from its average duty cycle, 

the result is a truncation error. This 

error can either increase or decrease the 

energy use measurements of either part 

of the test. 

By requiring the energy use of the two 

compressor systems to be separately 

measured, the current procedure 

eliminated the truncation error, since 

the measurements focus on each 

individual system rather than the 

combined unit. Because the energy use 

of each compressor is evaluated and 

calculated separately, different test 

periods equal to whole compressor 

cycles can be selected for each 

compressor system, thus avoiding 

truncation error. 

As part of the most recent rulemaking 

to address the test procedures for 

refrigeration products, DOE amended 

the dual compressor system equation 

definitions. See 75 FR at 78830. These 

amendments clarified two areas of the 

procedure. First, DOE modified the text 

in section 4.1.2.4 of Appendix A1 to 

explicitly include the compressor and 

defrost heater in the list of components 

associated with each system that must 

have their energy use separately 

measured. Second, DOE corrected errors 

in the energy use equation that 

addresses this class of products (section 

5.2.1.4 of Appendices A1 and A). Id. 

AHAM had expressed concerns 

during that prior rulemaking about the 

continued test burden associated with 

separately measuring the energy used by 

the two systems, as well as the problem 

that some of the components of existing 

dual compressor products are shared by 

the two compressor systems. As a result 

of the shared nature of these 

components, their energy use cannot be 

readily assigned to one system or the 

other as required by the test. (See Test 

Procedure for Residential Refrigerators, 

Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, 

Docket No. EERE–2009–BT–TP–0003; 

AHAM; No. 16 at p. 7; No. 43 at pp. 2– 

3) Sub-Zero, a manufacturer of dualcompressor products also expressed 

similar concerns and supported 

AHAM’s views (Test Procedure for 

Residential Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers, Docket No. 

EERE–2009–BT–TP–0003; Sub-Zero; 

No. 23 at p. 1; No. 42 at pp. 1–2). 

On September 6, 2011, Sub-Zero filed 

a petition for waiver from the test 

procedures for its products that use 

more than one compressor. DOE 

published a decision and order granting 

this waiver request (the ‘‘Sub-Zero 

waiver’’) on February 6, 2012. 77 FR 

5784. The Sub-Zero waiver prescribed 

an alternative test procedure that does 

not require separate measurement of 

each system’s components but includes 

specific provisions to minimize the 

measurement error associated with 

truncation. The test does this by 

requiring a duration of 24 hours for key 

parts of the test, including the 

stabilization period, along with the first 

and second parts of the test. Id. By 

increasing the test period to 24 hours, 

the total energy use measured during 

the test is much greater than the 

possible truncation error, thus reducing 

the error to an insignificant magnitude. 

This result is illustrated with test data 

in the discussion below. 

The last set of comments AHAM 

submitted in response to the December 

2010 interim final rule recommended 

that DOE replace the dual compressor 

system test procedure with one that is 

essentially identical to the Sub-Zero 

waiver test procedure. (Test Procedure 

for Residential Refrigerators, 

Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, 

Docket No. EERE–2009–BT–TP–0003, 

AHAM, No. 43 at pp. 2–3) 

DOE declined to adopt AHAM’s 

proposed test procedure during the last 

round of rulemaking because 

stakeholders did not have an 

opportunity to comment on the AHAM 

procedure. Given the complexity of the 

proposed dual compressor test, and the 

extent to which it differed from the 

existing DOE test, DOE believed that, 

prior to modifying the test procedure in 

the manner suggested by AHAM, all 

interested parties should have an 

opportunity to fully vet and comment 

on that approach. DOE also noted the 

limitations of the existing dual 

compressor test procedure and 

indicated it would consider revising the 

procedure in a future rulemaking. 77 FR 

at 3570–1 (Jan. 25, 2012). Today’s notice 

is addressing these issues. 

Summary of AHAM’s Proposed 

Multiple Compressor Test Procedure 

The multiple compressor test 

procedure being proposed by DOE today 

is based in part on the multiple 

compressor test procedure previously 

suggested by AHAM—and that DOE 

ultimately permitted Sub-Zero to use in 

response to that company’s waiver 

request. The proposed procedure would 

determine energy use based on a 

measurement of power input at the 

product’s power cord rather than 

requiring a separate measurement of the 

power input of the two compressor 

systems. The energy use calculated for 

a multiple compressor product would 

include: (a) energy use measured during 

the first part of the test, which involves 

stable operation (excluding events 

associated with defrost), and (b) a 

defrost energy use contribution for each 

compressor that undergoes defrost 

cycles, based on measurements made 

during a second part of the test, which 

would be conducted for each of the 

defrosting compressor systems. 

To ensure that the product has 

stabilized after adjusting the 

temperature controls, the AHAM 

procedure would require waiting 24 

hours rather than evaluating steady-state 

conditions as currently prescribed in 

Appendix A1, section 2.9. 

The revised draft AHAM procedure 

would require the first part of the test 

to be at least 24 hours long in order to 

minimize the truncation error (see the 

discussion above explaining truncation 

error). The test period would consist of 

a whole number of freezer compressor 

cycles. The procedure would allow this 

test period to be a summation of several 

running periods that do not include any 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41631 

of the events associated with defrost 

cycles. To ensure stability during the 

first part of the test, the procedure 

would require that the compartment 

temperatures measured for the 

compressor cycle at the start and end of 

the test period (or of each individual 

running period comprising the test 

period, if there is more than one) be 

within 1.0 °F of the test period’s 

temperature average, and that these 

measurements for fresh food 

temperature be based on the complete 

fresh food compressor cycles that are 

closest to the start and end of the test 

period. 

The revised draft AHAM procedure 

would require the second part of the test 

for each measured defrost cycle to be at 

least 24 hours in duration, running from 

a time of stable compressor operation 

(normal compressor cycling) through all 

events associated with the measured 

defrost to a later time of stable 

compressor operation. The test 

procedure would allow additional noncontinuous running periods of stable 

operation to be added to the test period 

if needed to achieve a total test duration 

of 24 hours. To ensure stability during 

the second part of the test, AHAM’s 

revised procedure would require the 

compartment temperature averages for 

the first and last compressor cycle of 

this test period to be within 1.0 °F of 

their averages for the first part of the 

test. DOE notes that this approach is less 

stringent than the current Appendix A 

requirement for long-time or variable 

defrost systems. That provision requires 

that compartment temperature averages 

for compressor cycles just prior to and 

after the second part of the test be 

within 0.5 °F of their averages for the 

first part of the test (see Appendix A, 

section 4.2.1.1). 

Proposed Amendment 

DOE proposes to replace its dual 

compressor test procedure with a 

modified version of the test procedure 

recommended by AHAM. The key 

differences between the DOE proposal 

and the Sub-Zero/AHAM test procedure 

are: 

(1) The proposal would define the 

term ‘‘multiple compressor’’ to help 

enhance the clarity of this term and to 

ensure that a uniform definition applies 

to this term. Adopting such a definition 

would lessen the risk of confusion. 

(2) The proposal would allow an 

examination of temperature cycles as an 

alternative to an examination of 

compressor cycles as the basis for test 

period duration and for compartment 

temperature calculation. Also, a 

definition is proposed for the term 

‘‘complete temperature cycle’’ to 

support this change. 

(3) The proposal would use a 

stabilization period consistent with the 

existing test procedure rather than 

requiring 24 hours for stabilization. 

(4) The proposal would allow a 

single-part test if only one compressor 

system has defrost and it is a timed 

defrost with less than 14 hours of 

compressor run time between defrosts. 

(5) In cases where only one 

compressor in a multiple-compressorbased product cycles, the proposal 

would specify a test period consisting of 

a complete number of compressor or 

temperature cycles lasting at least three 

hours for the first part of the test, similar 

to single-compressor products. 

Similarly, if none of the compressors 

cycle, the procedure would allow a 3- 

hour test period for the first part of the 

test. 

(6) Under the proposal, if at least one 

compressor cycles, the test periods 

would be based on temperature cycles 

or compressor cycles of a ‘‘primary’’ 

compressor system. This would be the 

freezer compressor system, if its 

compressor cycles. 

(7) For the first part of the test, the 

proposal would require 24 hours of 

continuous stable operation if there is 

no defrost interruption. It would also 

require at least 18 hours of continuous 

stable operation if there is a defrost 

interruption, rather than allowing use of 

non-continuous running periods, as 

suggested by AHAM. 

(8) For the second part of the test, the 

proposal would not require 24 hours of 

operation. 

(9) The proposed test would require 

that, for both the first and the second 

parts of the test, the temperature 

averages for the first and last cycle of 

the test period (either compressor or 

temperature cycles) for each system 

must be within 0.5 °F of the temperature 

average for the first part of the test. 

These modifications and other details 

of the implementation of the proposed 

procedure are discussed in more detail 

below. DOE seeks comment on this 

approach, including on the details that 

follow below. 

Multiple Compressor Definition 

The term ‘‘multiple compressor’’ is 

currently undefined. In light of this gap, 

and the accompanying need to ensure 

clarity for manufacturers, DOE is 

proposing to define this term. This term 

would be used in lieu of the term ‘‘dualcompressor’’ in order to provide general 

applicability to all refrigeration 

products that have more than one 

compressor. Although DOE is not aware 

of any current refrigeration products 

with more than two sealed compressor 

systems, taking this broader approach in 

defining this particular term would 

ensure that products using more than 

two sealed refrigeration systems that 

might be manufactured and sold in the 

future are addressed by DOE’s 

regulations. The new definition in 

Appendix A, for example, would read as 

follows: ‘‘Multiple Compressor’’ 

refrigerator or refrigerator-freezer means 

a refrigerator or refrigerator-freezer with 

more than one compressor. 

DOE requests comment on this 

proposed definition. 

Temperature Cycles 

DOE is proposing that test periods for 

multiple compressor refrigeration 

products be determined by either 

compressor operation or compartment 

temperatures. Reliably identifying 

individual compressor cycles from 

power data based on a single power 

measurement of all the energy use for 

multiple compressor refrigeration 

products may be difficult because 

identifying compressor cycle starts and 

stops may be challenging and it might 

not be obvious which events are 

associated with each compressor unless 

some means of differentiating these 

events applies. As an alternative, the 

proposed test procedure would allow 

the selection of test periods based on the 

cycles of the compartment temperatures 

associated with the multiple compressor 

systems. Complete temperature cycles 

are equivalent to complete compressor 

cycles because the starts and stops of 

each temperature cycle coincide nearly 

exactly with the starts and stops of the 

compressor cycles for the compressor 

associated with the considered 

compartment temperature. Since it is 

the operation of the compressor that 

causes the refrigeration system to reduce 

compartment temperatures, compressor 

and temperature cycles are inherently 

equivalent. This approach may be easier 

to apply to some multiple compressor 

products because the compartment 

temperature measurements of separate 

compressor systems are not combined 

like total product power inputs are. In 

general, these temperature cycles would 

coincide with their corresponding 

compressor cycles (i.e. the compartment 

temperature falls as the compressor 

operates and it rises when the 

compressor is not operating), but the use 

of temperature cycles may make 

identification of test periods easier. 

DOE proposes to use a definition for 

‘‘complete temperature cycle’’ that 

would refer to a cycle based on 

compartment temperature variations. To 

maintain flexibility, the proposal would 

allow the selection of both temperature 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41632 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

cycles that start when the temperature is 

at a maximum and those that start when 

the temperature is at a minimum—such 

temperature cycles would correspond to 

compressor cycles that start when the 

compressor starts or when it stops, 

respectively. Under the ‘‘maximum 

temperature’’ approach, the time period 

would be based on a starting point that 

coincides with the compartment 

temperature reaching its maximum 

temperature and would end once the 

compartment temperature returns to an 

equivalent maximum (within 0.5 °F of 

the starting temperature). During the 

course of the temperature cycle, the 

compartment temperature must have 

fallen to a minimum temperature for the 

period before rising again to reach the 

maximum temperature. Likewise, under 

the ‘‘minimum temperature’’ approach, 

the time period’s starting point would 

occur once the compartment 

temperature reaches a minimum and 

ends when the compartment 

temperature returns to an equivalent 

minimum (within 0.5 °F of the starting 

temperature), having, in the interim, 

risen to a maximum and subsequently 

fallen again to reach the second 

minimum. 

By defining the complete temperature 

cycle in this way, this proposed 

definition should resolve the potential 

difficulties in identifying test periods 

based on compressor cycles, because, as 

mentioned above, the compartment 

temperature measurements would be 

made separately for the different 

compressor systems, whereas the power 

input measurement combines all of the 

product’s power input. DOE requests 

comment on this proposed definition 

that would define a ‘‘complete 

temperature cycle’’ in a manner that 

would permit the use of temperature 

cycles to identify test periods. 

Measurement Frequency 

The current test procedure allows 

temperature measurements to be taken 

at up to four-minute intervals (see 

Appendix A sections 2.9 and 5.1.1). 

This approach, however, carries with it 

an inability to further reduce the risk of 

truncation error beyond a certain 

degree. The Sub-Zero and revised draft 

AHAM procedures would further 

reduce this risk by requiring the 

measurement of multiple-compressor 

systems to be recorded at regular 

intervals not to exceed one minute (Test 

Procedure for Residential Refrigerators, 

Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, 

Docket No. EERE–2009–BT–TP–0003, 

AHAM, No. 43 at p. 3). 

In DOE’s view, increasing the 

frequency of measurement periods 

would provide a more accurate picture 

regarding the energy usage of 

refrigeration products. DOE is aware 

that most test facilities record data for 

refrigeration product energy tests at a 

frequency of once per minute. DOE 

believes that there would be, at most, an 

insignificant test burden associated with 

this requirement since most test 

facilities already use one-minute 

recording intervals. Accordingly, DOE 

proposes to adopt a data collection 

interval that would not exceed one 

minute in length. DOE requests 

comment on the requirement for this 

proposed limit on the data acquisition 

time interval for test of multiple 

compressor products. 

Stabilization Period 

Instead of requiring a stabilization 

period of 24 hours as AHAM suggests, 

DOE is proposing to apply the existing 

stabilization requirements (see 

Appendix A, section 2.9). The DOE 

proposal would also permit the use of 

temperature cycles rather than 

compressor cycles to determine steadystate conditions. For example, while the 

current section 2.9 requires the 

comparison of temperature averages for 

two periods lasting at least two hours 

comprising complete compressor cycles, 

the proposal would allow this 

comparison to consider periods 

comprising complete temperature cycles 

or complete compressor cycles. As 

described above, it may be easier in 

certain cases to identify individual 

temperature cycles than individual 

compressor cycles for a multiple 

compressor system. DOE proposes to 

offer this alternative to reduce test 

burden for the majority of products, 

which achieve stabilization in less than 

24 hours, and to ensure that the existing 

stabilization requirement is met for any 

product that requires more than 24 

hours to achieve stabilization. DOE 

requests comments on this proposal. 

One-Part Test Simplification 

DOE proposes using a one-part test for 

multiple compressor products where (a) 

only one compressor system has 

automatic defrost and (b) the defrost is 

a ‘‘short-time’’ defrost (i.e., not a ‘‘longtime defrost’’ with more than 14 hours 

of compressor operation between 

defrosts (see Appendix A, Section 1.12) 

or variable defrost). The proposed test 

period would start at a point during a 

defrost period and end at the same point 

during the subsequent defrost period, as 

does the existing test procedure for 

single-compressor products with 

automatic defrost that is neither longtime nor variable (see Appendix A, 

section 4.2). DOE proposes to allow use 

of the single test period to minimize the 

test burden for products with short-time 

automatic defrost for only one of the 

compressor systems. 

Such a one-part test introduces the 

possibility of truncation error associated 

with the second compressor system. 

However, the clock time (as opposed to 

the compressor run time upon which CT 

values are based—see Appendix A 

section 5.2.1.2) between defrosts for 

short-time defrost systems is generally 

about 24 hours. (For example, one of the 

refrigerators tested and reverseengineered as part of the September 

2011 refrigeration product energy 

conservation standard rulemaking had a 

defrost timer with a 10.5-hour timer 

interval, and clock time between 

defrosts of 22 hours for a test with 

temperature controls in the median 

setting). (Refrigerator with Defrost Timer 

Example, No. 12) As described below in 

the discussion addressing truncation 

error associated with the first part of a 

two-part test, a test duration of 24 hours 

is sufficiently long to minimize the 

overall impact of this type of error. 

DOE requests comments on its 

proposal to allow a one-part test for 

multiple compressor products in which 

only one compressor system has a 

defrost cycle that is neither long-time 

nor variable. 

Test Simplifications for Tests With One 

or No Cycling Compressors 

AHAM’s Revised Draft Test Procedure 

does not consider potential test 

simplifications that could be 

implemented for multiple compressor 

refrigeration products for which one or 

more of the compressors does not cycle. 

The DOE proposal would address this 

possibility by providing details on how 

to determine test periods and the 

intervals over which compartment 

temperatures should be measured if the 

tested unit has one or no cycling 

compressors. Specifically, if only one of 

the compressors cycles, the test period 

for the first part of the test would be at 

least three hours long and comprise two 

or more complete cycles of the cycling 

compressor. Further, if none of the 

compressors cycle, the test period for 

the first part of the test would be three 

hours long. These test periods are nearly 

identical to the test periods for products 

with single compressors. (e.g. Appendix 

A, section 4.1) This approach, which 

would reduce manufacturer testing 

burdens, is justified because truncation 

error is essentially eliminated when 

only one compressor cycles or when no 

compressors cycle. 

The proposed test procedure would 

use a similar simplification for the 

second part of the test for such 

products. For example, for a product 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41633 

with one cycling compressor, it would 

require that the second part of the test 

start and stop when the single cycling 

compressor starts or stops. In addition, 

the criteria for compartment 

temperatures at the test period start and 

stop times would be based on 

temperature measurements made for full 

cycles of the single cycling compressor. 

Again, using this approach for the 

second part of the test is, in DOE’s view, 

merited since truncation error is 

eliminated with one or no compressors 

cycling. 

DOE requests comment on this 

proposed approach to help simplify the 

test periods for both the first and second 

parts of the test when less than two of 

the compressors of a multiple 

compressor product cycle during a test. 

First Part of a Two-Part Test for a 

System With at Least Two Cycling 

Compressors 

DOE’s proposal would require that the 

first part of the test for multiple 

compressor products have a test 

duration of at least 24 hours if the test 

period is not interrupted by a defrost 

cycle. The proposal would require test 

periods to be selected based on the 

compressor or temperature cycles of a 

‘‘primary’’ compressor. A primary 

compressor would normally be the 

freezer compressor, if it cycles. If the 

freezer compressor does not cycle, a 

fresh food compressor would be the 

primary compressor, and the test 

periods would be based upon the 

compressor or temperature cycles of this 

fresh food compressor. DOE proposes to 

require that the first part of the test 

would include a whole number of 

primary compressor cycles or 

temperature cycles. If a defrost cycle 

occurs prior to the completion of the 

24-hour test period, the DOE proposal 

would allow a shorter test duration of 

18 hours. This proposal contrasts with 

the AHAM test procedure proposal, 

which would permit multiple segments 

of running time that add up to at least 

24 hours. DOE’s reasoning for its 

approach is described below. 

DOE is adopting this modified 

approach of AHAM’s revised draft 

procedure because the accuracy of the 

test is not necessarily improved by 

allowing the use of multiple segments of 

running time to increase the total test 

period time to 24 hours. This is because 

each segment that is used to comprise 

the test period would introduce its own 

contribution to truncation error. Hence, 

the benefit to accuracy associated with 

adding additional time to the test period 

would be reduced or eliminated by the 

additional truncation error introduced 

by each additional segment of test 

period time. DOE recognizes that there 

may be situations in which it is difficult 

to obtain 24 hours of uninterrupted 

stable operation. Based on a review of 

the test data for tests of multiple 

compressor products described below, 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

shortening the test period time to 18 

hours is a reasonable compromise in 

such cases, but that further reductions 

may not be acceptable because of the 

potential for the truncation error to 

become unreasonably large. 

At the same time, an 18-hour test 

period would be possible without 

combining non-continuous running 

periods, assuming that most multiple 

compressor products have variable 

defrost. Multiple compressor products 

are generally premium products with 

electronic control and variable defrost 

as standard convenience features. DOE 

is aware of products sold by Sub-Zero, 

Liebherr, Bosch, LG, and GE (under that 

company’s Monogram line of 

appliances) that use multiple 

compressor systems. To the extent DOE 

could determine based upon the 

certification information in its product 

listing database, models of this type all 

have variable defrost systems. 

Occasionally, defrost cycles may occur 

with less than 18 hours of stable 

operation between them, but variable 

defrost products would increase the 

defrost time interval during testing. DOE 

expects that in all cases, the period of 

stable operation after the second defrost 

would extend to at least 18 hours. The 

DOE test would continue to be 

conducted with the product doors 

closed, creating little opportunity for 

moisture to enter the cabinet. Under 

these conditions, the need for frequent 

defrost is eliminated, and a variable 

defrost product would increase the time 

duration between defrosts to 

significantly longer intervals. Hence, 

DOE believes that an 18-hour minimum 

continuous test period is reasonable for 

multiple compressor products. 

DOE selected the 18-hour minimum 

test period duration after considering 

truncation error—both the actual 

truncation error associated with a given 

refrigerator test and the maximum 

possible truncation error that could 

occur for the product, given the 

compressor cycle times and compressor 

duty cycles exhibited in the examined 

tests. In order to conduct this 

evaluation, DOE examined the test data 

of two multiple compressor refrigeratorfreezer products. Table III–7 below 

summarizes the test data showing the 

relationship between truncation error 

and test period duration. DOE was able 

to distinguish between the operation of 

the separate compressors of the two 

products based on an examination of 

power input and temperature data. This 

allowed DOE to determine the 

truncation error (including the 

maximum possible truncation error) by 

calculating the difference in measured 

energy use between a test period with 

whole fresh food cycles and a test 

period based on freezer cycles with a 

truncated fresh food cycle. This method 

was used because the test period for the 

first part of the tests includes a whole 

number of freezer compressor cycles. In 

general, it includes a whole number of 

fresh food compressor cycles plus a 

fraction of a fresh food compressor 

cycle. The actual truncation error is the 

difference in energy use for the fresh 

food compressor between its actual 

energy use for this fraction of a fresh 

food compressor cycle and the energy 

use it would have incurred had it 

operated at its average wattage for the 

same amount of time. The maximum 

possible truncation error is calculated 

assuming that for the remaining fraction 

of a fresh food compressor cycle the 

compressor either runs continuously or 

is not energized. 

TABLE III–7—TRUNCATION ERROR DATA FOR FIRST PART OF TEST * 

Product Number ................................................................................... 1 2 

Product Class ....................................................................................... 4 5 

Temperature Setting ............................................................................ Mid .................... Warm ................ Mid .................... Cold 

Hours .................................................................................................... 32.9 .................. 31.0 .................. 21.9 .................. 21.1 

Actual Error .......................................................................................... 0.2% ................. 0.6% ................. 0.0% ................. 0.1% 

Maximum Error .................................................................................... 1.0% ................. 1.1% ................. 0.6% ................. 0.6% 

Hours .................................................................................................... 12.3 .................. 13.4 .................. 12.6 .................. 15.1 

Actual Error .......................................................................................... 1.1% ................. 1.0% ................. 0.2% ................. 0.1% 

Maximum Error .................................................................................... 2.6% ................. 2.5% ................. 1.1% ................. 0.9% 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41634 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE III—7 TRUNCATION ERROR DATA FOR FIRST PART OF TEST *—Continued 

Hours .................................................................................................... 6.8 .................... 8.0 .................... 5.6 .................... 10.7 

Actual Error .......................................................................................... 2. 6% ................ 1.1% ................. 0.4% ................. 0.4% 

Maximum Error .................................................................................... 4.7% ................. 4.2% ................. 2.4% ................. 1.2% 

Hours .................................................................................................... 4.1 .................... 4.1 .................... 2.1 .................... 5.3 

Actual Error .......................................................................................... 2.6% ................. 4.5% ................. 0.2% ................. 0.4% 

Maximum Error .................................................................................... 7.8% ................. 8.1% ................. 6.3% ................. 2.4% 

* Error is presented as a percent of total energy use including defrost energy use. 

The data show that the truncation 

error could be substantially less than 

one percent for a test period of 24 hours, 

although in a worst case (the maximum 

truncation error) scenario, it could be 

approximately one percent. Hence, if 

more than 24 hours of run time is 

present between defrost cycles, using a 

24-hour test period would provide 

acceptably accurate measurements. DOE 

test data also show that the potential 

error could be significantly greater than 

one percent for a test period of 12 hours. 

Hence, the test period should exceed 12 

hours in length in order to reduce this 

error. 

As mentioned above, in cases where 

a first stable period between defrosts is 

not long enough, it would be expected 

that the next stable period would be 

long enough, since most multiple 

compressor products have variable 

defrost. However, DOE believes that an 

18-hour test period would be acceptable 

in order to balance the needs of 

accuracy and the limitation of test 

burden. As a result, DOE is proposing to 

require that the first part of the test 

include at least 18 hours of stable 

compressor operation if the 24-hour 

requirement cannot be met due to an 

interruption by a defrost cycle. DOE 

seeks comment on this proposed 

minimum test period duration. 

To ensure stability during the 24-hour 

first part of the test, the revised draft 

AHAM procedure would require that 

compartment temperatures measured for 

the compressor cycles at the start and 

end of the test period (or of each 

individual running period comprising 

the test period if there is more than one) 

be within 1.0 °F of this test period’s 

temperature average. Measurements for 

fresh food compartment temperatures 

would be based on the complete fresh 

food compressor cycles that are closest 

to the start and end of the test period. 

Because of the duration of the required 

test period, this temperature 

requirement would help ensure 

temperature and average energy use 

stability throughout the test. However, 

as described in section III.C.8, DOE is 

proposing to establish a definition for 

the term ‘‘stable operation.’’ This 

definition would provide a temperature 

tolerance based on a temperature change 

rate of 0.042 °F per hour, which is 

consistent with the existing test 

procedure requirements for determining 

steady-state operation (see, for example, 

Appendix A, section 2.9). In essence, 

DOE proposes to require that the first 

part of the test for products with 

multiple compressors be a period of 

stable operation consistent with this 

definition, thus obviating the need for 

additional requirements specific for 

multiple compressor products. DOE 

requests comments on this proposal. 

Second Part of the Two-Part Test 

The draft AHAM test procedure 

would require the second part of the test 

to have a 24-hour duration that would 

start before a defrost cycle during stable 

operation and continue through the 

defrost cycle (including any precooling 

and post-defrost temperature recovery) 

to the next period of stable operation. If 

additional defrosts limit the test period 

to less than 24 hours, the revised draft 

AHAM procedure would require that 

additional periods of stable operation be 

appended to the test period to ensure a 

total duration of at least 24 hours, even 

if the test period is not continuous. 

The DOE proposal would not require 

a 24-hour test period for the second part 

of the test, and would not permit noncontinuous running periods to comprise 

the full test period. The DOE proposal 

would clarify that the test period may be 

defined by compressor cycles or 

temperature cycles, and would require 

that it start and end when the product 

is at equivalent states. For example, it 

can both start and stop at the start of a 

compressor on-cycle. Similarly, it can 

both start and stop at the end of a 

compressor on-cycle. 

As described above for the first part 

of the test, combining multiple running 

periods to create a test period does not 

reduce the impact of truncation error. 

This observation also applies to the 

second part of the test. Hence, the DOE 

proposal would not allow combined 

multiple running periods to comprise 

the second part of the test. 

DOE’s analysis and testing show that 

increasing the duration of this part of 

the test would not reduce the risk of 

truncation error. The energy use 

associated with defrost would be 

calculated as the energy use measured 

during the second part of the test minus 

the energy use that would have been 

measured during the same time period 

if the product had been in stable 

operation for this time with no 

influence of events associated with 

defrost (as done with single-compressor 

products—see, for example, Appendix 

A, section 5.2.1.2). A longer test period 

duration would not minimize the 

truncation error in this calculation 

because the calculation would not 

involve dividing by the test period 

duration in hours, as would be done for 

the contribution to daily energy use of 

the first part of the test. Hence, the 

duration of the second part of the test 

would have no direct influence on the 

magnitude of truncation error associated 

with the non-synchronous operation of 

the compressors during this part of the 

test. The truncation error would instead 

be minimized by the ratio 12/CT, which 

adjusts the entire energy use 

contribution of defrost according to the 

defrost frequency. Consequently, DOE 

does not believe that there is a benefit 

to requiring a 24-hour duration for the 

second part of the test because 

increasing test period duration would 

not reduce the magnitude of the 

truncation error that might occur. 

DOE investigated truncation error 

associated with the second part of the 

test in multiple compressor refrigeration 

products. Table III–8 below contains 

data from testing that DOE conducted. 

The data show that the duration of the 

second part of the test makes little 

difference to either the actual truncation 

error measured for the test or the 

maximum possible truncation error. 

These errors are calculated in the same 

manner described in the discussion 

above involving the first part of the test. 

DOE found that the maximum possible 

truncation error associated with the 

second part of the test did not exceed 

0.5% of the total daily energy use 

measurement, and there is no significant 

difference in this maximum truncation 

error associated with the length of the 

test period. Hence, DOE concludes that 

requiring a 24-hour test period for the 

second part of the test is unnecessary, 

and is proposing that the test period 

start and end during stable operation. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41635 

TABLE III–8—TRUNCATION ERROR DATA FOR SECOND PART OF TEST * 

Product Number ................................................................................... 1 2 

Product Class ....................................................................................... 4 5 

Temperature Setting ............................................................................ Mid .................... Warm ................ Mid .................... Cold 

Hours .................................................................................................... 25.9 .................. 27.8 .................. 25.1 .................. 27.2 

Actual Error .......................................................................................... 0.2% ................. 0.1% ................. 0.2% ................. 0.2% 

Maximum Error .................................................................................... 0.4% ................. 0.5% ................. 0.3% ................. 0.3% 

Hours .................................................................................................... 2.5 .................... 3.6 .................... 7.4 .................... 10.7 

Actual Error .......................................................................................... 0.1% ................. 0.1% ................. 0.0% ................. 0.3% 

Maximum Error .................................................................................... 0.4% ................. 0.5% ................. 0.3% ................. 0.3% 

* Error is presented as a percent of total energy use including defrost energy use. 

The revised draft AHAM procedure 

for the second part of the test specified 

its start and end points as follows: ‘‘The 

test period shall start at the beginning of 

[a] normal compressor cycle after the 

previous defrost occurrence (refrigerator 

or freezer). The test period includes the 

target defrost and following normal 

compressor cycles until the next defrost 

occurrence (refrigerator or freezer).’’ 

(Test Procedure for Residential 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Freezers, Docket No. EERE–2009–BT– 

TP–0003, AHAM, No. 43 at p. 3) DOE 

believes that this approach is not 

sufficiently precise since (a) the term 

‘‘beginning of [a] normal compressor 

cycle’’ does not clarify whether the start 

can occur at the start of an on-cycle, 

start of an off-cycle, or at either point in 

the test, and (b) there is no clear end 

point for the test period. The AHAM 

approach would, however, specify that 

the temperature average for each 

compartment for the first and last 

compressor cycle of the test period must 

be within 1.0 °F of the temperature 

average for the first part of the test, 

which would ensure that the test period 

does not omit any portion of the defrost 

cycle, such as precooling or temperature 

recovery. (Id.) The 1.0 °F temperature 

requirement is essentially designed to 

ensure that the second part of the test 

both starts and ends during steady state 

operation. By having the start and end 

points occur during steady state 

operation, the procedure would ensure 

that all of the events associated with 

defrost occur after the start and before 

the end of the second part of the test. 

By having all of the events occur in this 

manner during testing, all additional 

energy use associated with defrost 

would be captured by the procedure. 

The alternate test procedure DOE 

permitted in the Sub-Zero waiver 

specifies the start and end of the test 

period for the second part of the test 

slightly differently: ‘‘The test period 

shall start at the end of a regular freezer 

compressor on-cycle after the previous 

defrost occurrence (refrigerator or 

freezer). The test period also includes 

the target defrost and subsequent regular 

freezer compressor cycles, ending at the 

end of a regular freezer compressor on 

cycle before the next defrost occurrence 

(refrigerator or freezer).’’ 77 FR at 5785– 

5786 (Feb. 6, 2012). The Sub-Zero 

waiver procedure also shares the same 

requirement as the AHAM test 

procedure proposal regarding the 

temperature average for each 

compartment for the first and last 

compressor cycle of the test period— 

these must be within 1.0 °F of the 

temperature average for the first part of 

the test. Id. 

The specified start and end times for 

the Sub-Zero waiver test procedure are 

consistent with the start and end times 

specified by DOE for long-time and 

variable defrost in Appendix A in the 

January 2010 test procedure final rule. 

77 FR at 3564–3565 (Jan. 25, 2012). The 

test procedure final rule required that 

the test period both start and end at the 

end of a compressor on-cycle, because 

this method provides a more accurate 

measurement of defrost energy use. Id. 

DOE believes that measurement 

accuracy will improve for all 

refrigeration products with long-time or 

variable defrost, including those with 

multiple compressors because starting 

and ending the test period at the same 

part of a compressor cycle ensures that 

the product is in the same state (i.e. 

having the same compartment 

temperatures) at the end of the test 

period that it was in at the start of the 

test period. 

The DOE proposal would adopt a 

similar approach to the Sub-Zero 

procedure described above for the 

second part of the test for multiple 

compressor systems. However, DOE’s 

proposal would permit a test to start and 

end at the start of the on-cycle of the 

primary compressor, or to start and end 

at the start of the off-cycle. In this way, 

the DOE proposal would allow greater 

flexibility in conducting the test, while 

ensuring the improved accuracy 

associated with starting and ending the 

test period when the refrigeration 

product is in the same state. The DOE 

proposal would also specify that if the 

test periods are defined based on 

temperature cycles rather than 

compressor cycles, the test period for 

the second part of the test would both 

start and end when the temperature 

associated with the primary compressor 

system is at a minimum, or it would 

both start and end when it is at a 

maximum. This strategy is equivalent to 

requiring that the test period both start 

and end either when the compressor 

starts or when it stops, ensuring that the 

product is in the same state at the end 

of the test period as it was at the start. 

Hence, this approach would ensure 

accuracy in measuring the energy use 

associated with defrost for products 

tested using test periods based on 

temperature cycles. 

In addition, the DOE proposal for 

multiple compressor systems would 

remain consistent with Appendix A’s 

requirement that the test period for the 

second part of the test for products with 

long-time or variable defrost must start 

and end during stable operation. 

Appendix A requires that the 

compartment temperatures for the 

compressor cycles prior to and after the 

second part of the test be within 0.5 °F 

of their temperature averages for the 

first part of the test (see Appendix A, 

section 4.2.1.1), as opposed to the 1.0 °F 

requirement of the Sub-Zero waiver and 

the AHAM proposal. DOE believes that 

this same tolerance for ensuring that the 

test period does not include any events 

associated with the defrost cycle (such 

as precooling or recovery) should apply 

to multiple compressor systems as it 

does for single-compressor systems 

because the events before, during, and 

after the defrost cycles of both types of 

products have the same basic functions 

(removing frost from the evaporator) and 

same basic control sequence (optional 

precooling, heating, temperature 

recovery). 

However, the DOE proposal for 

multiple compressor systems would 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41636 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

10See DOE’s discussion regarding the impact of 

the new Appendix A standardized compartment 

temperatures on energy use measurement in the 

refrigeration product energy conservation standard 

technical support document at http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/pdfs/refrig_finalrule_tsd.pdf 

(Chapter 5, section 5.4.2.1). 

also require that the compressor cycles 

examined to confirm stable operation at 

the start and end of the second part of 

the test be the first and last compressor 

cycles (or temperature cycles) within 

the test period, consistent with the 

AHAM proposal and Sub-Zero waiver. 

DOE believes that this approach would 

better ensure that the test period starts 

and ends during stable operation since 

it examines compressor or temperature 

cycles within the test period, not the 

cycles that may fall outside of it. 

In the special case in which there are 

no cycling compressors, the DOE 

proposal would require that the test 

period start and end when the 

compartment temperatures are within 

0.5 °F of their averages for the first part 

of the test—this is also consistent with 

the Appendix A test procedure (see 

Appendix A, section 4.2.1.2). 

DOE seeks comments on its proposals 

for the second part of the test. 

Energy Use Equations 

The energy use equations proposed by 

AHAM for the multiple compressor 

system test procedure and contained in 

the Sub-Zero waiver are similar to those 

already found in Appendix A for 

products with single compressors and 

multiple defrost cycle types tested using 

the two-part test. The similarity stems 

from the fact that the energy use for 

each compressor system’s defrost is 

added separately using its appropriate 

CT (i.e. hours of compressor operation 

between defrosts) value to adjust the 

measurement so that it represents a 

tested unit’s average energy use over 24 

hours (see Appendix A, section 5.2.1.5). 

The DOE proposal for this energy use 

equation is essentially identical to the 

AHAM proposal and Sub-Zero waiver. 

However, the DOE proposal would also 

include a test for products where only 

one of the compressor systems has 

automatic defrost—and that defrost is 

neither long-time nor variable. The 

proposal for this test, which is described 

above, would reduce the test burden for 

these types of products. Hence, DOE is 

also proposing to apply the energy use 

equation for products tested using a 

single test period (see Appendix A, 

section 5.2.1.1) to those multiple 

compressor products that can use the 

single-part test. 

Scope of Amendments 

DOE proposes to replace the existing 

test procedure in Appendix A for 

products with dual compressor systems 

with the new test procedure described 

in this section for products using 

multiple compressor systems. When 

modifying test procedures, DOE 

considers the extent to which the energy 

use or energy efficiency measurement 

may be altered under a proposed 

procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) The 

test procedures of Appendix A will not 

be required for certifying compliance 

until the new refrigeration product 

energy conservation standards take 

effect on September 15, 2014. 77 FR 

3559 (Jan. 25, 2012). DOE is aware of 

very few products that have multiple 

compressor systems and has received a 

petition for waiver from the existing test 

procedure only from Sub-Zero—DOE 

has granted this petition. 77 FR 5784 

(Feb. 6, 2012). In DOE’s tentative view, 

today’s proposal would not affect the 

manner in which those Sub-Zero 

products covered under the waiver are 

measured for energy usage. DOE seeks 

information on whether any other 

products are currently tested using the 

dual compressor test procedure, 

whether their measured energy use 

would change as a result of the 

proposed test procedure amendment, 

and by how much the measurement 

would change. DOE notes that, 

consistent with its regulations, if it 

adopts the proposed amendments in 

Appendix A to address multiple 

compressor products such as those 

covered by the Sub-Zero waiver, that 

waiver would terminate once the 

amendments to the procedure are 

required to be used to demonstrate 

compliance with DOE regulations—i.e., 

on September 15, 2014. 

DOE notes that the discussion in this 

section focused only on multiple 

compressor system products with 

automatic defrost. DOE recognizes that 

the issues associated with truncation 

error would also affect multiple 

compressor products with manual 

defrost. However, DOE is not aware of 

any such products and has for this 

reason not proposed to address them in 

its test procedures. DOE requests 

comment on whether any such products 

exist and whether provisions for 

assuring the accuracy of testing them 

should be incorporated into the test 

procedure as part of this rulemaking. 

DOE is also interested in receiving 

general comments regarding the 

proposed multiple compressor test 

procedure. 

3. Triangulation 

The energy use of refrigeration 

products is sensitive to the 

temperature(s) maintained within the 

cabinet.10 For this reason, the DOE test 

procedures for refrigeration products 

specify standardized compartment 

temperatures that form the basis of the 

energy use measurements (see, for 

example, Appendix A1, section 3.2). 

However, conducting a test in which the 

product’s compartment(s) temperatures 

exactly match the standardized 

temperatures is generally impossible. 

Particularly, today’s electronic controls 

often provide only integer options for 

temperature control set points. The lack 

of smaller increments would make 

tuning to the standardized temperature 

within a tight tolerance impossible if the 

control did not exactly match the 

standardized temperature for one of the 

available settings. Even if smaller 

control increments are available, such as 

with mechanical controls, to try to 

approach the standardized temperatures 

within tight tolerances would require 

several iterations of adjusting the 

temperature controls, followed by restabilization and evaluation of the new 

steady state. This approach is 

particularly difficult for refrigeratorfreezers and refrigerators with freezer 

compartments because the temperatures 

of two compartments must be adjusted, 

rather than just one, and because the 

compartment temperatures can affect 

each other. 

To avoid these difficulties, the current 

test procedures require two tests in 

which the controls are adjusted so that 

the measured compartment 

temperatures bound the standardized 

temperatures (i.e., the compartment 

temperature is warmer than the 

standardized temperature for one test 

and cooler for the second). The energy 

consumption is calculated as a weighted 

average of the measurements of the two 

tests, with averaging weights based on 

the measured compartment 

temperatures for the two tests in order 

to account for their respective variation 

from the standardized temperatures. In 

other words, the two measurements 

establish the relationship of energy use 

as a function of the compartment 

temperature(s). DOE’s existing test 

procedure under Appendix A assumes 

this relationship is linear, which means 

that the energy use is calculated using 

linear interpolation (i.e., a method to fit 

a straight line between a set of points). 

For example, the energy use equation of 

section 6.2.1.2 of Appendix A, which 

applies to all-refrigerators (i.e., 

refrigerators without freezer 

compartments or with freezer 

compartments of 0.5 cubic feet capacity 

or less, see Appendix A, section 1.2), 

simply determines the value of this 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41637 

11 ‘‘Australian/New Zealand Standard, 

Performance of Household Electrical Appliances— 

Refrigerating Appliances, Part 1: Energy 

Consumption and Performance’’, AS/NZS 4474. 

1:2007, Appendix M, available for purchase at 

http://infostore.saiglobal.com/store/results2.aspx?

searchType=simple&publisher=all&keyword=AS/ 

NZS%204474. 

function at the standardized 

temperature. 

For refrigerator-freezers and 

refrigerators with freezer compartments, 

the two-test approach is complicated by 

two independent variables—the 

temperatures of the fresh food and 

freezer compartments. The energy use 

depends on both of these temperatures. 

However, based on information 

provided by two tests, it is 

mathematically impossible to determine 

how the product’s energy use varies as 

both of the temperatures vary 

independently. As a result, when using 

two tests, it is generally not possible to 

determine what the product’s energy 

use would be when both compartments 

are at their standardized temperatures. 

However, there is one exception to 

this rule: it is possible to determine the 

energy use in the special case where the 

temperature controls are perfectly tuned 

to the standardized temperatures. In this 

special case, on a chart showing freezer 

temperature as a function of fresh food 

temperature, the line passing through 

the points defined by the compartment 

temperature pairs measured for the two 

tests would also pass through a point 

defined by the standardized 

temperatures. For this exception, if the 

energy use is calculated separately for 

the fresh food and freezer 

compartments’ standardized 

temperatures (assuming energy use is a 

linear function of fresh food 

temperature for one of these 

calculations and assuming it is a linear 

function of freezer temperature for the 

other), the two energy use calculations 

would give the same result. For the 

general case in which such energy use 

calculations are not equal, the test 

procedure indicates that the larger of 

these measurements is used as the basis 

for the product’s rating (see Appendix 

A, section 6.2.2.2). For this general case, 

this higher energy use calculation 

applies to an operating state in which 

one of the compartments is at its 

standardized temperature and the other 

is cooler than its standardized 

temperature. Consequently, this 

calculation overestimates the energy use 

that would occur if both compartments 

were at their standardized temperatures. 

It is this overestimation that the socalled triangulation approach eliminates 

for products that have both fresh food 

and freezer compartments. 

DOE believes the triangulation 

approach could provide a more accurate 

estimate of energy use at the 

standardized temperatures by requiring 

a third test. If conducted with 

appropriate control settings, this third 

test would provide additional 

information regarding the dependence 

of energy use on the compartment 

temperatures, specifically providing the 

information needed to determine the 

energy use for any chosen pair of 

compartment temperatures. Hence, the 

approach allows a more accurate 

calculation of energy use when both 

compartments are at their standardized 

temperatures. 

In most cases, the error in the 

calculated energy use when using the 

two-test method is small because 

temperature controls are reasonably 

well-tuned for the standardized 

temperatures. The modest 

overestimation of energy use associated 

with the two-test approach is acceptable 

in these cases because it avoids the 

additional test burden of conducting a 

third test. However, there may be 

circumstances in which conducting the 

third test would avoid excessive 

measurement error. These cases can be 

identified by observing when the two 

energy use calculations required in 

Appendix A, section 6.2.2.2 yield 

significantly different results. Table III– 

9 below quantifies the difference in 

fresh food and freezer interpolations to 

calculate energy use for six refrigeratorfreezer samples tested by DOE using 

Appendix A. The difference between 

the two compartment interpolations 

ranges from a potential overestimation 

of energy usage of 15 to 51 kWh/year. 

TABLE III–9—FRESH FOOD AND FREEZER INTERPOLATION COMPARISON

Sample No. Product class 

Fresh food 

interpolation 

(kWh/yr) 

Freezer 

interpolation 

(kWh/yr) 

Difference 

between 

interpolations 

(kWh/yr) 

Percent 

difference 

% 

1 ................................................ 7 ................................................ 599 548 51 8.5 

2 ................................................ 3 ................................................ 580 617 37 6.0 

3 ................................................ 5A ............................................. 631 595 37 5.9 

4 ................................................ 5 ................................................ 646 683 37 5.4 

5 ................................................ 4 ................................................ 595 562 33 5.5 

6 ................................................ 3 ................................................ 471 485 15 3.1 

The Australian/New Zealand 

Standard 4474.1–2007 11 (AS/NZ 

4474.1–2007) includes a triangulation 

method that involves three tests 

conducted using three temperature 

control setting combinations to allow 

calculation of energy use for the product 

that would occur when both 

compartment temperatures exactly 

equal their standardized temperatures. 

Stakeholders suggested in oral and 

written comments to the 2010 NOPR 

that DOE should adopt the triangulation 

method outlined in AS/NZS 4474.1– 

2007 to improve the flexibility and 

repeatability of the test procedure. 75 

FR at 78822 (Dec. 16, 2010). In the 

interim final rule, DOE declined to 

adopt this method because it had not 

been subject to stakeholder evaluation 

and comment. Id. AHAM commented 

again in response to the interim final 

rule that DOE should adopt the 

triangulation method in the test 

procedures, indicating that it should be 

introduced as an optional approach for 

setting temperature controls for testing. 

AHAM also indicated that DOE could 

have put this topic up for stakeholder 

comment in the interim final rule, and 

added that if the DOE permits 

triangulation, it must also use 

triangulation for enforcement purposes. 

(Test Procedure for Residential 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Freezers, Docket No. EERE–2009–BT– 

TP–0003, AHAM, No. 39 at pp. 3–4) In 

the January 2012 final rule, which 

finalized Appendices A and B, DOE 

noted that the triangulation approach 

departs sufficiently from current 

procedures for setting temperature 

controls such that it would have been 

inappropriate for DOE to incorporate it 

based solely on the strength of the very 

limited number of NOPR comments, 

which contained little to no supporting 

data. 77 FR at 3571 (Jan. 25, 2012). 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41638 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Further, interested parties did not have 

an adequate opportunity to fully 

evaluate and comment on this issue. 

Hence, DOE did not incorporate the 

triangulation approach into DOE’s test 

procedure in the January 2012 final rule. 

However, the rulemaking initiated 

with today’s notice provides an 

opportunity to present the triangulation 

approach and subject it to full 

stakeholder consideration and 

comment. DOE has evaluated the 

triangulation approach, determined that 

it has merit, and is proposing to adopt 

it as an alternative approach, as 

described below. 

DOE conducted testing to evaluate the 

triangulation approach and to quantify 

the difference in measurement when 

using it as compared to the two-test 

method currently required. Table III–10 

below summarizes test results for two of 

the tested refrigerator-freezers. The first 

product has a side-mounted freezer and 

electronic temperature controls, and the 

second product has a top-mounted 

freezer and mechanical temperature 

controls. These are the two products of 

Table III–9 that have the greatest 

discrepancy between the two energy use 

calculations based on the fresh food and 

freezer compartment standardized 

temperatures. 

TABLE III–10—TRIANGULATION TEST RESULTS

Sample 1 (Side-Mount) Sample 2 (Top-Mount) 

Test Number ........................................ 1 ..................... 2 ..................... 3 ..................... 1 ..................... 2 ..................... 3 

Setting (Freezer/Fresh Food) .............. (Mid/Mid) ........ (Cold/Cold) ..... (Mid/Warm) .... (Mid/Mid) ........ (Warm/Warm) (Mid/Cold)

Fresh Food Temperature (°F) ............. 39.9 ................ 32.6 ................ 40.4 ................ 36.4 ................ 44.9 ................ 37.4 

Freezer Temperature (°F) ................... ¥1.4 ............... ¥5.6 ............... 4.9 .................. ¥0.3 ............... 7.8 .................. ¥3.4 

Energy Consumption (kWh/day) ......... 1.60 ................ 1.92 ................ 1.52 ................ 1.70 ................ 1.34 ................ 1.81 

Test Results: 

Fresh Food at Std. Temp.: 

Energy Use (kWh/day) .......... 1.64 1.59 

Freezer Temperature (°F) ..... ¥1.9 2.2 

Freezer at Std. Temp.: 

Energy Use (kWh/day) .......... 1.50 1.69 

Fresh Food Temperature (°F) 42.3 36.7 

Energy Use Difference (%) .......... 8.5% 6.0% 

Triangulation Result (kWh/day) ........... 1.62 1.67 

Triangulation and Two-Test Percent 

Difference (%).

¥1.2% ¥1.2% 

As mentioned above, the existing DOE 

test procedure requires a rating based on 

the higher of the two test results 

(Appendix A, section 6.2.2.2). Hence, 

for Sample 1, the daily energy use 

measured using the current test 

procedure is 1.64 kWh, based on a 

weighted average of results using the 

fresh food compartment temperatures to 

determine averaging weights. At this 

level of energy use, the fresh food 

compartment temperature would be 

equal to the standardized temperature of 

39 °F—and the freezer compartment 

temperature would be ¥1.9 °F. The 

equivalent freezer compartment 

temperature for this test is calculated by 

applying the same averaging weights 

used for the energy use calculation to 

determine a freezer compartment 

average temperature. The triangulation 

energy use result, which was 

determined by matching the 

standardized temperatures for both 

compartment temperatures, is 1.62 

kWh—lower than the two-test result by 

approximately 1.2 percent. This 

difference in measured energy use 

reflects the difference between the 

freezer compartment temperatures of the 

two test methods. The table shows 

similar results for a second tested 

sample. These results illustrate the 

limitations of the current test 

procedure’s two-test approach to exactly 

determine the energy use of a product 

when both compartments are at the 

standardized temperatures and provide 

an indication of the magnitude of the 

potential difference in results obtained 

when using the triangulation method. 

DOE concludes that the triangulation 

method can make, at most, a modest 

difference in the measured energy use 

for a subset of products. Since DOE 

expects this difference to be small in the 

vast majority of cases, and since use of 

the two-setting test will always result in 

a more conservative measurement of 

energy use, DOE believes that this 

generally does not merit a mandatory 

third test when considering the 

additional test burden that such a 

requirement would cause. 

Because DOE recognizes that there 

may be circumstances in which the 

additional test may be more 

representative of a given product’s 

energy use, particularly in cases where 

a product’s temperature controls are not 

tuned well to the standardized 

temperatures, which may result in more 

significant measurement differences. In 

such cases, DOE believes that it is 

appropriate to allow ratings based on 

use of the triangulation approach to 

obtain more precise energy use 

measurements. Hence, DOE proposes in 

this notice to adopt in Appendix A a 

modified version of the AS/NZS 

triangulation approach as a voluntary 

testing option that manufacturers may 

choose to use. DOE requests comments 

on its proposal to allow triangulation as 

an optional approach. 

Implementation of Triangulation in 

DOE’s Test Procedures 

DOE proposes to permit triangulation 

as an optional method to certify 

refrigeration products where, due to the 

basic model’s operational 

characteristics, use of the triangulation 

method could result in a more 

representative measurement of energy 

use than the two-setting test. DOE’s 

approach would be to permit this option 

in Appendix A. These procedures 

would incorporate by reference parts of 

Appendix M of AS/NZS 4474.1–2007 as 

an optional linear interpolation method. 

A new section 3.3 of the test procedure 

would reference subsections M3.a 

through M3.c and Figure M1 of 

appendix M of AS/NZS 4474.1–2007 to 

outline the requirements for the threesetting test procedure as an alternative 

to using the requirements of section 3.2 

of Appendix A. The procedure would 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41639 

clarify that the target temperatures txA

and txB discussed in the Australia/New 

Zealand procedure would be the 

standardized temperatures as defined in 

section 3.2 of the DOE test procedure. 

However, the DOE proposal would 

require that the first two of the three 

tests comply with the requirements for 

the DOE two-test method as described 

in Appendix A, section 3.2.1. 

A new section 6.2.2.3 would set the 

required energy calculation for the 

triangulation option. The section would 

reference section M4.a of AS/NZS 

4474.1–2007 to determine the energy 

consumption of the unit and add to it 

the icemaking energy use, which would 

be defined in section 6.2.2.1 and which 

would, if adopted, be measured as 

described in the new section 8 that DOE 

is considering adding to its test 

procedure. 

DOE requests comments on this 

approach for implementing 

triangulation into the DOE test 

procedure. 

Certification 

DOE is also proposing that 

manufacturers identify which method 

they have used to rate and certify a 

particular basic model. This proposed 

amendment would require a 

manufacturer to indicate whether 

triangulation serves as the basis for the 

certified rating. This change would be 

made in section 429.14(b). DOE 

recognizes that more than one test is 

conducted for each rating (see, for 

example, 10 CFR 429.11(b), which 

indicates a sample size minimum of two 

units). DOE proposes to require that all 

units of a given model that are tested for 

certification purposes be tested using 

the same test method and proposes to 

require that the certification report 

indicate whether the triangulation 

method was used. This requirement 

would be added to the sampling plan for 

residential refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers in 10 CFR 429.14. 

Since the two-test method generally 

yields results that are more conservative 

than the triangulation test (i.e., higher 

energy use), DOE would permit 

manufacturers to continue using the 

two-part test at their discretion. By 

permitting manufacturers to continue 

using the simpler two-part test, DOE’s 

intention is to limit the overall burdens 

that are placed on the industry. In those 

instances where individual 

manufacturers believe that use of the 

triangulation method will give a more 

representative value of the energy use of 

a given basic model, those 

manufacturers can elect to follow the 

more comprehensive steps of the 

triangulation method. 

However, given that tests conducted 

using the triangulation approach may 

potentially, for certain basic models, 

yield more representative results, DOE 

is proposing to use this particular 

method when conducting assessment 

testing, pursuant to 10 CFR 429.104, and 

enforcement testing, pursuant to 10 CFR 

429.110, if certain conditions are 

observed during the first two tests of a 

given unit of a basic model that suggest 

that a third test would clearly yield a 

more representative measurement than 

the two-test method. Specifically, if the 

difference in the energy use calculated 

using the two compartment 

temperatures measured for the two sets 

of tests for any one unit of a basic model 

is greater than five percent, DOE would 

use the triangulation method for any 

assessment or enforcement testing of 

units in that basic model. This approach 

may, in certain circumstances, require 

conducting a third test of particular 

units of a basic model on which DOE 

has recently conducted assessment or 

enforcement testing. DOE requests 

comment on this five percent threshold. 

As noted, whether used optionally for 

manufacturer certification testing or for 

assessment or enforcement testing, DOE 

would require that all units of a basic 

model be tested using the same method. 

DOE welcomes comment on its 

proposal to require manufacturers to 

state in their certification reports 

whether the triangulation approach was 

used to determine energy use of a 

product, and on the proposals to use 

triangulation for assessment and 

enforcement if (a) the product was 

certified using this method, or (b) the 

measurement results calculated based 

on the first two tests differ by more than 

five percent using the two different 

compartment temperatures for the 

interpolations. 

4. Anti-Circumvention Language 

Revisions Addressing Past Stakeholder 

Comments 

The current test procedure requires 

very specific conditions during testing 

that would normally not exist during 

consumer use in the field. For example, 

products are tested in 90 °F ambient 

temperature conditions (see, for 

example, Appendix A1, section 2.1), 

which is much warmer than typical 

room temperature. Recognizing that 

manufacturers could design product 

control systems to detect energy test 

conditions and modify their operation 

during testing to obtain a more favorable 

rating, AHAM introduced ‘‘anticircumvention’’ language into the 2007 

version of HRF–1. (HRF–1–2007, section 

1.2) AHAM revised this language 

slightly in HRF–1–2008. 

In the December 2010 final rule, DOE 

added similar language to 10 CFR 

430.23(a)–(b), which contain general 

provisions applicable to Appendices A 

and A1 and Appendices B and B1, 

respectively. Specifically, the final rule 

added a new section 430.23(a)(10) and 

a new section 430.23(b)(7), which 

require that all refrigeration products 

tested under the DOE test procedures 

operate during the prescribed testing in 

a manner equivalent to their operation 

during representative average consumer 

use. Both of these provisions included 

four examples of situations in which a 

manufacturer must obtain a waiver 

under 10 CFR 430.27. However, the 

anti-circumvention language adopted by 

DOE was not identical to the language 

contained in either HRF–1–2007 or 

HRF–1–2008. 77 FR at 3568 (Jan. 25, 

2012). 

DOE issued an interim final rule 

covering amendments to Appendices A 

and B in conjunction with the final rule 

that added the anti-circumvention 

language to 10 CFR 430.23. During the 

comment period for the interim final 

rule, AHAM and Whirlpool urged DOE 

to adopt anti-circumvention language 

identical to HRF–1–2008’s. (Test 

Procedure for Residential Refrigerators, 

Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, 

Docket No. EERE–2009–BT–TP–0003, 

No. 16 at p. 4, No. 12 at p. 2) 

In the January 2012 final rule for 

Appendices A and B, DOE noted that 

amendments made to 10 CFR 430.23 as 

part of the December 2010 final rule 

were already final and not subject to 

further amendment. However, DOE 

noted that it would consider making 

such revisions in a future rulemaking. 

77 FR at 3568 (Jan. 25, 2012). 

In this notice, DOE proposes to adopt 

AHAM’s suggested revisions to sections 

430.23(10)(a)(ii) and 430.23(7)(a)(ii), and 

to adjust the order of the parts of these 

sections. The modified anticircumvention language would 

duplicate the HRF–1–2008 text, as 

recommended by AHAM in its 

comments on the interim final rule, 

which address the four examples 

providing test procedure instructions for 

specific control features. (Test 

Procedure for Residential Refrigerators, 

Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, 

Docket No. EERE–2009–BT–TP–0003, 

No. 16 at p. 4, No. 12 at p. 2) 

In addition, DOE proposes to move 

the discussion of the circumstances that 

would lead to the requirement for a 

waiver to the end of the anticircumvention section. Currently, the 

four examples mentioned above appear 

directly after the waiver requirements 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41640 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

12This guidance is posted in DOE’s online 

Guidance and FAQ database, and is available for 

viewing at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/guidance/ 

default.aspx?pid=2&spid=1. 

discussion. However, their format 

providing test procedure instructions 

(e.g., ‘‘Energy used during adaptive 

defrost shall continue to be tested and 

adjusted per the calculation provided 

for in this test procedure.’’) is 

inconsistent with their appearance 

directly after the waiver discussion. 

Hence, DOE proposes to reorder the 

sections, so that the four examples 

instead follow the sentence, ‘‘Energy 

consuming components that operate in 

typical room conditions (including as a 

result of door openings, or a function of 

humidity), and that are not exempted by 

this test procedure, shall operate in an 

equivalent manner during energy testing 

under this test procedure, or be 

accounted for by all calculations as 

provided for in the test procedure’’. The 

discussion of circumstances leading to 

the requirement to obtain waivers 

would appear at the end of the section. 

DOE welcomes stakeholder comment 

on DOE’s proposed revisions to the anticircumvention language and on the 

reordering of the language. 

Components That Operate Differently 

During Testing 

The DOE test procedure simulates 

typical room conditions (approximately 

70 °F) with door openings by testing at 

90 °F without door openings. See 10 

CFR 430.23(a)(10). DOE’s adoption of a 

modified version of AHAM’s anticircumvention language for refrigerators 

and refrigerator-freezers was intended to 

prevent manufacturers from designing 

products that actively reduce the energy 

use of key components when they sense 

that the product is undergoing energy 

testing. DOE’s test procedure is 

designed to permit passive changes in 

operation because a product under test 

is expected to operate differently in 

certain respects than it would under 

typical room conditions to remove the 

higher thermal load imposed by the test 

conditions while continuing to maintain 

the same thermostatically-controlled 

internal temperature (e.g., compressor 

percent run time would be expected to 

increase during operation at a room 

temperature of 90 °F as compared with 

typical room conditions). In this case, 

the added thermal load to simulate 

door-openings and the insertion of 

warm food products is the reason for 

conducting the test in the 90 °F ambient 

rather than at approximately 70 °F. 

On August 27, 2012, Whirlpool 

Corporation submitted a petition for 

waiver from the DOE test procedure for 

basic models of refrigeration products 

that use a dual-speed condenser fan 

motor. (Whirlpool subsequently altered 

its waiver request into a request for 

guidance.) These basic models run their 

condenser fans at low speed in typical 

room conditions, increasing condenser 

fan speed when sensors detect ambient 

temperatures greater than 80 °F. 

Increasing condenser fan speed 

increases the heat rejection from the 

condenser to a consumer’s home, which 

reduces the condensing temperature and 

potentially increases the measured 

efficiency of the refrigeration system 

during testing if the reduction in 

compressor energy use exceeds the 

increase in fan energy use. Whirlpool 

indicated that fan noise necessitated the 

use of a lower fan speed below 80 °F in 

order to maintain consumer acceptance. 

Based on Whirlpool’s description, this 

feature represents an active operation 

change that would require the filing of 

a waiver request from a manufacturer 

under 10 CFR 430.23(a)(10)(i), since this 

feature appears to cause the product to 

operate differently during energy testing 

than it would during representative 

average consumer use. See also 10 CFR 

430.27 (regarding general test procedure 

waiver requirements). In its petition, 

Whirlpool acknowledged that such a 

feature may conflict with section 

430.23(a)(10), but argued that disabling 

this feature in order to force the test unit 

to operate in a manner equivalent to 

typical room conditions would be 

intrusive to the product’s operation and 

could introduce concerns about test 

accuracy. In effect, Whirlpool requested 

that DOE waive the conditions of 

section 430.23(a)(10) with respect to this 

particular feature and permit testing and 

rating of models with this feature 

without the use of an alternative test 

procedure. Whirlpool also indicated 

that it had determined through testing 

that Samsung has already introduced 

models using such a control feature. 

As a related matter, on March 7, 2013 

Samsung Electronics America Inc. 

(Samsung) submitted to DOE a petition 

for waiver for several models that use a 

multi-speed condenser fan motor, with 

a description similar in nature to the 

petition submitted by Whirlpool. The 

petition did not indicate the specific 

impact on the measured energy use 

resulting from the use of this feature or 

propose an alternative test method, but 

requested that DOE confirm whether, in 

fact, the use of this feature represents a 

violation of the language in 10 CFR 

430.23(a)(10) requiring that energy 

consuming components that operate in 

typical room conditions (including as a 

result of door openings, or 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. 

Samsung stated that the general purpose 

of this feature is to induce a condensing 

rate that is appropriate for the given 

ambient room conditions, thus 

minimizing stress on the refrigerant 

system and improving system 

performance and durability. 

To address these types of issues 

generally, DOE initially proposed 

modified language in its May 27, 2010 

NOPR (see 75 FR at 29856), but did not 

adopt this language due to valid 

concerns expressed in stakeholder 

comments. In response to the issues 

raised by Whirlpool and Samsung, DOE 

issued guidance on this matter on May 

28, 2013, that provides a framework for 

assessing the potential need for a waiver 

within the context of the existing anticircumvention provisions.12 In the 

absence of more specific details about 

the expected energy impact of this 

feature, DOE is unable to propose a 

specific amendment to the provisions of 

430.23(a)(10) (and 430.23(b)(7) for 

freezers) that would address these 

concerns. However, DOE requests 

comments as to whether modifications 

to the anti-circumvention language are 

needed in order to address control 

algorithms similar to the control 

described above as well as any available 

data regarding the net impacts on the 

measured energy consumption for such 

a feature and the impacts on the 

representativeness of related ratings. 

DOE may consider revising the test 

procedure accordingly in this or a future 

test procedure rulemaking. 

5. Incomplete Cycling 

The refrigeration circuit compressor, 

which is a key component of 

refrigeration products, generally is the 

component that consumes the most 

energy. Most products use single-speed 

compressors with sufficient capacity for 

peak demand conditions, such as when 

doors are frequently opened. Hence, 

when testing a product with the doors 

closed, compressors cycle on and off as 

the thermostat in the cabinet 

intermittently energizes the compressor 

to provide more cooling. Energy use is 

high when the compressor is operating 

and low or even zero when it is not. In 

order to provide a meaningful 

measurement of average product energy 

use to maintain specified compartment 

temperatures, the measurements must 

be made for a whole number of 

compressor cycles. A full compressor 

cycle includes both the time when the 

compressor is operating and the time 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41641 

when it is not. At the end of a full 

compressor cycle, the cabinet is in the 

same state as at the start of the cycle, 

where the start of the cycle is marked by 

the time at which the compartment 

thermostat (or electronic control system) 

switches the compressor on (or, 

alternatively, both the start and end of 

the cycle occur when the compressor is 

turned off). For this reason, the DOE test 

procedure requires that when measuring 

energy use, test periods must include at 

least two whole compressor cycles (see, 

for example, Appendix A, section 4.1). 

However, some refrigeration products 

may, for some test conditions, have 

compressor cycles lasting many hours. 

In such cases, the specified test period 

(two whole compressor cycles) could 

last significantly longer than a day. To 

limit the testing burden, the test 

procedure currently limits the test 

period to a maximum of 24 hours. The 

test procedures use the term 

‘‘incomplete cycling’’ to denote this 

condition in which two compressor 

cycles last more than 24 hours. 

In DOE testing, several freezers had 

compressor cycles lasting longer than 12 

hours each, thus invoking the 

requirements associated with 

incomplete cycling. (Test Data for 

Incomplete Cycling Freezers, No. 13) 

Table III–11 shows the potential 

measurement error associated with the 

24-hour test period as compared with a 

test period comprising a whole number 

of compressor cycles. DOE determined 

that this measurement error varied from 

3 to 14 percent for these products. 

While products that operated with 

incomplete cycling did so only for one 

of the two temperature control settings 

used for the test, the errors shown are 

based on the energy use associated with 

the standardized compartment 

temperature, based upon the weighted 

average of energy use measurements 

made for the two settings. The 

magnitude of the error and its direction 

(i.e., whether it results in overestimating 

or underestimating energy use) depend 

on whether the 24-hour test period 

begins when the compressor starts or 

when it stops. The current DOE test 

procedure does not specify when such 

a 24-hour period should start. For these 

tests, the error is reported based on 24- 

hour test periods that begin when the 

compressor starts. In each case, the 24- 

hour test overestimates the energy use 

that would have been calculated using 

test periods consisting of whole 

numbers of compressor cycles. 

TABLE III–11—MEASUREMENTS ERROR ASSOCIATED WITH 24-HOUR TEST PERIOD FOR INCOMPLETE CYCLING

Product Class ......................................................................................................... 10 ................. 10 ................. 10 ................. 10 

Total Volume (cuft) ................................................................................................ 12.9 .............. 14.3 .............. 12.9 .............. 14.7 

Settings used in Test ............................................................................................. Mid, Warm ... Mid, Warm ... Mid, Warm ... Mid, Warm 

Setting with Incomplete Cycling ............................................................................. Mid ............... Mid ............... Mid ............... Mid 

Energy use 24-hour limit (start w/compressor start) ............................................. 347 ............... 367 ............... 404 ............... 391 

Energy use whole number of cycles ..................................................................... 336 ............... 356 ............... 349 ............... 377 

Percent Impact ....................................................................................................... ¥3.2% ......... ¥3.0% ......... ¥13.6% ....... ¥3.6% 

Test start ................................................................................................................ 5/7/10 ........... 7/28/10 ......... 11/4/10 ......... 8/7/10 

End ......................................................................................................................... 5/18/10 ......... 8/18/10 ......... 11/15/10 ....... 8/17/10 

Duration in hours ................................................................................................... 264 ............... 504 ............... 264 ............... 240 

Assessment of Added Test Time 

Two full cycles: 

Test period (hr) ............................................................................................... 47.1 .............. 42.1 .............. 27.9 .............. 50.8 

Additional time (hr) ......................................................................................... 23.1 .............. 18.1 .............. 3.9 ................ 26.8 

(percent test time) ................................................................................... 9% ................ 4% ................ 2% ................ 11% 

Single cycle: 

Test period (hr) ............................................................................................... 23.5 .............. 21.0 .............. 14.0 .............. 25.4 

Test time change (hr) ..................................................................................... ¥0.5 ............ ¥3.0 ............ ¥10.0 .......... +1.4 

(percent test time) ................................................................................... ¥2% ............ ¥13% .......... ¥42% .......... +6% 

The table also summarizes the 

increase in test time for these products 

if a two-cycle or one-cycle test period 

were specified rather than the current 

24-hour test period. For two-cycle test 

periods, the total test time would 

increase from 2 to 11 percent. For a 

single-cycle test period, the total test 

time could increase up to 6 percent but 

would on average decrease. 

DOE also conducted a theoretical 

analysis calculating the magnitude of 

the error associated with the current 24- 

hour test period. For this analysis, DOE 

considered variation in (a) The ratio of 

compressor ‘‘on’’ time relative to ‘‘off’’ 

time, (b) the duration of full compressor 

cycles, and (c) whether the 24-hour test 

period starts when the compressor starts 

or when it stops. This analysis shows 

that the error associated with the 24- 

hour test period can be as large as 40 

percent for a temperature setting for a 

product operating with incomplete 

cycling and demonstrates that the 

current 24-hour test period limit for 

incomplete cycling products can, in 

certain circumstances, result in 

significant errors in measurement as 

compared with the products’ actual 

average energy use. (Theoretical 

Analysis of Potential Measurement Error 

for Incomplete Cycling Products, No. 1) 

Based on the test data and its analysis, 

DOE tentatively concludes that the 

current test procedure’s approach for 

incomplete cycling products requiring a 

24-hour test period has the potential for 

a large measurement error. Further, 

DOE’s test data show that requiring, 

instead, the use of a full compressor 

cycle would not add significant test 

burden and would in most cases reduce 

test time. For this reason, DOE proposes 

to eliminate the current 24-hour test 

period for products exhibiting 

incomplete cycling. In order to mitigate 

the test burden of this change, DOE 

proposes to allow the test period to 

consist of a single compressor cycle. 

DOE requests comments on this 

proposal. 

Temperature Measurement for 

Incomplete Cycling or Non-Cycling 

Products 

As discussed in section III.C.3, the 

energy use of refrigeration products is 

sensitive to the temperatures 

maintained in the compartments. 

However, the compartment 

temperatures for most products are not 

constant. The temperatures of 

refrigeration product compartments vary 

as the compressor cycles, dropping 

when the compressor is operating and 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41642 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

rising when it is not operating. In order 

to provide a meaningful measurement of 

compartment temperature, the 

measurement must be an average for one 

or more whole compressor cycles, 

which includes both the off-time and 

on-time of the compressor. 

The December 2010 interim final rule 

modified the test period for measuring 

temperature for products tested starting 

in 2014. This change, implemented in 

Appendices A and B (see, e.g., 

Appendix A, section 5.1.2), requires that 

the test period for temperature 

measurement coincide with the test 

period for energy measurement, 

regardless of whether the product’s 

compressor cycles regularly, does not 

cycle, or exhibits incomplete cycling. 

These changes were incorporated into 

Appendices A and B as part of 

amendments made to the second part of 

the test for products with long-time or 

variable defrost. 75 FR at 78836 (Dec. 

16, 2010). 

However, DOE has become aware that 

requiring the same test periods for 

temperature measurement and energy 

use, as done for Appendices A and B as 

described above, may not be appropriate 

for products with an automatic defrost 

cycle that is neither long-time nor 

variable in nature (i.e., ‘‘short-time 

defrost’’ products). In Appendices A1 

and B1, the temperature measurement is 

made during one or more complete 

compressor cycles, one of which shall 

be the last complete compressor cycle in 

the test period (i.e., the test period 

specified for energy measurement) (see, 

e.g., Appendix A1, sections 5.1.2 and 

5.1.2.1). For products with short-time 

defrost, the test period is from one point 

during a defrost cycle to the same point 

during the next defrost cycle (see, e.g., 

Appendix A1, section 4.2). The last 

complete compressor cycle in such a 

test period occurs during stable cycling 

of the compressor just before the defrost 

timer initiates the defrost cycle. Hence, 

modifying the test period for 

temperature measurement to be the 

same as the test period used for 

measuring energy usage would be 

inconsistent with DOE’s current test 

procedures for such products. 

To ensure the accuracy and 

consistency of the soon-to-be required 

test procedures for short-time defrost 

products, DOE is proposing to address 

the inconsistency associated with 

temperature measurements for shorttime defrost products. Specifically, DOE 

proposes to require that the 

compartment temperatures for such 

products shall be the average of the 

measured temperatures taken in a 

compartment during a stable period of 

compressor operation containing no 

defrost cycle or events associated with 

a defrost cycle, such as precooling or 

recovery, that includes at least two 

complete compressor or temperature 

cycles (if the compressor(s) or 

temperatures cycle) and is at least three 

hours in duration—essentially the same 

test period specified in section 4.1 of the 

test procedure for products with manual 

defrost. This provision would apply to 

Appendices A and B. This proposed 

approach for defining temperature 

measurement invokes several 

definitions described elsewhere in this 

notice: The term ‘‘complete temperature 

cycles’’ is described in section III.C.2, 

while ‘‘precooling’’, ‘‘recovery’’, and 

‘‘stable operation’’ are discussed in 

section III.C.8. As described in these 

sections, DOE proposes to add these 

definitions to Appendices A and B to 

support already-established test 

procedures for products with long-time 

or variable defrost (see, for example, 

Appendix A, section 4.2.1), and to 

support the multiple compressor test 

procedures proposed for Appendix A. 

DOE welcomes comment on its 

proposed revision to section 4.1 to 

reduce the potential error while limiting 

test burden for incomplete cycling 

products, as well as the proposed 

revisions to section 5.1 to ensure 

consistency regarding measurement of 

compartment temperature. 

6. Mechanical Temperature Controls 

As discussed in section III.C.3 of this 

notice, DOE’s procedure requires testing 

at two temperature settings. Appendix 

A, section 3.2.1 requires that 

temperature controls be set to the 

median setting for the first test. The test 

procedure then calls for a second test to 

be performed with all controls set at 

their warmest setting or all controls set 

to their coldest setting. 

Achieving either the warmest or 

coldest setting for electronic control 

products is straightforward because 

controls are set to either the highest or 

lowest temperature setting that the 

electronic control allows. However, 

DOE has received questions about how 

to properly position a mechanical 

control to obtain the highest or lowest 

temperature setting. More specifically, 

DOE has become aware that there may 

be confusion as to the meaning of the 

term ‘‘setting’’ for the purposes of this 

aspect of the test, particularly for 

products with mechanical controls that 

have a range of motion extending 

beyond the printed indications on the 

knob or label. In such cases, DOE 

proposes to clarify whether the control 

should be set either with a pointer 

aligned to the highest or lowest number 

or letter on the dial or to the warmest 

or coldest end of the range by turning 

the dial completely until it is physically 

unable to be turned further. In doing so, 

DOE is seeking to ensure test 

consistency to avoid different lab 

interpretations of the temperature 

control setting requirements, which 

could generate inconsistent results. 

To improve test result consistency, 

DOE is considering modifying section 

3.2.1 of Appendices A and B to indicate 

that the warmest and coldest setting 

should be achieved by aligning 

mechanical temperature control dials to 

the highest or lowest numeral or symbol 

that indicates a temperature setting. The 

new approach, which is intended to 

standardize testing practices while 

accounting for variability in design of 

mechanical temperature controls, would 

be inserted in section of 3.2.1 of 

Appendices A and B. It would read, 

‘‘. . . the warmest and coldest settings 

shall correspond to the positions in 

which the indicator is aligned with 

control symbols indicating the warmest 

and coldest settings.’’ The remainder of 

section 3.2.1 would not be changed. 

DOE welcomes stakeholder comment 

on its proposal to modify section 3.2.1 

of the current test procedure to clarify 

mechanical control settings during 

testing. 

7. Ambient Temperature Gradient 

DOE has observed that the key 

sections of the two industry-based 

protocols (i.e., HRF–1–1979 and HRF– 

1–2008) on which the DOE procedures 

rely contain inconsistencies regarding 

specified ambient temperature and 

vertical ambient temperature gradient 

requirements. Vertical ambient 

temperature gradient is the rate of 

temperature variation with height. For 

example, the temperature gradient 

measured by two temperature sensors 

separated vertically but otherwise at the 

same location in a room is equal to the 

difference in measured temperature 

divided by their vertical separation. 

The key requirements for ambient 

temperature sensors, ambient 

temperature, ambient temperature 

gradients, and temperature sensor 

shielding are summarized in Table III– 

12 below. All of these factors are 

significant for purposes of specifying 

the ambient temperature conditions 

surrounding a test sample because each 

one can affect the measured energy use. 

For example, the ambient temperature 

sensor location affects the measured 

value of ambient temperature since 

temperatures generally are not 

completely uniform throughout the test 

chamber. Also, the ambient temperature 

level directly affects the cabinet thermal 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41643 

load that must be removed by the 

refrigeration system. 

TABLE III–12—KEY AMBIENT TEMPERATURE REQUIREMENTS

Requirement Appendix A1 Appendix A 

Ambient Temperature Sensor Location.The ambient temperature is to be recorded at points located 3 feet (91.5 cm) above the floor line and 10 

inches (25.4 cm) from the center of the two sides of 

the cabinet. (HRF–1–1979, section 7.4.3.1).

Not specified (missing from HRF–1–2008). 

Ambient Temperature .......... The ambient temperature shall be 90.0± 1 °F (32.2±0.6 

°C) during the stabilization period and the test period. 

(Appendix A1, section 2.1).

The ambient temperature shall be 90.0±1 °F (32.2±0.6 

°C) during the stabilization period and the test period 

(Appendix A, section 2.1). 

Ambient Temperature Gradient Sensor Locations.The vertical ambient temperature gradient in any foot of 

vertical distance from 2 inches (5.1 cm) above the 

floor or supporting platform to a height of 7 feet (2.17 

m) or to a height 1 foot (30.5 cm) above the top of 

the cabinet, whichever is greater, is not to exceed 

0.5 °F per foot (0.9 °C per meter). (HRF–1–1979, 

section 7.2.1) Also see text below under ‘‘Maintaining 

Ambient Temperature Gradient During the Test’’.

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 shall be maintained 

during the test. Unless the area is obstructed by 

shields or baffles, the gradient shall be maintained 

from 2 inches (5.1 cm) above the floor or supporting 

platform to a height 1 feet (30.5 cm) above the unit 

under test. The vertical ambient temperature gradient 

in any foot of vertical distance is not to exceed 0.5 °F 

per foot (0.9 °C per meter) (HRF–1–2008, section 

5.3.1). 

Ambient Temperature Gradient.See above (HRF–1–1979, section 7.2.1) ....................... See above (HRF–1–2008, section 5.3.1). 

Maintaining Ambient Temperature Gradient During 

the Test.

* * * 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 the area is obstructed by 

shields or baffles, the gradient is to be maintained 

from 2 inches (5.1 cm) above the floor or supporting 

platform to a height 1 foot (30.5 cm) above the unit 

under test. (Appendix A1, section 2.2).

See above (HRF–1–2008, section 5.3.1). 

Shielding of Temperature 

Sensors.

Temperature measuring devices are to be located or 

shielded so that indicated temperatures will not be affected by the operation of the condensing unit. 

(HRF–1–1979, section 7.4.3.1).

Temperature measuring devices shall be located or 

shielded so that indicated temperatures are not affected by the operation of the condensing unit or adjacent units (HRF–1–2008, section 5.3.1). 

Test temperature requirements for 

freezers, described in Appendices B1 

and B, are the same as those 

summarized in the table above—the 

Appendix B1 requirements are identical 

to those of Appendix A1, and the 

Appendix B requirements identical to 

those of Appendix A. 

Location of Ambient Temperature 

Sensors 

DOE notes that Appendices A and B 

do not specify the locations of the 

ambient temperature measurement 

sensors, since these locations are not 

specified in HRF–1–2008. To remedy 

this gap, DOE proposes to add 

requirements for these sensor locations 

in a new section 2.1.1 to be added for 

these two appendices. The addition of 

these requirements would help ensure 

testing consistency. DOE requests 

comment on this proposed amendment. 

Shielding 

DOE notes one issue with the 

shielding requirements (as specified in 

section 5.3.1 of HRF–1–2008, which is 

incorporated by reference in 

Appendices A and B): the requirements 

suggest that relocating the sensors is 

appropriate in order to avoid the impact 

of the warming effect of the condensing 

unit. 

DOE does not believe that relocating 

temperature sensors is an appropriate 

means to remedy the effects of the 

condensing unit or adjacent products 

under test. As Table III–12 clearly lays 

out, the requirements for temperature 

sensor placement are precise, providing 

manufacturers with the necessary 

specificity in setting up sensors for the 

test. See HRF–1–2008, sec. 5.3.1. An 

attempt to relocate these sensors in a 

manner that conflicts with these 

requirements would, in DOE’s view, 

undermine the procedure’s purpose to 

ensure that an accurate measurement of 

energy usage is obtained. Hence, to 

remove any potential ambiguity or 

potential loophole, DOE is proposing to 

eliminate the current sensor relocation 

option. DOE proposes to implement this 

change in Appendices A and B by 

moving the shielding requirement, 

without the option for sensor relocation, 

to a new section 2.1. Making a change 

in this manner would, as described 

below, permit the removal of related 

references to section 5.3.1 of HRF–1– 

2008 currently contained in Appendices 

A and B. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposals to disallow relocation of 

ambient temperature sensors in order to 

prevent them from being affected by the 

test sample’s condensing unit or 

adjacent test samples. 

Maintaining the Ambient Temperature 

Gradient During Testing 

The requirement for maintaining the 

temperature gradient during the test was 

added to the test procedure during the 

rulemaking that adopted sections of 

HRF–1–1979 by reference. 47 FR 34517 

(Aug. 10, 1982). DOE proposed 

amendments to its then-existing test 

procedure based on the test methods of 

HRF–1–1979. See 45 FR 47396 (July 14, 

1980). These amendments incorporated 

HRF–1–1979, section 7.2.1 to require 

that the vertical temperature gradient in 

the test room in every foot of vertical 

distance must be no more than 0.5 °F 

per foot. On August 10, 1982, DOE 

revised its test procedures by adding a 

requirement that the ambient 

temperature gradient be maintained 

during testing to address comments 

pointing out that the proposal lacked 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41644 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

such a requirement. 47 FR at 34522– 

34523. This new language was 

incorporated into Appendix A1, section 

2.2. DOE tentatively believes that 

amending this requirement may be 

necessary because (a) it is not clear that 

the temperature gradient requirement 

applies when temperature sensors are 

shielded, and (b) there are no specific 

details provided in the referenced HRF– 

1 procedure regarding the 

measurements that would demonstrate 

successful compliance with this 

requirement. 

The current temperature gradient 

maintenance language indicates that the 

temperature gradients should be 

maintained during testing. However, the 

next part of the requirement states, 

‘‘Unless the area is obstructed by shields 

or baffles, the gradient is to be 

maintained from 2 inches (5.1 cm) 

above the floor or supporting platform 

to a height 1 foot (30.5 cm) above the 

unit under test.’’ (See Appendix A, 

section 2.2) This language is unclear as 

to whether the ambient temperature 

gradients must be maintained as 

described if there are shields or baffles. 

DOE is unaware of any refrigeration 

product equipped with shields or baffles 

in the specified locations. Hence, DOE 

concludes that such shields or baffles 

would be those placed in the vicinity of 

the temperature sensors during testing 

to comply with the requirements to 

shield the sensors from the effects of the 

condensing unit or adjacent products 

under test. (See, e.g., HRF–1–1979, 

section 7.4.3.1) DOE proposes to 

eliminate the ambiguity regarding 

whether the temperature gradients are to 

be maintained when the temperature 

sensors are shielded by removing the 

qualifying text, ‘‘unless the area is 

obstructed by shields or baffles’’. 

DOE has observed during testing that 

the gradients are often difficult to 

maintain during testing. It is DOE’s 

understanding that test laboratories 

generally shield the temperature sensors 

as required and strive to arrange the 

shields to ensure that the temperature 

gradients are maintained during the test 

at the specified location 10 inches from 

the sides of the units. For example, DOE 

is aware that test laboratories have 

generally placed temperature sensors 10 

inches from the sides of the unit at 

heights 2 inches above the floor, 36 

inches above the floor, and 12 inches 

above the top of the unit. The 36-inch 

high sensors are monitored to ensure 

they remain within the 90 +/¥1 °F 

specified ambient temperature range 

required under the procedure. The 

laboratories also strive to maintain 

temperature gradients between the 

lower and higher pairs of temperature 

sensors on each side of the unit (i.e., 

between the 2-inch and 36-inch sensors 

and also between the 36-inch and 

highest sensors). Often, one of these 

gradients exceeds 0.5 °F per foot for a 

few minutes after the start of a 

compressor ‘‘on’’-cycle, when condenser 

heat release is highest. 

In order to rectify this situation, the 

laboratories shield the sensors (or adjust 

the shielding as needed) and recheck 

whether the gradients are maintained. 

The condensing unit as well as the 

operation of adjacent test units can 

impact the temperature measurements 

by raising the temperature in some 

locations in the test chamber. The 

condensing unit rejects heat from the 

product’s refrigeration system by 

transferring it to the air surrounding the 

cabinet, either by drawing air through 

the condensing unit, or by direct 

transfer to the air from a condenser 

mounted on the outside of the cabinet. 

If this warm air passes near a 

temperature sensor after leaving the 

warm condenser, the temperature 

measured by the sensor will rise. 

Further, if this temperature rise is 

sufficiently greater at one temperature 

sensor than at the temperature sensor 

below it, the measured vertical ambient 

temperature gradient will increase, 

potentially above the maximum 0.5 °F 

per foot. Such a condition indicates a 

failure to ‘‘maintain the vertical ambient 

temperature gradient during the test’’, as 

required by the test procedure. DOE 

recognizes that it may be difficult to 

maintain the temperature gradient 

during testing if some of the 

temperature sensors are exposed to the 

warm air of the condensing unit or 

adjacent test units and requests 

comment on whether maintaining the 

gradient at a location 10 inches from the 

side of the unit as specified is essential 

to assure repeatable results. Intrinsic to 

this issue is whether maintaining the 

temperature gradient can be 

demonstrated using a different location. 

However, DOE also recognizes that the 

test procedure does not specify how to 

demonstrate that the temperature 

gradient is maintained during the test. 

DOE proposes to require the use of 

sensors on both sides of the test sample 

at three heights, as described above—at 

2 inches above the floor, 36 inches 

above the floor, and one foot above the 

top of the cabinet—and that the gradient 

must be maintained during the test 

between the two pairs of verticallyadjacent sensors on each side (i.e. 

between the 2-inch and 36-inch 

temperature sensors and also between 

the 36-inch and highest sensors). In 

addition, DOE would require that the 

temperatures measured by these sensors 

be recorded in the test data underlying 

certifications in accordance with 10 CFR 

429.71. DOE proposes these changes for 

Appendices A and B. 

DOE requests comments on its 

proposal to modify the requirements for 

maintaining the ambient temperature 

gradient during testing. In addition, 

because DOE is aware that it may be 

difficult to maintain the gradients when 

temperature sensors are affected by the 

heat of the condensing unit or adjacent 

units, DOE also requests comments on 

whether verification of temperature 

gradient maintenance should be 

performed in a different location. 

Revising Ambient Temperature 

Requirements for Appendices A and B 

Several of the ambient temperature 

requirements of Appendices A and B 

appear in section 5.3.1 of HRF–1–2008, 

which is incorporated by reference. DOE 

is proposing to modify some of these 

requirements, particularly those related 

to maintaining the temperature gradient 

during testing, as described above. In 

order to make the necessary changes 

related to temperature gradient and 

ambient temperature sensor location 

requirements while retaining certain 

other requirements, DOE proposes to 

move these requirements directly into 

Appendices A and B, in new sections 

2.1.1 through 2.1.3, and to remove the 

incorporation by reference for HRF–1– 

2008 section 5.3.1. 

DOE requests comments on the 

proposed changes to ambient 

temperature and ambient temperature 

gradient requirements, and on the 

proposed approach to implement these 

changes. 

8. Definitions Associated With Defrost 

Cycles 

DOE’s amendments in the January 

2012 final rule included modifications 

to test periods for products with longtime and variable defrost (see, for 

example, Appendix A, section 4.2.1). 77 

FR at 3563–3568 (Jan. 25, 2012). That 

rule provided that the first part of the 

test would be a stable period of 

compressor operation that includes no 

portions of the defrost cycle, such as 

precooling or recovery. See 77 FR at 

3563 (Jan. 25, 2012) for a detailed 

explanation of the concepts of 

‘‘precooling’’ and ‘‘temperature 

recovery.’’ However, DOE did not define 

the terms ‘‘precooling’’ and 

‘‘temperature recovery’’, nor did it 

define what comprises a ‘‘stable period 

of compressor operation.’’ To address 

any potential issues that may arise from 

this gap, today’s notice proposes 

definitions for each of these terms. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41645 

13http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/pdfs/refr-frz_faq_2011-10- 

06.pdf. 

These definitions would also clarify 

two other proposed sections of the test 

procedures, should they be adopted. 

Today’s notice proposes adopting test 

procedures for multiple compressor 

refrigeration products that use the same 

concepts of stable operation, precooling, 

and recovery that are important in 

describing the test procedure for 

products with long-time or variable 

defrost (see section III.C.2). That 

procedure would be added as part of 

Appendix A. In addition, this notice 

proposes to alter the manner in which 

to determine compartment temperatures 

in Appendices A and B for products 

with short-time defrost (automatic 

defrost that is neither long-time nor 

variable defrost). Determining 

compartment temperatures under 

today’s proposal would invoke the 

concepts of precooling, recovery, and 

stable operation. 

The proposed definitions are as 

follows: 

‘‘Precooling’’ means operating a 

refrigeration system before initiation of 

a defrost cycle to reduce one or more 

compartment temperatures significantly 

(more than 0.5 °F) below its minimum 

during stable operation between 

defrosts. 

‘‘Recovery’’ means operating a 

refrigeration system after the conclusion 

of a defrost cycle to reduce the 

temperature of one or more 

compartments to the temperature range 

that the compartment(s) exhibited 

during stable operation between 

defrosts. 

‘‘Stable operation’’ means operation 

after steady-state conditions have been 

achieved but excluding any events 

associated with defrost cycles. During 

stable operation the rate of change of all 

compartment temperatures must not 

exceed 0.042 °F (0.023 °C) per hour. 

Such a calculation performed for 

compartment temperatures at any two 

times, or for any two complete cycles, 

during stable operation must meet this 

requirement. 

(A) If compartment temperatures do 

not cycle, the relevant calculation shall 

be the difference between the 

temperatures at two points in time 

divided by the difference, in hours, 

between those points in time. 

(B) If compartment temperatures cycle 

as a result of compressor cycling or 

other cycling operation of any system 

component (e.g., a damper, fan, or 

heater), the relevant calculation shall be 

the difference between compartment 

temperature averages evaluated for 

whole compressor cycles or complete 

temperature cycles divided by the 

difference, in hours, between either the 

starts, ends, or mid-times of the two 

cycles. 

‘‘Stable period of compressor 

operation’’ is a period of stable 

operation of a refrigeration system that 

has a compressor. 

The proposed definition for stable 

operation uses the same rate of 

temperature change specified in the 

current test procedures as the indication 

of steady-state conditions (see, for 

example, Appendix A, section 2.9). 

DOE seeks comment on its proposal to 

add these definitions to Appendices A 

and B. 

9. Elimination of Reporting of Product 

Height 

Before 1997, DOE made no class 

distinctions by product size, and 

compact refrigerators were governed by 

the same standards as full-size 

refrigerators. In 1997, DOE issued a final 

rule that added new product classes for 

compact refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers, which included 

products with a total volume of less 

than 7.75 cubic feet that are also 36 

inches or less in height. 62 FR 23102, 

23111 (Apr. 28, 1997). DOE explained in 

its July 1995 proposal that it was 

considering treating compact products 

separately from standard-sized products 

because compact products had fewer 

design options to help reduce their 

energy consumption. 60 FR 37388, 

37396 (July 20, 1995). The July 1995 

NOPR proposed a 36-inch height limit 

for compact class products and 

explained that this limit was established 

in recognition of the design constraints 

faced by manufacturers, particularly 

with respect to top and bottom panel 

insulation thicknesses. See 60 FR at 

37397 (July 20, 1995). 

However, the majority of compact 

products are not undercounter products 

that fall within these specified 

dimensions. To account for this 

situation, the September 2011 Energy 

Conservation Standard final rule 

(September 2011 Final Rule) eliminated 

the 36-inch height restriction in the 

definition for compact products, 

effectively expanding the ‘‘compact’’ 

definition to include products with a 

total volume less than 7.75 cubic feet 

and height exceeding 36 inches. 76 FR 

at 57538 (Sept. 15, 2014). As described 

in DOE guidance, the 36-inch height 

requirement still forms part of the 

classification of a product as ‘‘compact’’ 

until the new standards final rule is 

required for compliance in September 

2014.13 To confirm the proper 

classification of products as compact or 

standard size before the change in the 

definition takes effect, DOE has required 

reporting of product height in 

certification reports (see 10 CFR 

429.14(b)(2)). However, such reporting 

will no longer be necessary after the 

new definition applies. Consequently, 

DOE proposes removing this remaining 

reporting requirement from 10 CFR 

429.14(b)(2). DOE requests comments on 

this proposal. 

10. Measurement of Product Volume 

The current DOE test procedures for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers in Appendices A1 and B1 

require that the total refrigerated volume 

of these products be measured 

according to HRF–1–1979. In contrast, 

Appendices A and B require that 

volume be measured according to HRF– 

1–2008. In general, these referenced 

procedures describe the dimensions that 

must be measured, list volumes to 

include or deduct in the final 

calculation, and specify the appropriate 

rounding of the final calculated values. 

However, the procedures do not specify 

whether measurements may be based on 

design specifications or if physical 

measurement of the actual test unit is 

required. With respect to the latter 

approach, the procedures do not specify 

the types of instruments that would be 

appropriate or should be used for 

performing these measurements, leaving 

it to the test laboratory to determine the 

best means by which to conduct this 

portion of the test. 

Since the January 2012 final rule was 

published, DOE has become aware that 

some manufacturers use computer 

programs to calculate these volumes 

based on computer-aided design (CAD) 

models of the product in lieu of 

physical measurements. While DOE 

understands that this practice may 

allow for more precise measurement of 

these products, especially where the 

measured volumes include irregular 

shapes and textured surfaces, and 

recognizes that neither the referenced 

AHAM test procedures nor the DOE test 

procedures specifically prohibit it, DOE 

has identified two potential issues 

involved with measuring volumes in 

this manner. First, the use of 

measurements based upon design 

models for the purposes of certification 

represents an assumption that the actual 

production units will be exactly 

consistent with the designs, which may 

not actually occur. Second, independent 

verification of the manufacturer’s rated 

volume by a test laboratory that does not 

possess these models can be difficult, 

particularly when a product’s interior 

volume includes irregularly shaped 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41646 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

surfaces or volumes that cannot easily 

be measured by hand. Because 

permitted maximum annual energy use 

is a function of volume within a given 

product class, discrepancies between 

the volumes measured directly during 

lab testing and the volumes 

manufacturers calculate using CAD 

models could potentially, under the 

current regulations, affect whether a 

tested unit of a given basic model meets 

the applicable energy conservation 

standard. 

In recognition of the practical 

difficulties associated with measuring 

the volumes of many products currently 

on the market, DOE is proposing to 

explicitly permit the use of CAD models 

for measuring and computing the 

volume of refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers for the purposes of 

certifying compliance with the DOE 

energy conservation standards for these 

products. This proposal is intended to 

ensure that manufacturers are able to 

accurately measure the volumes of their 

products and that test laboratories are 

able to verify these. 

In addition to a general provision that 

permits the use of CAD models for 

determining the volume for the 

purposes of certification, DOE would 

also require that manufacturers retain 

measurements derived using CAD as 

part of the test records that underlie 

certifications pursuant to 10 CFR 

429.71. These provisions would include 

a requirement that the manufacturer 

make these records available to DOE 

upon request in the form of printed 

diagrams and/or spreadsheets that 

demonstrate the calculations of volume 

performed using the CAD model (rather 

than computer files that would require 

use of CAD software to read, such as 

.dwg files). For the purposes of volume 

verification, DOE would ensure that the 

volume measured by the test laboratory 

is within a prescribed tolerance of the 

total refrigerated volume certified by the 

manufacturer. DOE could also request 

documentation of the manufacturer’s 

volume measurements as needed. 

DOE would modify section 5.3 of 

Appendices A and B to incorporate the 

requirements allowing use of CAD for 

volume calculation. 

In determining the appropriate 

tolerance for assessing the validity of 

volume ratings, DOE considered 

information from two primary sources. 

First, DOE considered the AHAM 

Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Freezer, and 

Freezer Verification Program Procedural 

Guide, which uses a 2 percent tolerance 

for verification of manufacturer volume 

ratings. To ensure that this threshold 

would be appropriate, DOE evaluated its 

own test data and compared volume 

measurements taken over the past three 

years for nearly 300 individual test units 

representing over 100 models. DOE 

found that, on average, manufacturers’ 

reported adjusted volumes are slightly 

less than 0.5 percent larger than the 

adjusted volumes measured by the test 

laboratory and that less than 20 percent 

of units had an adjusted volume more 

than two percent larger than their 

certified adjusted volume. Among the 

tested units that exceeded the 2 percent 

threshold, more than 70 percent were 

beyond 3 percent and nearly one third 

were beyond 4 percent. There was also 

greater variation in the frequency of 

results above the 2 percent threshold 

compared with the units below the 

threshold, with the frequency of 

observations below 2 percent following 

a roughly normal distribution and the 

frequency of results above 2 percent 

appearing more erratic. Finally, DOE 

observed that the impact of a difference 

in reported adjusted volume of 2 

percent resulted in an impact on the 

calculated energy conservation standard 

of only 0.5%, probably less than the 

impacts of other potential errors in 

measurement and data reporting. This 

all suggests that the 2 percent threshold 

is appropriate and that the vast majority 

of measurements should fall well within 

this margin. 

Based upon this analysis, DOE is 

proposing to adopt requirements that 

are essentially the same as those used by 

AHAM for its verification program. 

Specifically, the test laboratory’s 

measurement of volume must be no 

more than 2 percent smaller than the 

manufacturer’s rated volume. If 2 

percent of the rated volume is smaller 

than 0.5 cubic feet for standard-size 

products or 0.2 cubic feet for compact 

products, then a 0.5 (or 0.2) cubic feet 

tolerance would be used. For example, 

if a product’s rated volume is 29.2 cubic 

feet, the 2 percent margin would be 0.6 

cubic feet. Since this is larger than 0.5 

cubic feet, the 2 percent margin would 

be used; therefore, under the proposed 

approach, the laboratory measurement 

would have to be at least 28.6 cubic feet 

for the rating to be considered valid. If 

DOE determines that the rated volume 

is not valid, the energy conservation 

standard applicable to the tested model 

would be calculated based upon the 

volume measured by the laboratory. 

DOE proposes to add a new section 

429.134 of 10 CFR part 429 to address 

the volume verification protocol. DOE 

also proposes to amend the certification 

requirements in section 429.14 to 

require reporting of the total refrigerated 

volume of each compartment instead of 

the adjusted volume. This will enable 

direct comparisons between the 

certified volume of a basic model and 

independently measured volumes for 

the same model and will also harmonize 

the DOE reporting requirements for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers with those of the Federal Trade 

Commission. 

As a related matter, DOE noted during 

its review of test data and manufacturer 

ratings of adjusted volume that some 

volumes may have been improperly 

reported or calculated. Specifically, in 

some cases it appeared that the adjusted 

volume may have been calculated based 

on a total refrigerated volume that was 

rounded to the nearest whole cubic foot 

rather than the nearest 0.1 cubic foot as 

required by section 4.2.3 of AHAM 

HRF–1–1979, which is referenced by the 

DOE test procedure. In the most extreme 

theoretical case, this error could result 

in the reporting of a total refrigerated 

volume that is larger by up to 0.5 cubic 

feet. For a product such as an upright 

freezer with automatic defrost (product 

class 9 in the DOE energy conservation 

standards), this would result in a 

difference in adjusted volume of 0.865 

cubic feet, and a resultant increase in 

calculated energy conservation standard 

for that basic model of nearly 11 kWh/ 

year. Such a margin could make the 

difference between a model meeting the 

standard or failing to do so. In any 

evaluation of a product’s certified total 

refrigerated volume, DOE will consider 

all aspects of the volume calculation, 

including the rounding of the measured 

total volume that was used in the 

calculation to help determine whether a 

manufacturer derived its certified value 

of total refrigerated volume in 

conformity with the DOE test procedure. 

DOE seeks comment on its proposal to 

add a provision permitting use of CAD 

for measurement of product volume to 

section 429.72 and procedures for 

verifying rated volumes to section 

429.134, including the proposed 

tolerance range. DOE also requests 

information on the documentation kept 

by manufacturers of CAD modeling used 

for calculations of volume and whether 

this documentation is in or could be 

converted to a format that would allow 

review by DOE without use of CAD 

software. 

11. Corrections to Temperature Setting 

Logic Tables 

The December 16, 2010 Interim Final 

Rule established tables in Appendices A 

and B to illustrate the requirements for 

setting temperature controls during 

testing. 75 FR at 78840–78842. 

However, the tables were presented in 

the notice without the necessary 

horizontal lines to properly divide the 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41647 

14For additional background on the ENERGY 

STAR Version 5.0 Specification for Residential 

Refrigerators and Freezers, go to https:// 

energystar.gov/products/specs/node/125. 

different test result possibilities and 

next steps. The tables were then entered 

into the CFR with horizontal lines in 

locations that effectively confused the 

information that the tables were 

intended to present. DOE proposes to 

correct these errors and ensure that the 

tables in the CFR are corrected to 

properly show the sequence of 

temperature control settings required for 

testing. 

12. Minimum Compressor Run-Time 

Between Defrosts for Variable Defrost 

Models 

The DOE test procedures in 

Appendices A and B provide specific 

provisions for calculating the energy use 

of models with variable defrost, which 

DOE defines generally as an automatic 

defrost system in which successive 

defrost cycles are determined by an 

operating condition variable or variables 

other than solely compressor operating 

time. For such models, the periodicity 

of defrost cycles may vary based on 

factors other than the time since the last 

compressor cycle, such as ambient 

temperature and humidity, length and 

frequency of door openings, and other 

factors that may affect the formation of 

frost on the evaporator or provide an 

indication of how much frost may have 

accumulated. As noted in the definition, 

this differs from models with nonvariable automatic defrost, which 

generally perform defrosts of the 

evaporator based solely on compressor 

operating time. The energy use of 

variable defrost products is measured 

using a two-part test which separately 

measures the energy use associated with 

defrost in the second part of the test. 

To properly account for energy use 

associated with defrost, Appendices A 

and B both provide calculations 

specifically for models that have 

variable defrost. These calculations 

estimate the contribution to energy use 

based upon the values for the minimum 

compressor run-time between defrosts 

(CTL) and the maximum compressor run 

time between defrosts (CTM). Some 

models have control algorithms with 

specific values for CTL and CTM, which 

DOE requires manufacturers to report as 

part of their certifications of 

compliance. These values must be 

known in order to calculate the 

representative average value CT for 

compressor run time between defrosts, 

which is used to calculate defrost 

frequency and therefore also defrost 

contribution to energy use. In any 

subsequent verification or enforcement 

testing, DOE uses the values of CTL and 

CTM reported by the manufacturer. For 

models that are not programmed with 

fixed CTL and CTM values, tests must be 

conducted using default values of 6 and 

96, respectively. For descriptions of 

these calculations, see sections 5.2.1.3 

and 5.2.1.5 of Appendix A, and section 

5.2.1.3 of Appendix B. 

In general, use of the CTL and CTM

values reported by the manufacturer 

rather than the default values should 

result in measurements of energy use 

that are more representative of the 

product’s actual operation because they 

represent the actual minimum and 

maximum amounts of compressor run 

time between defrosts that the model’s 

control system is designed to use. Thus, 

the compressor run time between 

defrosts should never be less than CTL

and never greater than CTM. However, 

in certain DOE testing of models for 

which the manufacturer reported values 

of CTL and CTM in the certification 

report, DOE has found that the number 

of hours of compressor operation 

between defrost cycles observed in the 

test data was less than the CTL value 

reported by the manufacturer in its 

certification report. This difference 

suggests either that the certified value 

was erroneous or that the model did not 

operate as designed. In either case, the 

energy use calculated using the values 

reported by the manufacturer would not 

be representative of how the model 

actually performed during the test and 

how it would be expected to perform in 

the field. To ensure that the energy use 

calculations will reflect the actual 

operation of the unit as tested, DOE is 

proposing to require the use of a value 

for CTL for the energy use calculation 

that is equal to the shortest compressor 

run time between defrosts observed 

during the test, if this observed time is 

less than the value of CTL reported in 

the certification report. If the model did 

not have values of CTL and CTM

reported in the certification report, the 

observed value of CTL would only be 

used if it is less than the default value 

of 6 hours. This change is proposed for 

sections 5.2.1.3 and 5.2.1.5 of Appendix 

A and section 5.2.1.3 of Appendix B. 

13. Treatment of ‘‘Connected’’ Products 

As part of the Version 5.0 ENERGY 

STAR Specification for Residential 

Refrigerators and Freezers, DOE is 

developing, in cooperation with the 

EPA, specifications and test methods for 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers 

that have the capability to enable 

consumer-authorized energy related 

commands, such as demand-response 

signals from a utility.14 Products with 

this capability are referred to generally 

as ‘‘connected’’ products in the final 

draft ENERGY STAR specification and 

in the associated test method (ENERGY 

STAR Connected Refrigerators and 

Freezers Final Draft Test Method, No. 

14). The draft test method addresses 

aspects of testing specific to the demand 

response functionality, but refers to the 

DOE test procedure in Appendix A to 

Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 430 for test 

setup and test conditions. However, the 

current Appendix A test procedure does 

not address the condition of the 

communication module of a connected 

product during the standard DOE energy 

test, which is used in section 6 of the 

demand response test to establish the 

baseline energy consumption and can be 

placed by the user in either an active 

communication mode or a noncommunicating mode (ENERGY STAR 

Connected Refrigerators and Freezers 

Final Draft Test Method, No. 14, p. 3). 

DOE views this feature as subject to 

section 5.5.2.e of AHAM HRF–1–2008, 

incorporated by reference in Appendix 

A, which states that customer accessible 

features, not required for normal 

operation, which are electrically 

powered, manually initiated, and 

manually terminated, shall be set at 

their lowest energy usage positions 

when adjustment is provided. In 

keeping with this requirement, and to 

ensure that Appendix A provides 

sufficient clarity on the condition of the 

communication module of connected 

products during the DOE energy test, 

DOE is proposing to amend section 2 of 

the Appendix A test procedure to 

specify that the communication module, 

if integrated into the cabinet, must be 

energized but placed in the lowest 

energy use position, and there shall be 

no active communication during testing. 

DOE understands that some products 

will be manufactured without an 

integrated communication module, and 

instead will have the capability to allow 

connection of a module supplied by 

another manufacturer. In these cases, 

DOE cannot specify a test condition for 

the communication module since the 

module used for the test will not be 

standardized. Thus, the proposed 

requirement in section 2 of the test 

procedure does not require connection 

of communication modules for products 

designed for use of an externallyconnected module. Finally, while the 

ENERGY STAR specification for 

connected products addresses only 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, 

DOE is also proposing to add the same 

provisions to Appendix B to 

accommodate any future provisions 

made for connected freezers. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41648 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

14. Changes to Confidentiality of 

Certification Data 

Section 429.14(b) specifies the data 

that manufacturers of residential 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers must provide to DOE in 

certifications of compliance for each 

basic model. Data submitted for the 

items in paragraph (b)(2) are treated by 

DOE as public data whereas the data for 

items in paragraph (b)(3) are evaluated 

on a case-by-case basis. The items listed 

in paragraph (b)(3) include specific 

information related to variable defrost 

control, variable anti-sweat heater 

control, and the use of alternate 

temperature sensor locations. For 

models with variable defrost and 

variable anti-sweat heaters, this 

includes not only the specific 

operational details of those features, but 

whether the model has those features at 

all. Since the publishing of the current 

version of section 429.14, DOE has 

determined that there is no clear reason 

that the indications as to whether a 

model has variable defrost or variable 

anti-sweat heater control or the use of 

alternate temperature sensor locations 

should be treated as non-public and 

proposes to move them to paragraph 

(b)(2), which would make them public 

data. The other details of variable 

defrost operation and variable antisweat heater control would remain in 

paragraph (b)(3). These changes would 

take effect 30 days after publication of 

the final rule. 

15. Package Loading 

Section 2.2 of the DOE test procedure 

for residential freezers, which is located 

in appendix B1 to subpart B of 10 CFR 

part 430 (Appendix B1), references the 

AHAM HRF–1–1979 test procedure for 

provisions related to certain operational 

conditions. Among these is a specific 

provision described in section 7.4.3.3 of 

AHAM HRF–1–1979, which requires 

that the freezer compartment be loaded 

to 75% of the maximum number of 

filled packages that can be fitted into the 

compartment, and that the 75% load is 

to be fitted into the compartment as to 

permit air circulation around and above 

the load. The requirements applicable to 

these products in appendix B to subpart 

B of 10 CFR part 430 (Appendix B) and 

the section it references in AHAM HRF– 

1–2008 procedure (section 5.5.5.3), are 

essentially identical except that package 

loading is required only for manual 

defrost freezers whereas it is required by 

HRF–1–1979 for all freezer types. 

DOE has learned that there may be 

ambiguity about how to consistently 

determine the actual number of 

packages that fulfills the 75% loading 

requirement for a given basic model. To 

clarify, DOE views the appropriate 

method of accomplishing this 

requirement as consisting of two steps. 

The first step is to determine the 

number of packages that represents 75% 

of the maximum capacity of the freezer 

compartment, and the second step is to 

arrange the 75% load such that the air 

gap of 0.5 to 1.5 inches between the load 

and the compartment wall and the 

pyramid or tiered form needed for 

placement of the thermocouples are 

both established, as required by section 

7.4.3.3 of the AHAM HRF–1–1979 

procedure (or section 5.5.5.3 of AHAM 

HRF–1–2008). 

For determining the number of 

packages that represents 75% of the 

load, the compartment should be filled 

completely with the packages that are to 

be used for the test, such that the 

packages fill as much of the usable 

refrigerated space within the 

compartment as is physically possible. 

Once this has been accomplished, a 

number of packages is removed from the 

compartment so that the compartment 

contains 75% of the packages that were 

placed in the compartment to 

completely fill it. The remaining 

packages would then be arranged as 

necessary in order to achieve the 

necessary air gap and the tiered or 

pyramid form needed for thermocouple 

placement. 

To ensure that this practice is used 

consistently, DOE proposes to place a 

description of this practice in section 

2.9 of Appendix B. The proposed text 

also specifies that the number of 

packages representing the completely 

filled condition and the number left in 

the compartment for the test should 

both be recorded in the test data, and 

maintained as part of the test record in 

accordance with 10 CFR 429.71. 

Because section 5.5.5.3 of HRF–1–2008 

also applies these requirements to each 

shelf of a multi-shelf freezer, the 

requirement to count and record the 

number of packages would apply on a 

per-shelf basis for such products. 

DOE requests comment on these 

clarifications and proposed 

amendments to Appendix B. 

16. Product Clearance to the Wall 

During Testing 

In the December 16, 2010 interim 

final rule, which established 

Appendices A and B, DOE included 

provisions to address product 

clearances to the wall during testing. 75 

FR 78810. Specifically, section 2.8 of 

Appendix A and section 2.6 of 

Appendix B both require that the space 

between the plane of the cabinet’s back 

panel and the vertical surface behind 

the cabinet (i.e., the test chamber wall 

or simulated wall) be the minimum 

distance in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s instructions or 2 inches, 

whichever is less. If the product has 

permanent rear spacers that extend 

beyond this distance, the product is to 

be located with the spacers in contact 

with the vertical surface. However, DOE 

received a request for guidance from 

AHAM dated May 22, 2013 (AHAM 

Guidance Request) indicating that these 

provisions may not be sufficiently clear 

for cases in which the back of the test 

unit is not all on one plane due to 

protrusions or surface irregularities 

rather than a uniformly flat panel. 

(AHAM Guidance Request, No. 15, p. 2). 

AHAM requested that DOE clarify these 

sections by referencing the Committee 

Draft for Vote (CDV) version of Part 1 of 

IEC 62552.2 Household refrigerating 

appliances—Characteristics and test 

methods. As explained by AHAM, this 

reference provides guidance on product 

spacing that is consistent with section 

2.8, but is more specific regarding the 

treatment of irregular surfaces. 

Because the IEC reference that AHAM 

suggested has not been finalized as of 

the date of this notice, and because DOE 

generally seeks to limit the number of 

external references incorporated in the 

DOE test procedure, DOE declines to 

incorporate by reference the IEC 

procedure suggested by AHAM. 

However, since clarification of this item 

may result in more consistent 

application of the DOE test procedure, 

DOE proposes to adopt revised language 

for section 2.8 that is intended to 

accomplish the same objective. 

Specifically, DOE proposes to specify 

that, for the purposes of determining the 

appropriate clearance to the wall for the 

test, the rear plane of the cabinet is the 

largest flat surface at the rear of the 

cabinet. The test procedure would also 

indicate where individual features, such 

as brackets, the compressor, or the 

condenser protrude from the rear plane, 

that these could not to be used as the 

basis for determining the rear clearance. 

To account for products that are 

required by the manufacturer’s 

instructions to be set up with the front 

of the unit slightly higher off the floor 

than the rear, such that the top of the 

cabinet is closer to the wall behind the 

cabinet than the bottom, the proposed 

language specifies that the reference 

point for the maximum 2 inch clearance 

is lowest part of the rear plane of the 

cabinet. The proposed language also 

permits the top of the cabinet to touch 

the vertical surface if necessary to meet 

the clearance requirement at the bottom, 

and for the clearance requirement to be 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41649 

exceeded if the bottom edge is still more 

than 2 inches from the vertical surface 

when the top edge is in contact with the 

vertical surface. Similarly, the proposed 

language is consistent with the existing 

Appendix A test procedure, which 

allows for the 2-inch clearance 

requirement to be exceeded if 

individual features extend more than 2 

inches beyond the rear plane, provided 

these features are in contact with the 

vertical surface during the test. DOE 

proposes to incorporate this language in 

section 2.8 of Appendix A and section 

2.6 of Appendix B, and requests 

comment on these proposed additions. 

17. Other Minor Corrections 

In reviewing the text of Appendix A, 

DOE observed that the version adopted 

in the January 25, 2012 final rule 

contained a minor error in section 6. 

Calculation of Derived Results From 

Test Measurements. Section 6.2.2.2, 

which provides the method for 

calculating average per-cycle energy use 

(‘‘E’’) for refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers through interpolation based on 

compartment temperatures, states that 

‘‘E’’ is defined in section 6.2.1.1.’’ 

Section 6.2.1.1, however, does not 

define the term ‘‘E’’ and contains only 

a formula for E = ET1 + IET, which does 

not clarify the meaning in section 

6.2.2.2. Since the term ‘‘E’’ itself has the 

same basic meaning for all portions of 

section 6.2, DOE proposes to place the 

definition of this term in the 

introductory text of section 6.2 and 

modify the text in the follow-on sections 

so that it is referred to consistently. For 

consistency, DOE has proposed nearly 

identical changes for Appendix B. 

DOE has also noted that a certain 

aspect of the definition of ‘‘compact 

refrigerator/refrigerator-freezer/freezer’’ 

in 10 CFR 430.2, which distinguishes 

the product classes in section 430.32(a) 

for compact products from the classes 

for standard-size products, could 

potentially cause confusion. 

Specifically, the definition limits the 

applicability of the compact product 

classes to products smaller than 7.75 

cubic feet in volume. The volume 

referred to in the definition is the total 

refrigerated volume measured as 

specified in section 5.3 of Appendices 

A, A1, B, and B1. However, the 

definition uses the term ‘‘rated volume,’’ 

which is not defined or listed elsewhere 

in DOE’s test procedures or reporting 

requirements for these products, and 

could potentially be confused with the 

‘‘adjusted volume,’’ which is a different 

measurement. To prevent confusion 

regarding the applicability of this 

definition, and to ensure standard 

terminology is used throughout DOE’s 

regulations, DOE proposes to amend the 

definition of ‘‘compact refrigerator/ 

refrigerator-freezer/freezer’’ in 10 CFR 

430.2 to specifically indicate that the 

definition applies based upon the 

product’s total refrigerated volume. 

Also, in its guidance request to DOE 

dated May 22, 2013, referred to 

previously in section III.C.15, AHAM 

raised additional issues. One of these 

was about a portion of the existing 

definition of ‘‘Defrost cycle type’’ found 

in section 1.9 of Appendix A. 

Specifically, AHAM referred to the last 

sentence of the definition, which states 

that ‘‘. . . defrost achieved regularly 

during the compressor off-cycles by 

warming the evaporator without active 

heat addition is not a defrost cycle 

type,’’ and indicated that this sentence 

may be causing confusion by implying 

that this type of defrost, which is 

commonly referred to as ‘‘off-cycle 

defrost’’ does not constitute automatic 

defrost. (AHAM Guidance Request, No. 

15, p. 2) DOE inserted the clause 

regarding off-cycle defrost as part of the 

December 2010 Interim Final Rule in 

response to AHAM’s concern that offcycle defrost should not be considered 

a defrost cycle type. 75 FR at 78838 

(Dec. 16, 2010). However, as pointed out 

by AHAM in its recent comments, this 

does not imply that off-cycle defrost is 

not a form of automatic defrost. DOE 

agrees and made its position on this 

topic public as part of the preliminary 

analysis for the energy conservation 

standard rulemaking that ended 

September 15, 2011. (Energy 

Conservation Standards for Residential 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Freezers, 2009–12–10 Public Meeting 

Presentation Slides, Docket No. EERE– 

2008–BT–STD–0012, No. 28 at p. 21) 

However, DOE understands AHAM’s 

concerns that the definition of defrost 

cycle types may be misinterpreted. The 

clause in question was intended to 

distinguish off-cycle defrosts from the 

unique types of defrost cycles that 

involve a defrost heater, which must be 

identified individually to establish test 

periods as required by section 4.2 of the 

test procedure. To clarify this intent, 

DOE has proposed a revision to the 

definition of ‘‘defrost cycle type’’ in 

section 1.9 of Appendix A. 

Finally, another issue raised in 

AHAM’s May 22, 2013 guidance request 

addressed test periods for products with 

automatic defrost that is neither longtime nor variable. (AHAM Guidance 

Request, No. 15, p. 3) Section III.C.5 

addresses this issue. 

18. Relocation of Shelving for 

Temperature Sensors 

HRF–1–2008, section 5.5.4, which is 

incorporated into the DOE test 

procedures by reference, requires at 

least one inch of air space separating the 

thermal mass of a temperature sensor 

from contact with any surface. In the 

case of interference with hardware at 

the specified sensor locations, section 

5.5.4 requires that the temperature 

sensors be placed at the nearest 

locations such that there will be a one 

inch air space separating the sensor 

mass from the hardware. In the case of 

proximity of the sensor to shelving or 

other components whose position is 

adjustable by the consumer, DOE 

believes that it is more appropriate to 

relocate the shelf or component than to 

relocate the sensor. However, HRF–1– 

2008 section 5.5.2(a) requires that 

shelves and bins be evenly spaced 

throughout the compartment. DOE 

proposes to revise the test procedures to 

indicate that temperature sensor 

location would take precedence over the 

position of shelving and components 

whose position is adjustable by 

consumers, even if this means that the 

shelving closest to the temperature 

sensors would not be in their evenly 

spaced locations. Specifically, DOE 

proposes to add language to Appendices 

A and B, section 5.1 indicating that 

consumer-movable shelves and other 

components should be moved to 

maintain temperature sensor clearance 

requirements. While DOE intends that 

this action would take precedence over 

the even-spacing requirement, to 

minimize variation in such 

repositioning DOE also proposes to 

specify that any placement adhere as 

closely as practicable to the setup 

instructions of section 5.5.2 of HRF–1– 

2008 (including the requirement that 

shelves and door bins be evenly 

spaced). For example, if shelves are 

repositioned from the exactly evenly 

spaced positions to accommodate 

temperature sensors, they should still be 

spaced as nearly evenly as possible 

while meeting the required minimum 1- 

inch separation between the 

temperature sensor thermal mass and 

the shelf. DOE requests comments on 

this proposal. 

D. Other Matters Related to the Test 

Procedure 

1. Built-In Refrigerators 

In the course of evaluating the 

proposed amendments to the DOE test 

procedures for residential refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, DOE 

tested several current models of these 

products. Included were three ‘‘built-in 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41650 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

refrigerator/refrigerator-freezer/freezer’’ 

models, as defined in 10 CFR 430.2. 

That provision generally applies to 

products that (1) Have unfinished sides 

that are not intended to be viewable 

after installation, (2) are designed 

exclusively to be installed totally 

encased by cabinetry, fastened to the 

adjoining cabinetry, walls, or floor, and 

(3) are either equipped with a factoryfinished face or accept a custom front 

panel. 

While the tests that DOE conducted 

on these models were generally 

associated with evaluating the proposed 

amendments discussed in this notice, 

DOE also conducted testing to evaluate 

any additional impact on measured 

energy use that may result from being 

tested in a built-in condition in the test 

laboratory. DOE performed these tests 

by enclosing the models in simulated 

cabinetry and conducting a round of 

tests using Appendix A, and then 

compared the results from this round of 

tests to the results of tests conducted 

using Appendix A with the products in 

a freestanding condition. DOE 

conducted these tests to address 

questions that DOE received from 

testing organizations regarding the 

proper test conditions for products of 

this type under the DOE test procedure 

and to ensure that the DOE test 

procedures prescribed as a result of this 

rulemaking will result in measures of 

energy consumption that are 

representative of average use, as 

required under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3). 

Because these products are, by 

definition, designed to operate when 

enclosed by cabinetry, DOE tentatively 

views the built-in condition during 

testing as more accurately representing 

the average use condition of these 

products than testing these products in 

a free-standing condition. 

DOE expects that many manufacturers 

and testing organizations are unlikely to 

test these products in a built-in 

condition in the laboratory, however, 

and that in some cases it may not be 

necessary. DOE believes this to be the 

case generally because some models of 

this type use a refrigeration system that, 

because of the way they reject heat from 

the refrigeration system, are designed to 

consume little or no additional energy 

as a result of being installed in 

cabinetry, meaning that the difference in 

measured energy use would essentially 

be zero. The heat rejection from the 

condenser of the refrigeration system of 

these units is achieved by drawing air 

in from the front of the product and 

blowing the air back out the front, after 

the air is warmed by the condenser and 

the compressor. Enclosing such a 

product in cabinetry adds no restriction 

to the air flow path—hence, there 

should be no significant impact on 

energy use (see, for example, the test 

results for Samples No. 1 and 3 shown 

in Table III–13). 

However, there are competing designs 

in which the flow of air used to remove 

refrigeration system heat can be 

restricted when the refrigeration 

product is built into cabinetry. As a 

result, these products could, in DOE’s 

tentative view, consume more energy 

when tested in a built-in condition than 

in a free-standing one. 

DOE conducted tests on a model of 

each type of design, and the results were 

consistent with the expectations noted 

above. More specifically, two models 

demonstrated essentially no change in 

measured energy use, and the other 

model demonstrated an increase in 

measured energy use of approximately 5 

percent when tested in a built-in 

condition. Table III–13 summarizes 

available DOE data for refrigeratorfreezer samples tested in a freestanding 

configuration and a built-in 

configuration according to UL 250 

sections 8.65 and 11.2. Samples 1 and 

3 reject heat through the front and the 

test results show change in energy use 

of 0.5% or less, for the built-in test, 

which very likely represents test 

variation rather than the impact of 

testing in the built-in configuration. 

Sample 2 rejects heat through the back 

of the unit and has a significant increase 

in energy consumption for the built-in 

test. 

TABLE III–13—FREESTANDING AND BUILT-IN AEU COMPARISON

Sample 

No. 

Heat 

rejection 

location 

Freestanding annual 

energy consumption 

(kWh/year) 

Built-in annual energy consumption 

(kWh/year) 

Percent difference 

between freestanding 

and built-in tests 

(%) 

1 .......... Front ........ 679 675 ¥0.5 

2 .......... Rear ......... 576 607 5.1 

3 .......... Front ........ 485 487 0.4 

While testing products in a built-in 

condition would theoretically yield the 

most accurate results, there may be 

added costs. Assuming that built-in 

manufacturers do not already have the 

facilities and testing set-up to test their 

products in a built-in condition, the 

primary added cost in this instance 

stems from the added time and material 

required for technicians to set up a 

built-in unit to be tested in a 

configuration comparable to the manner 

in which it would be installed in the 

field. That additional requirement could 

be significant but it may also represent 

a first-time-only cost if manufacturers 

were able to continue using the same 

built-in configuration set-up for all 

subsequent built-in products that would 

need to be tested. 

In order to ensure that DOE has 

considered all relevant aspects of this 

matter prior to proposing a specific 

requirement in the test procedure for 

these products to be tested in a built-in 

condition, DOE is requesting more 

information from manufacturers, testing 

organizations, and any other interested 

parties on several aspects of this 

element of the test. Specifically, DOE is 

interested in receiving information 

about whether testing in a built-in 

condition would generally be more 

representative of energy consumption in 

average use and, if so, the extent to 

which testing in this condition would 

be expected to affect the measured 

energy use of these products. DOE is 

also interested in receiving information 

about the amount of additional test 

burden, if any, that would be imposed 

as result of a specific requirement for all 

manufacturers of these products to test 

them in a built-in condition in order to 

determine their rated value of energy 

consumption for the purpose of 

assessing compliance with the energy 

conservation standards in 10 CFR 

430.32. 

2. Specific Volume Measurement Issues 

As part of the same May 22, 2013 

guidance request referred to previously 

in this notice, AHAM requested 

clarification of certain provisions of 

DOE’s prescribed method for measuring 

product interior volume in section 5.3 of 

Appendices A and B, which both 

reference AHAM/ANSI HRF–1–2008. 

Section 4.2.2 of the HRF–1–2008 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41651 

procedure lists several components that 

are required to be deducted from the 

measured interior volume, among which 

is ‘‘the volume of air ducts required for 

proper cooling and operation of the 

unit.’’ AHAM requested guidance on 

DOE’s interpretation as to whether this 

particular provision includes only air 

ducts that supply cold air to the fresh 

food and freezer compartments, or to all 

air ducts within the unit (AHAM 

Guidance Request, No. 15, p. 2). The 

guidance request did not include 

specific examples of ducts other than 

those which supply air to the fresh food 

and freezer compartments, which are 

both clearly required for proper cooling 

and operation of the unit. DOE is aware 

also of air ducts used to cool icemaking 

compartments—such ducts would also 

be required for proper operation of any 

refrigeration product that is equipped 

with an automatic icemaker, or any 

kitable product with an icemaking 

compartment that could have an 

automatic icemaker installed after 

shipment. DOE is not aware of any other 

specific examples. However, since the 

volume measurement method generally 

excludes volumes occupied by 

components that are not intended to be 

removed by the user and that occupy 

space that cannot be used for storage, 

which are both likely to apply to an air 

duct, DOE takes the view that any air 

duct in the interior of the cabinet should 

be deducted from the measured product 

volume. 

In a separate communication from a 

manufacturer, DOE received a question 

as to whether a water tank within the 

fresh food space should be included in 

the measured volume as measured using 

HRF–1–2008. The tank in question is 

used for chilling water prior to use in 

the product’s water dispenser and is 

located downstream of the valve that 

admits water into the cabinet from the 

household water supply. DOE notes that 

such features were addressed in sections 

4.2.1.1(a) and 6.2.1 of HRF–1–1979, 

which treated ‘‘water coolers’’ as special 

features and required that they be 

included in the measured volume. The 

text of section 4.2.2 of HRF–1–2008, 

which addresses the determination of 

volume, is more general than the 

provisions in HRF–1–1979 and does not 

specifically address features such as 

water coolers. Section 4.2.2 of HRF–1– 

2008 did add a clarification that 

through-the-door ice and water 

dispensers and the insulating hump are 

not included in the volume and that 

generally no part of the dispenser unit 

shall be included as volume. DOE 

understands this to mean that if the 

water cooler unit is integral to the 

dispenser, and thus a part of the 

dispenser unit, it would be deducted 

from the volume. However, if the water 

cooler is separate from the dispenser 

unit and located within the refrigerated 

space, it would be included in the 

volume measurement. 

To limit the potential for future 

confusion regarding components such 

as those discussed in the preceding 

paragraphs, DOE proposes to amend 

section 5.3 of Appendices A and B to 

clarify the general intent of the volume 

measurement procedure and the 

treatment of general categories of 

components. Specifically, the proposed 

amendment to section 5.3 would state 

that the measured volume is to include 

all spaces within the refrigerated 

volume of each compartment, with the 

exception of the volumes that are 

required to be deducted in accordance 

with section 4.2.2 of HRF–1–2008. As 

discussed in section III.C.1 of this 

notice, DOE has also proposed a 

definition for ‘‘through-the-door ice and 

water dispenser’’ for inclusion in 

Appendices A and B. With this 

definition, and the proposed 

clarification in section 5.3 regarding the 

general volume to be measured, DOE 

intends to remove any ambiguity 

regarding the components to be 

deducted from the volume and the 

boundaries between these components 

and the measured refrigerated volume. 

DOE requests comment on these 

interpretations and the proposed 

modifications to section 5.3 of the test 

procedures in Appendices A and B 

addressing volume measurement. 

3. Treatment of Products That Are 

Operable as a Refrigerator or Freezer 

Since completion of the last test 

procedure rulemaking, DOE has 

received questions regarding the 

appropriate test setting for products 

with a single compartment that can be 

operated in either the temperature range 

for an electric refrigerator or the 

temperature range for a freezer, as 

defined in 10 CFR 430.2. DOE notes that 

section 2.7 of Appendix A1 and Section 

2.7 of Appendix A both require 

compartments that are convertible (e.g., 

from fresh food to freezer) to be 

operated in the highest energy use 

position. In the case of a product for 

which the convertible compartment is 

the only compartment (i.e., the entire 

product is convertible), the product 

effectively meets the definitions of two 

different covered products. If the 

product is marketed as both an electric 

refrigerator and as a freezer, the product 

must be tested as both covered products, 

must meet both applicable standards, 

and must be certified as meeting both 

standards. 

If, however, the product is marketed 

only as a refrigerator or only as a freezer, 

the product must be tested in 

accordance with the applicable test 

procedure, must meet the appropriate 

standard for that product, and must be 

certified accordingly. 

4. Stabilization Period 

AHAM’s May 22, 2013 guidance 

request asked whether the stabilization 

period (see section 2.9 of Appendix A1 

for an example) has a maximum time 

constraint. (AHAM Guidance Request, 

No. 15, p. 4) The stabilization period for 

products with cycling compressors 

consists of two time periods of at least 

two hours duration comprising a whole 

number of compressor cycles, and the 

time interval between these two periods, 

where there is an elapsed time of at least 

three hours between the two time 

periods. Specifically, AHAM asked 

whether the two time periods in 

question have a maximum duration or if 

they must be selected to be as short as 

possible while still satisfying the 

requirements. (Id.) Neither of these 

requirements is explicitly stated in the 

test procedure, and neither is implied. 

The two time periods in question may 

be extended, for example, if there is 

irregular cycling of the compressor that 

makes the first possible selection of 

such a time period non-representative of 

the average compartment temperatures 

for the captured time period. However, 

it would not be consistent with the test 

procedure to select two sets of time 

periods that would allow stability to 

appear to have been achieved when it 

has not. Alternative selections of time 

periods that satisfy the test procedure 

requirements should also demonstrate 

that stability has been achieved. DOE 

does not believe that changes to the test 

procedure regulatory language are 

required as clarification for this issue. 

E. Compliance With Other EPCA 

Requirements 

In addition to the issues discussed 

above, DOE examined its other 

obligations under EPCA in developing 

the amendments in today’s notice. 

These requirements are addressed in 

greater detail below. 

1. Test Burden 

EPCA requires that the test 

procedures DOE prescribes or amends 

be reasonably designed to produce test 

results which measure the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of a covered 

product during a representative average 

use cycle or period of use. These 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41652 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

procedures must also not be unduly 

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

6293(b)(3). DOE has concluded that the 

amendments proposed in today’s notice 

satisfy this requirement. 

Some of the proposed test procedure 

amendments would clarify how the test 

should be conducted, or otherwise 

represent minor changes to the test that 

do not affect the equipment required for 

testing, nor the time required to conduct 

it. These proposed amendments include 

changes to the anti-circumvention 

language and ambient temperature 

gradient requirements, and clarifications 

to help with setting mechanical 

temperature controls. 

The proposal would also make other 

changes, none of which would have a 

significant impact on burden. First, the 

proposed change in the test procedure 

for incomplete cycling products could 

increase or decrease test time, as 

illustrated in section III.C.5. However, 

based on tests conducted by DOE, the 

impact on test time for the proposed 

amendment does not appear significant. 

Second, the proposed change to the test 

procedure to allow use of the 

triangulation approach for products 

with two temperature controls would 

create an optional test and not affect test 

burden. 

Additionally, the proposed 

modification of test procedures for 

products with multiple compressors is 

expected to reduce overall test burdens 

for manufacturers. This expectation is 

consistent with information DOE 

received in written comments such as 

those from Sub-Zero, which cited the 

test burden of the current test procedure 

as an issue in its comments as part of 

the recent refrigerator test procedure 

rulemaking. (Test Procedure for 

Residential Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers, Docket No. 

EERE–2009–BT–TP–0003, Sub-Zero, 

No. 42 at p. 1) 

Regarding the proposed changes to 

the requirements for ambient 

temperature measurement and ambient 

temperature gradients, these changes 

would also not increase the burden 

faced by manufacturers since they 

would not impose an additional 

recurring test requirement. The 

proposed amendments to the anticircumvention language, the 

specifications for setting mechanical 

temperature controls, and the adoption 

of new definitions associated with 

defrost cycles would clarify the test 

procedures but not add any new 

requirements that would increase test 

burden. To the extent that there is any 

burden, the proposed elimination of the 

current product height reporting 

requirement would, in DOE’s view, 

reduce overall burdens on 

manufacturers. 

After reviewing each of the changes 

under consideration, DOE believes that 

the icemaking test procedure under 

consideration would be the only change 

detailed in this notice that would be 

likely to increase test burden. That 

procedure would involve additional 

measurements and set up requirements 

not included in the current test 

procedure. Specifically, it would require 

the installation of a water supply; the 

measurement of several additional 

parameters, including ice weight and 

water pressure; additional test time; and 

(for products with icemakers that have 

no harvest heaters) the monitoring of 

icemaker mold temperature, water 

supply temperature, or solenoid valve 

activity in addition to the measurements 

already required for the DOE 

refrigeration product test procedures. 

Providing the required water supply 

to a test facility will likely require some 

investment. Assuming that the building 

housing the test facility has water 

available, the cost of extending this 

supply to the test facility will require 

some length of 1⁄2-inch outer-diameter 

copper tubing, possibly with insulation 

to prevent water vapor condensation, 

and a pressure gauge to confirm that the 

supply pressure is within the required 

range specified by the procedure under 

consideration. Such a water supply 

system may also require a pressure 

regulating valve to reduce the supply 

pressure to the required range if the 

water supply pressure in the test facility 

exceeds the pressure required by the test 

procedure. Assuming $100 for materials 

and one day for installation at a $75 per 

hour loaded labor rate, the water supply 

system cost would be roughly $700 per 

test chamber. The cost of a scale to 

weigh ice and the other additional items 

(temperature sensors, etc.) required for 

conducting the icemaking test are not 

expected to exceed $100. The resulting 

overall test facility cost increase of $800 

is insignificant compared to the overall 

anticipated cost of a test facility suitable 

for testing refrigeration products. 

The additional set-up time for 

connecting the water supply to the 

product and, if necessary, a temperature 

sensor to the icemaking mold, may 

represent an additional half hour of 

time. The more significant impact on 

test burden of the icemaking test would 

be the additional time required to 

conduct the test. The product would 

first have to stabilize at the temperature 

settings used for the icemaking baseline 

test. During this first phase of the test, 

there may be some readjustment of the 

settings required to assure that 

compartment temperatures are within 

the specified tolerance limits of the 

standardized temperatures. DOE 

estimates that the stabilization, 

readjustment, and baseline test duration 

will typically be 24 hours. The proposed 

test procedure would require that the 

duration of the icemaking portion of the 

test be 24 hours, unless interrupted by 

defrost or termination of icemaking 

because the ice storage bin fills. Hence, 

DOE expects that the icemaking test will 

typically add two days of test time. 

While this is not an insignificant 

addition to the time required to test a 

refrigeration product, DOE believes it is 

warranted in light of the complexity 

associated with making a measurement 

of icemaking energy use. 

DOE welcomes any comment 

regarding DOE’s stance on test burden 

impacts of the potential amendments 

discussed in this notice. 

2. Changes in Measured Energy Use 

When DOE modifies test procedures, 

it must determine to what extent, if any, 

the new test procedure would alter the 

measured energy use of covered 

products. (42 U.S.C 6293(e)(1)). For the 

reasons described below, DOE has 

tentatively determined that the 

projected impact on measured energy 

use of covered products would not be 

significantly altered by any of the 

proposed test procedure amendments. 

The test procedure amendments 

proposed in this notice would, if 

adopted, primarily affect aspects related 

to testing after September 15, 2014, 

when the new energy conservation 

standards take effect. Table III–1 

indicates which parts of DOE’s test 

procedures would be affected by the 

proposed amendments. The discussion 

in this section focuses on the potential 

impact on energy measurements 

regarding other aspects of DOE’s 

proposal that would be required starting 

in 2014 (Appendices A and B). 

Impact of Proposed Changes To Testing 

Using Appendices A and B 

Many of the proposed changes to 

Appendices A and B would clarify how 

the test should be conducted, or 

otherwise represent minor changes to 

the test or reporting requirements that 

would not affect measured energy use. 

These proposed amendments include 

changes to the anti-circumvention 

language, clarifications for setting 

mechanical temperature controls, 

modified ambient temperature gradient 

requirements, new definitions to help 

clarify test requirements, elimination of 

the requirement to report product 

height, use of CAD models for 

measuring refrigerated volume, and 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41653 

corrections to the temperature setting 

logic tables. 

The proposed change that would 

modify the test period of those products 

that experience incomplete cycling 

could increase or decrease measured 

energy use for a small minority of 

products and only to a minimal extent. 

To DOE’s knowledge, the only products 

that exhibit incomplete cycling are chest 

freezers. As described in section III.5, 

the energy use measured for such 

products could increase or decrease, 

depending on how test laboratories 

currently interpret the requirements for 

the test period for such products, but 

the measured energy use would be more 

likely to decrease. For these reasons, 

DOE does not believe an adjustment of 

the energy conservation standard is 

necessary for this test procedure change. 

The proposed modification to address 

products with multiple compressors is 

not expected to alter the measured 

energy use for these products. The test 

procedure is functionally equivalent to 

the test procedure of the Sub-Zero 

waiver, differing primarily in the 

requirements for confirming that the 

unit has reached steady state and in the 

length and composition of test periods. 

It also provides guidelines for testing 

multiple-compressor units that may 

differ in design details from the SubZero products identified in the waiver, 

such as multiple compressor products 

with non-cycling compressors, and it 

provides more flexibility in how to 

define test periods. None of these 

changes would be likely to affect the 

measured use of any products currently 

known to DOE. 

As described in section III.3, the 

triangulation test method may, in 

certain cases, provide a slightly more 

accurate measurement of the actual 

energy consumption of a given product. 

This method would yield lower energy 

use measurements for some products as 

compared with the two-test method of 

the current DOE test procedures (see 

Appendix A1, section 3.1.2). However, 

the proposed alternative test would be 

optional. DOE believes that the majority 

of products would continue to be tested 

using the current two-test method, since 

the test time required for the 

triangulation approach would be 

roughly 50 percent greater. Further, 

DOE testing showed that the products 

for which the energy use measurement 

would be most likely to change, i.e., 

those products for which the two 

interpolations of the current test 

procedures (based on the freezer 

temperature for one calculation and the 

fresh food temperature for the other), 

would yield, at most, a 1.2 percent 

decrease in measured energy usage 

when using the triangulation method. 

Therefore, DOE tentatively concludes 

that the overall impact of this optional 

test on energy use measurement will 

likely be insignificant and that it would 

not require any change to the relevant 

standards. 

In addition to the amendments 

discussed above for Appendices A and 

B, DOE is considering adopting a 

laboratory-based test procedure to 

measure the energy use associated with 

automatic icemaking. DOE conducted 

testing to validate the feasibility of the 

proposed icemaking test procedure and 

to evaluate if icemaking energy 

measurements using the procedure 

detailed above differ significantly from 

the 84 kWh/year fixed value used for 

automatic icemakers in the current test 

procedures. The test data and 

discussion of the results are presented 

in section III.1. Measured icemaker 

energy consumption values in the 

sample of products that DOE and NIST 

tested ranged from 60 kWh/year to 126 

kWh/year, with an average of 92 kWh. 

While it is unclear precisely how well 

the group of products DOE tested 

represents any given set of products 

equipped with automatic icemakers, 

DOE believes that the average icemaking 

energy use of the group is sufficiently 

close to the fixed value of the current 

test procedure as to demonstrate that the 

test method proposed in today’s notice 

is likely to have a minimal impact on 

the measured energy use of the products 

that would be evaluated using this 

method. Hence, DOE tentatively 

concludes that this potential impact 

would be de minimus and, if adopted, 

would not require a change to the 

energy conservation standard. (See 42 

U.S.C 6293(e)(1–2)) DOE seeks 

additional input from the public 

regarding the accuracy of this 

assessment. 

However, because the DOE test 

procedure for measurement of 

icemaking energy use has not yet been 

finalized, DOE expects that 

manufacturers will require additional 

time after the test method is finalized to 

conduct testing of their products and 

assess their ability to comply with a 

measurement-based standard. In 

anticipation of such factors, the joint 

petition submitted to DOE during the 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking had requested that any 

measurement-based standard for 

icemaking energy use take effect three 

years after publication of the final rule 

establishing such a standard (see Docket 

EERE–2008–BT–STD–0012, No. 49, p. 

17). The schedule laid out in the joint 

petition would have resulted in a final 

rule establishing a measurement-based 

standard for icemaking energy use in 

mid-2013 with a compliance date in 

mid-2016. Although the standards and 

test procedure final rules did not 

commit to a specific timeline for 

implementing a standard based on a test 

requiring laboratory measurement of 

icemaking energy use, DOE 

acknowledges that development of this 

test has required additional time to 

ensure that any potential issues have 

been sufficiently addressed. 

In addition, because EPCA requires 

that, not later than 6 years after 

publication of a final rule establishing 

new or amended standards for a covered 

product, DOE must publish either a 

notice of proposed rulemaking with new 

proposed standards or a notice of 

determination that such standards do 

not need to be amended, DOE expects 

to commence an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking for residential 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers that would result in publication 

of such a notice by late 2017. 42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(1). Because of the expected 

overlap between this future energy 

conservation standards rulemaking and 

the potential compliance delay period 

for the icemaking energy standard if an 

adjustment proved to be necessary, 

along with the potential difficulties that 

a short transition period to 2014 could 

impose if an icemaking test were 

required by September 15, 2014, DOE 

has tentatively concluded that adoption 

of an energy conservation standard for 

icemaking energy use would more 

appropriately occur as part of this future 

rulemaking. DOE would also link the 

required use of a new test procedure 

that includes an icemaking energy use 

measurement test with any new 

standards rulemaking. By following this 

approach, DOE believes that there will 

be more than sufficient time to address 

any remaining technical issues and for 

manufacturer compliance once those 

dates are set. Thus, until the compliance 

date of any such standard, the 84 kWh 

per year placeholder value would 

remain in effect for both the test 

procedure and the energy conservation 

standards. 

Depending upon the comments DOE 

receives on this proposed approach, 

DOE may also consider alternatives. 

DOE invites commenters to offer other 

alternatives to help ensure both the 

maximum amount of energy savings 

along with ensuring that the test 

procedures that are ultimately adopted 

will sufficiently address icemaking 

energy use. 

DOE also requests comments on its 

assessment of the impacts on energy use 

measurements of the proposed test 

procedure amendments. DOE further 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41654 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

requests comments to support any 

potentially claimed change in the 

measured energy use, including data, if 

any, that would weigh in favor of 

adjusting the standards set to take effect 

on September 15, 2014, for products 

with automatic icemakers. DOE further 

requests comment on whether the fixed 

placeholder value for the icemaking 

energy use should be retained, rather 

than adopting a laboratory 

measurement, and whether to consider 

adopting a measurement-based standard 

to occur as part of a future energy 

conservation standards rulemaking for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers. 

3. Standby and Off Mode Energy Use 

EPCA directs DOE to amend test 

procedures to include standby mode 

and off mode energy consumption, and 

requires that this energy consumption 

be integrated into the overall energy 

consumption descriptor for the product, 

unless DOE determines that the current 

test procedures for the product already 

fully account for and incorporate the 

standby and off mode energy 

consumption of the covered product. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)(i)). The DOE 

test procedures for refrigeration 

products involve measuring the energy 

use of these products during extended 

time periods that include periods when 

the compressor and other key 

components are cycled off. All of the 

energy these products use during the 

‘‘off cycles’’ is already included in the 

measurements. A given refrigeration 

product being tested could include 

auxiliary features that draw power in a 

standby or off mode. In such instances, 

HRF–1–1979 and HRF–1–2008, both of 

which are incorporated in relevant part 

into DOE’s test procedure, generally 

instruct manufacturers to set certain 

auxiliary features to the lowest power 

position during testing. In this lowest 

power position, any standby or off mode 

energy use of such auxiliary features 

would be included in the energy 

measurement. Hence, no separate 

changes are needed to account for 

standby and off mode energy 

consumption, since the current (and as 

proposed) procedures address these 

modes. DOE requests comments on this 

determination. 

IV. Procedural Requirements 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has determined that test procedure 

rulemakings do not constitute 

‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 

51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 

action was not subject to review under 

the Executive Order by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis for any rule that by law must 

be proposed for public comment, unless 

the agency certifies that the proposed 

rule, if promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. As 

required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site (http:// 

www.energy.gov/gc). 

DOE reviewed the test procedures in 

today’s proposed rule under the 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act and the procedures and policies 

published on February 19, 2003. This 

proposed rule would prescribe test 

procedures to test compliance with 

energy conservation standards for the 

products that are the subject of this 

rulemaking. 

Specifically, DOE proposes to make 

changes and additions to the existing 

test procedure for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. 

Changes to the existing rule as described 

above have potential impacts on 

manufacturers who will be required to 

revise their current testing procedures 

for compliance. As described in section 

1, DOE believes the implementation of 

an icemaking test procedure is the only 

test procedure amendment proposed in 

today’s notice that would represent an 

increase in test burden. 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) considers an entity to be a small 

business if, together with its affiliates, it 

employs less than a threshold number of 

workers specified in 13 CFR part 121, 

which relies on size standards and 

codes established by the North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS). The threshold number 

for NAICS code 335222, which applies 

to Household Refrigerator and Home 

Freezer Manufacturing, is 1,000 

employees. 

DOE conducted a market survey to 

determine whether any manufacturers 

of products covered by this rulemaking 

were small businesses. During its 

market survey, DOE used all available 

public information to create a list of 

companies that manufacture 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, or 

freezers covered by this rulemaking. 

DOE reviewed these data to determine 

whether the entities met the SBA’s 

definition of a small business 

manufacturer of refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, or freezers and 

screened out companies that do not 

offer products covered by this 

rulemaking, do not meet the definition 

of a ‘‘small business,’’ or are foreign 

owned and operated. DOE identified 

three small businesses that manufacture 

refrigeration products. 

DOE then determined the expected 

impacts of the rule on affected small 

businesses and whether an IRFA was 

needed (i.e., whether DOE could certify 

that this rulemaking would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities). 

One of the three small businesses 

identified by DOE primarily 

manufactures compact refrigerators and 

related compact products such as wine 

chillers and stand-alone ice makers. 

These ice makers differ from the 

automatic icemakers installed in many 

refrigeration products in that they are 

separate icemaking appliances designed 

solely for the production and storage of 

ice. DOE reviewed the refrigerator, 

refrigerator-freezer, and freezer products 

manufactured by this small business 

and concluded that none of them are 

sold with automatic icemakers installed. 

Hence, it would not be required to rate 

products using the proposed icemaking 

test procedure. A second of the three 

small businesses primarily 

manufactures undercounter refrigeration 

products, most of which are compact. 

DOE reviewed the products 

manufactured by this small business 

and concluded that none of them are 

sold with automatic icemakers installed. 

The third small business, on the other 

hand, was found to manufacture 

refrigeration products with automatic 

icemakers and thus would be subject to 

the additional testing requirements 

proposed in today’s test procedure. This 

small business has 800 employees. 

Most of the test procedure 

amendments proposed in this notice 

would not affect test burden. One of the 

amendments would simply incorporate 

a test procedure for multiple compressor 

products that manufacturers already use 

in accordance with test procedure 

waivers they have received from DOE in 

order to test and rate these products. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41655 

Many of the other amendments clarify 

how to conduct the test rather than 

create any fundamental change in the 

way the test is conducted. An 

amendment addressing incomplete 

cycling would apply to a very small 

minority of products, much less than 

one percent of refrigeration product 

models. Amendments addressing the 

reporting of product height and the 

measurement of refrigerated volume 

would reduce measurement and 

reporting burden. Also, an amendment 

allowing for use of a third test for 

products whose control systems are not 

tuned to match both fresh food and 

freezer compartment standardized 

temperatures simultaneously 

(triangulation) is optional. 

The primary incremental cost for 

small businesses under this rulemaking 

would result from the aforementioned 

automatic icemaker testing 

requirements. The cost to provide a 

required water supply for a test facility 

to address icemaking testing is 

estimated at $800. The buildings in 

which the test facilities are housed 

would already have a water supply— 

this additional cost would be the cost of 

extending that supply to the interior of 

a test facility. The additional test burden 

impact estimated by DOE is associated 

with additional test time. DOE estimates 

that the additional cost associated with 

this test time is $1,250 per test, based on 

an assumption that test time would 

increase 50% as compared with the 

current test (e.g., extension of test 

duration from four to six days) and 

based also on the costs DOE incurred to 

conduct testing using the proposed 

procedure. Since certification for 

refrigeration products is generally based 

on testing of three products, the 

incremental testing cost impact for this 

small business manufacturer associated 

with test time is estimated to be $3,750 

per refrigeration product. 

These costs were applied to the 

number of existing models subject to 

testing requirements outlined in this 

rulemaking, which DOE estimated at 20 

basic models, based on its review of the 

number of products that would have 

automatic icemakers offered by the 

examined manufacturer. DOE assumed 

that the costs would be incurred in the 

year preceding the implementation of 

the new testing requirements, which, for 

the purposes of the analysis, is assumed 

to take effect coincident with a revision 

of the 2014 energy conservation 

standards in 2021. The test costs are 

assumed to occur in the preceding year 

as the manufacturer certifies the new 

product models in preparation for the 

potential adjustment in energy 

conservation standards. Based on these 

assumptions, incremental testing costs 

for small businesses were estimated at 

$76,000 in 2020. 

As explained below, the findings of 

the DOE analysis suggest that small 

business manufacturers of refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers would 

not be disproportionately impacted by 

the proposed test procedure, relative to 

their competition. DOE conducted an 

analysis to evaluate the testing cost 

burden that would likely be affected by 

the inclusion of the proposed procedure 

for automatic icemakers relative to the 

estimated annual R&D budget of the 

small manufacturer. The analysis 

utilized financial data gathered from 

other public sources (including 

Hoover’s and financial statements from 

publicly-traded manufacturers in the 

industry) to derive the estimated 

average annual R&D budget of the small 

business impacted by this rule. The 

average industry R&D expenditure was 

estimated at 2.4 percent of revenues. 

The average annual revenues for a small 

business manufacturer of residential 

refrigeration products was estimated 

based on revenues of these 

manufacturers as reported by Hoover’s. 

The annualized costs associated with 

this rulemaking were then compared to 

estimated R&D expenditures to 

determine the magnitude of the cost 

impacts of this test procedure on small 

businesses. Based on this analysis, DOE 

estimates that the cost burden of the 

proposed test procedure to this small 

manufacturer represents a one-time cost 

of approximately 5 percent of the 

annual R&D budget for an average small 

business manufacturer of residential 

refrigeration products. Based on this 

analysis, DOE concludes that this value 

would be unlikely to represent a 

significant economic impact on this 

small manufacturer in light of the small 

additional one-time cost that would be 

incurred to conduct the proposed 

procedure. 

Based on the criteria outlined above, 

DOE has determined that the proposed 

test procedure amendments would not 

have a ‘‘significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities,’’ 

and the preparation of a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not warranted. 

DOE will transmit the certification and 

supporting statement of factual basis to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration for 

review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

DOE seeks comment on its estimated 

additional cost of testing due to the new 

requirements for testing presented in 

this NOPR. Specifically, DOE seeks 

comment on the impacts of the 

additional cost of testing on small 

manufacturers. DOE also seeks comment 

on its reasoning that the proposed test 

procedure changes would not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

Manufacturers of refrigeration 

products must certify to DOE that their 

products comply with the applicable 

energy conservation standard. In 

certifying compliance, manufacturers 

must test their products according to the 

DOE test procedure for refrigeration 

products, including any amendments 

adopted for that test procedure. The 

information collection requirement for 

certification and recordkeeping is 

subject to review and approval by OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA). This requirement has been 

submitted to OMB for approval. DOE 

received OMB approval to collect this 

information and has established 

regulations for the certification and 

recordkeeping requirements for all 

covered consumer products and 

commercial equipment, including the 

refrigeration products addressed by 

today’s proposed rule. 76 FR 12422 

(March 7, 2011). The public reporting 

burden for the certification is estimated 

to average 20 hours per response, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

While DOE has proposed to add a new 

reporting requirement (whether the 

manufacturer used the triangulation 

method for its certification tests), it has 

also proposed to remove a requirement 

(reporting of product height). Thus, DOE 

has determined that there is effectively 

no change in the reporting burden for 

these products. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

In this notice, DOE proposes to amend 

its test procedure for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. These 

proposed amendments would improve 

the ability of DOE’s procedures to more 

accurately account for the energy 

consumption of products that 

incorporate a variety of new 

technologies that were not contemplated 

when the current procedure was 

promulgated. DOE has determined that 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41656 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

this proposed rule falls into a class of 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from review under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE’s 

implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 

1021. Specifically, this rule proposes to 

amend an existing rule without 

changing its environmental effect, and, 

therefore, is covered by the Categorical 

Exclusion in 10 CFR part 1021, subpart 

D, appendix A6. See 76 FR 63764, 

63788 (Oct. 13, 2011). The exclusion 

applies because this proposed rule 

would establish a strictly procedural 

requirement by revising existing test 

procedures. These proposed revisions 

will not affect the amount, quality, or 

distribution of energy usage, and, 

therefore, will not result in any 

environmental impacts. Accordingly, 

neither an environmental assessment 

nor an environmental impact statement 

is required. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

imposes certain requirements on 

agencies formulating and implementing 

policies or regulations that preempt 

State law or that have Federalism 

implications. 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 

1999). The Executive Order requires 

agencies to examine the constitutional 

and statutory authority supporting any 

action that would limit the 

policymaking discretion of the States 

and to carefully assess the necessity for 

such actions. The Executive Order also 

requires agencies to have an accountable 

process to ensure meaningful and timely 

input by State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

that it will follow in developing such 

regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE 

examined this proposed rule and 

determined that it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the products that are the subject of 

today’s proposed rule. States can 

petition DOE for exemption from such 

preemption to the extent, and based on 

criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6297) No further action is required by 

Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard; and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation specifies the following: (1) 

the preemptive effect, if any; (2) any 

effect on existing Federal law or 

regulation; (3) a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction; (4) 

the retroactive effect, if any; (5) 

definitions of key terms; and (6) other 

important issues affecting clarity and 

general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met or 

whether it is unreasonable to meet one 

or more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this 

proposed rule meets the relevant 

standards of Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 

104–4; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. For a regulatory action 

resulting in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish estimates of 

the resulting costs, benefits, and other 

effects on the national economy. (2 

U.S.C. 1532(a)–(b)) UMRA also requires 

a Federal agency to develop an effective 

process to permit timely input by 

elected officers of State, local, and 

Tribal governments on a proposed 

‘‘significant intergovernmental 

mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan 

for giving notice and opportunity for 

timely input to potentially-affected 

small governments before establishing 

any requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect such 

governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 

12820. (The policy is also available at 

http:/www.gc.doe.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel). Today’s proposed rule 

contains neither an intergovernmental 

mandate nor a mandate that may result 

in an expenditure of $100 million or 

more in any year, so these requirements 

do not apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. 

Today’s proposed rule would not have 

any impact on the autonomy or integrity 

of the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this proposed 

regulation would not result in any 

takings that might require compensation 

under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides 

for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed 

today’s proposed rule under OMB and 

DOE guidelines and has concluded that 

it is consistent with applicable policies 

in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41657 

prepare and submit to OIRA a Statement 

of Energy Effects for any significant 

energy action. A ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ is defined as any action by an 

agency that promulgates or is expected 

to lead to promulgation of a final rule 

and that (1) Is a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866, or 

any successor order; and (2) is likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy; or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any significant energy action, the agency 

must give a detailed statement of any 

adverse effects on energy supply, 

distribution, or use if the regulation is 

implemented, and of reasonable 

alternatives to the action and their 

expected benefits on energy supply, 

distribution, and use. Today’s proposed 

regulatory action is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. It has likewise not been 

designated as a significant energy action 

by the Administrator of OIRA. 

Moreover, it would not have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, 

it is not a significant energy action, and, 

accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under section 301 of the DOE 

Organization Act (Pub. L. 95–91; 42 

U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), DOE must comply 

with section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974, as amended 

by the Federal Energy Administration 

Authorization Act of 1977 (FEAA). (15 

U.S.C. 788) Section 32 essentially 

provides in part that, where a rule 

authorizes or requires use of commercial 

standards, the rulemaking must inform 

the public of the use and background of 

such standards. In addition, section 

32(c) requires DOE to consult with the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 

concerning the impact of the 

commercial or industry standards on 

competition. 

The proposed modifications to the 

test procedures addressed by this 

proposed action incorporate testing 

methods contained in certain sections of 

the commercial standard, HRF–1–2008, 

and a separate standard adopted by the 

Australian and New Zealand 

governments—Australian/New Zealand 

Standard 44474.1:2007, Performance of 

household electrical appliances— 

Refrigerating appliances, Part 1: Energy 

consumption and performance. DOE has 

evaluated this standard and is unable to 

conclude whether it fully complies with 

the requirements of section 32(b) of the 

FEAA (i.e., whether it was developed in 

a manner that fully provides for public 

participation, comment, and review). 

The Attorney General and FTC will be 

consulted about the impact on 

competition of using the methods 

contained in this standard, prior to the 

issuance of a final rule. 

V. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting 

The time, date, and location of the 

public meeting are listed in the DATES

and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning 

of this document. If you plan to attend 

the public meeting, please notify Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. Please 

note that foreign nationals visiting DOE 

Headquarters are subject to advance 

security screening procedures. Any 

foreign national wishing to participate 

in the meeting should advise DOE as 

soon as possible by contacting Ms. 

Edwards to initiate the necessary 

procedures. Please also note that those 

wishing to bring laptops into the 

Forrestal Building will be required to 

obtain a property pass. Visitors should 

avoid bringing laptops, or allow an extra 

45 minutes. Persons can attend the 

public meeting via webinar. For more 

information, refer to the Public 

Participation section near the end of this 

notice. 

In addition, you can attend the public 

meeting via webinar. Webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants will be published on DOE’s 

Web site http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/ 

current_rulemakings-notices.html. 

Participants are responsible for ensuring 

their systems are compatible with the 

webinar software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Requests to 

Speak 

Any person who has plans to present 

a prepared general statement may 

request that copies of his or her 

statement be made available at the 

public meeting. Such persons may 

submit requests, along with an advance 

copy of their statement in PDF 

(preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, or 

text (ASCII) file format, to the 

appropriate address shown in the 

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of 

this notice. The request and advance 

copy of statements must be received at 

least one week before the public 

meeting and may be emailed, handdelivered, or sent by mail. DOE prefers 

to receive requests and advance copies 

via email. Please include a telephone 

number to enable DOE staff to make a 

follow-up contact, if needed. 

C. Conduct of Public Meeting 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the public meeting and may 

also use a professional facilitator to aid 

discussion. The meeting will not be a 

judicial or evidentiary-type public 

hearing, but DOE will conduct it in 

accordance with section 336 of EPCA 

(42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will 

be present to record the proceedings and 

prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the 

right to schedule the order of 

presentations and to establish the 

procedures governing the conduct of the 

public meeting. After the public 

meeting, interested parties may submit 

further comments on the proceedings as 

well as on any aspect of the rulemaking 

until the end of the comment period. 

The public meeting will be conducted 

in an informal, conference style. DOE 

will present summaries of comments 

received before the public meeting, 

allow time for general statements by 

participants, and encourage all 

interested parties to share their views on 

issues affecting this rulemaking. Each 

participant will be allowed to make a 

general statement (within time limits 

determined by DOE) before the 

discussion of specific topics. DOE will 

permit, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly and 

comment on statements made by others. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

public meeting will accept additional 

comments or questions from those 

attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

public meeting. 

A transcript of the public meeting will 

be included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket 

section at the beginning of this notice. 

In addition, any person may buy a copy 

of the transcript from the transcribing 

reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding the proposed rule 

before or after the public meeting, but 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41658 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

no later than the date provided in the 

DATES section at the beginning of this 

notice. Interested parties may submit 

comments using any of the methods 

described in the ADDRESSES section at 

the beginning of this notice. 

Submitting comments via 

regulations.gov. The regulations.gov 

Web page will require you to provide 

your name and contact information. 

Your contact information will be 

viewable to DOE Building Technologies 

staff only. Your contact information will 

not be publicly viewable except for your 

first and last names, organization name 

(if any), and submitter representative 

name (if any). If your comment is not 

processed properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment or in any documents 

attached to your comment. Any 

information that you do not want to be 

publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Persons viewing comments will see only 

first and last names, organization 

names, correspondence containing 

comments, and any documents 

submitted with the comments. 

Do not submit to regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)). Comments submitted through 

regulations.gov cannot be claimed as 

CBI. Comments received through the 

Web site will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through regulations.gov before posting. 

Normally, comments will be posted 

within a few days of being submitted. 

However, if large volumes of comments 

are being processed simultaneously, 

your comment may not be viewable for 

up to several weeks. Please keep the 

comment tracking number that 

regulations.gov provides after you have 

successfully uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

regulations.gov. If you do not want your 

personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information on a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you 

submit via mail or hand delivery, please 

provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It 

is not necessary to submit printed 

copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be 

accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, written in English and are free 

of any defects or viruses. Documents 

should not contain special characters or 

any form of encryption and, if possible, 

they should carry the electronic 

signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit via email, postal mail, or 

hand delivery two well-marked copies: 

One copy of the document that includes 

all of the information believed to be 

confidential, and one copy of the 

document marked non-confidential with 

the information believed to be 

confidential deleted. Submit these 

documents via email or on a CD, if 

feasible. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include the 

following: (1) A description of the items; 

(2) whether and why such items are 

customarily treated as confidential 

within the industry; (3) whether the 

information is generally known by or 

available from other sources; (4) 

whether the information was previously 

made available to others without 

obligation concerning its 

confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the 

competitive injury to the submitting 

person that would result from public 

disclosure; (6) when such information 

might lose its confidential character due 

to the passage of time; and (7) why 

disclosure of the information would be 

contrary to the public interest. 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

1. Modifications to Appendices A1 and 

B1 

DOE is primarily proposing changes 

to the test procedures that will be 

required for certification starting in 

2014. Many of these changes would 

help improve measurement accuracy by 

clarifying certain aspects of the test 

procedures, and would reduce test 

burden, but would not affect measured 

energy use. While the current test 

procedures are scheduled to be obsolete 

after September 2014, DOE may 

consider proposing these amendments 

also in the current test procedures to 

allow for the earlier adoption of these 

improvements and to smooth the path 

for their possible adoption in the test 

procedures that will be applicable after 

September 2014. DOE requests 

comments on whether any of the 

proposed amendments should also be 

considered for the current test 

procedures of Appendices A1 and B1. 

2. Icemaking Test Procedure Request for 

Comments 

DOE requests comments on any 

aspects of the proposal for measurement 

of energy use associated with 

icemaking. DOE further requests 

comment on the following details of the 

test procedure proposal. 

a. Refrigerators With Automatic 

Icemakers 

DOE requests comment on whether 

any refrigerators (i.e., ‘‘electric 

refrigerator’’ as defined in 10 CFR 430.2 

rather than ‘‘electric refrigeratorfreezer’’) are sold with automatic 

icemakers. If so, DOE also seeks 

comment on whether test procedures for 

automatic icemakers should cover these 

‘‘electric refrigerators’’ and to what 

extent, if any, the test procedure would 

need to be modified to accommodate the 

testing of these products. DOE is seeking 

comment on this issue in part to 

ascertain whether this aspect of today’s 

proposal should apply to refrigerators as 

opposed to only refrigerator-freezers. 

DOE is currently unaware of any 

refrigerators that are also equipped with 

an automatic icemaker. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41659 

b. Manual Defrost Products With 

Automatic Icemakers 

DOE requests comment on whether 

any manual defrost refrigerator-freezers 

or freezers are sold with automatic 

icemakers and whether any 

modifications to the proposed test 

procedure are required to address such 

products. 

c. Icemaking Definitions 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to establish definitions for 

‘‘Harvest’’, ‘‘Ice storage bin’’, and ‘‘Ice 

piece’’ in the test procedures. 

d. Anti-Sweat Heater Switch 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed requirements that products 

with anti-sweat heater switches be 

tested with the switches in the off 

position and that products with variable 

anti-sweat heater control without an 

anti-sweat heater switch be tested in an 

ambient environment with sufficiently 

low humidity to prevent the anti-sweat 

heaters from being energized. DOE also 

requests suggestions regarding how the 

objectives of these requirements could 

be satisfied with alternative approaches. 

e. Setup for Icemaking 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed modification of the setup 

requirements, specifically the 

requirements addressing water lines, 

water filters, and ice storage bins. 

f. Icemaking Water Temperature and 

Pressure Conditions 

DOE seeks comment on its proposal to 

require 90 +/¥2 °F water inlet 

temperature and 60 ± 15 psig inlet 

pressure conditions. 

g. Icemaking Data Collection Rate for 

Icemaking Test 

DOE requests comments on the 

proposed one minute maximum data 

collection interval for the proposed 

icemaking test and its assumption that 

most test facilities record data for 

refrigeration product energy tests at a 

frequency of at least once per minute. 

h. Icemaker Cycles 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposed delineation between icemaker 

cycles at the end of the harvest of a 

batch of ice. 

i. Alternative Icemaker Cycle Indication 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal for monitoring icemaker cycles 

for products whose icemakers have no 

mold heaters, on the details of the three 

proposed methods, on the requirements 

that one of the three identified methods 

be used to indicate icemaker cycles and 

that the test report indicate which one 

was used, and whether DOE should 

propose requirements indicating under 

what circumstances which of the three 

alternatives must be used. DOE further 

requests comment on whether 

additional alternative methods should 

be allowed by the test procedure. 

Finally, DOE requests comments on its 

proposal that the delineation between 

icemaking cycles determined by the 

proposed alternative methods would be 

when water is flowing into the icemaker 

mold. 

j. Icemaker Field Operation 

DOE assumes that in the field, 

continuous icemaking would typically 

occur only for initial filling of the bin 

and successive icemaker cycles would 

occur after a portion of ice has been 

withdrawn from the ice bin. DOE seeks 

comment and data confirming DOE’s 

assumption or, if that assumption is 

incorrect, information suggesting an 

alternative approach and description 

with respect to icemaking operation in 

the field. 

k. Icemaking Temperature Setting 

DOE requests comments on its 

proposed variation limits on 

compartment temperatures during 

different parts of the icemaking test, 

which would require that (1) 

Compartment temperatures be set to 

their warmest setting for which 

compartment temperatures are no more 

than 1 °F warmer than their 

standardized temperatures for the 

baseline test, (2) if the compartment 

temperatures increase during icemaking 

that they be adjusted to their warmest 

setting for which compartment 

temperatures are no more than 1 °F 

warmer during the icemaking test than 

they were in the baseline test, (3) for 

mechanical controls these settings be 

aligned with symbols on the 

temperature dial, and (4) products that 

use quick-freeze control during 

icemaking be tested without disabling 

this feature during the test. 

l. Test Period for Baseline Part of Test 

DOE requests comments on its 

proposal to adopt a test period for the 

baseline part of the test that is 

equivalent to its existing test period for 

products with manual defrost, i.e. 

consisting of a period of time at least 

three hours in duration and, if the 

product’s compressor cycles, 

comprising at least two complete 

compressor cycles. DOE further requests 

comment on the proposal to allow 

overlap of the stabilization period and 

the test period for the baseline part of 

the test as long as the stabilization 

period ends no later than the test period 

for the baseline part of the test. 

m. Test Periods for Icemaking Part of 

Test 

With respect to refrigeration products 

that cycle their compressors during 

icemaking, DOE requests comments on 

its proposal to (1) establish test periods 

for the icemaking part of the test based 

both on icemaker cycles and on 

compressor cycles and (2) require that 

energy use be calculated using both of 

these test periods and applying them to 

the same period of icemaking in order 

to provide a more accurate calculation 

of icemaking energy use. Likewise, DOE 

requests comment on its proposal to 

allow use of only the test period based 

on icemaker cycles for refrigeration 

products that do not cycle their 

compressors during icemaking. 

n. Icemaking Test Period Stability 

Tolerance 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to include a temperature 

stability requirement in the icemaking 

test procedure that would require the 

temperature in the freezer compartment, 

measured for any compressor cycle (if 

the refrigeration product cycles its 

compressor during icemaking) or any 

icemaker cycle (if the refrigeration 

product does not cycle its compressor 

during icemaking) within the test 

period, to be within 3 °F of the 

compartment’s temperature average for 

the full test period. 

o. Icemaking Test Period Duration 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to adopt a minimum test 

period duration of 24 hours for the 

icemaking portion of the test, if this is 

possible prior to a defrost cycle 

occurrence or filling of the ice storage 

bin. Additionally, DOE requests 

comments on its proposal to require 

icemaking to be initiated shortly after 

the start of compressor operation 

following a defrost cycle. 

p. Ice Mass 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposed method of measuring ice 

mass. 

q. Multiple Icemakers 

The DOE proposal addresses 

refrigeration products with one 

icemaker serving a through-the-door 

feature and another not serving this 

feature, proposing that icemaking 

energy use be measured only for the 

icemaker serving the through-the-door 

feature. DOE requests comment on this 

approach for testing these products. 

DOE also requests comment on whether 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41660 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

products with multiple icemakers using 

other configurations exist, what their 

design details are, whether DOE should 

consider modifying the proposed test 

procedure to address these products, 

and how the proposed test procedure 

should be modified to address them. 

r. Ice Production Rate 

DOE seeks information on consumer 

daily ice production to help determine 

the most appropriate ice production rate 

for the test procedure. DOE further seeks 

comment on whether the proposed 1.8 

pounds per day ice production rate 

should be retained or whether a lower 

rate, as suggested by data provided by 

the Northwest Energy Efficiency 

Alliance, should be considered. 

s. Measurements of Energy Use 

Associated With Icemaking 

DOE seeks icemaking energy use data 

for typical products sold with automatic 

icemakers, using the test procedure 

proposed in this notice. DOE seeks these 

data in order to improve confidence in 

the understanding of typical icemaking 

energy use per pound of ice of 

residential refrigeration products. 

t. Impact on Energy Use Measurement 

DOE requests comments on its 

assessment of the impacts on energy use 

measurements of the proposed test 

procedure amendments. DOE further 

requests comments to support any 

potentially claimed change in the 

measured energy use, including data, if 

any, that would weigh in favor of 

adjusting the standards set to take effect 

on September 15, 2014, for products 

with automatic icemakers. DOE further 

requests comment on whether the fixed 

placeholder value for the icemaking 

energy use should be retained, rather 

than adopting a laboratory 

measurement, with adoption of a 

measurement-based standard to occur as 

part of a future energy conservation 

standards rulemaking for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. 

3. Multiple Compressor Test Procedure 

Request for Comments 

DOE is interested in receiving general 

comments regarding the proposed 

multiple compressor test procedure and 

specific comments regarding the 

following items. 

a. Multiple Compressor Definition 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposed definition of refrigeratorfreezers or refrigerators with multiple 

compressors. 

b. Temperature Cycles 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to allow use of temperature 

cycles as alternative indicators for start 

and stop times for multiple compressor 

test periods. 

c. Data Collection Rate 

DOE requests comments on the 

proposed one minute maximum data 

collection interval for the proposed 

multiple compressor test. 

d. Multiple Compressor Stabilization 

Period 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to apply the current 

stabilization requirement of Appendix 

A, section 2.9 to multiple compressor 

products and also on its proposal to 

allow evaluation of temperatures based 

either on temperature cycles or 

compressor cycles when evaluating 

stabilization. 

e. One-Part Multiple Compressor Test 

DOE requests comments on its 

proposal to allow a one-part test for 

multiple compressor products where 

only one compressor system has a 

defrost cycle (but this system’s defrost 

control is neither long-time nor 

variable). 

f. Test Periods for Products With One or 

No Cycling Compressors 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal allowing simplified test 

periods for both the first and second 

parts of the test (consistent with the test 

periods used for products with single 

compressors) when testing multiplecompressor products in which one or no 

compressor cycles during a test. 

g. Duration of the First Part of the Test 

DOE seeks comment on its proposal to 

require the first part of the test to be a 

single continuous period lasting at least 

24 hours, if this period is not 

interrupted by a defrost, and that the 

test period be no less than 18 hours long 

if it is interrupted by a defrost. Further, 

DOE seeks comment on its proposal that 

this test period comprise a whole 

number of cycles of a ‘‘primary’’ 

compressor (or a whole number of 

temperature cycles of the compartment 

associated with the ‘‘primary’’ 

compressor), and that the ‘‘primary’’ 

compressor be the freezer compressor, if 

the freezer compressor cycles during the 

test. 

h. Stabilization for the First Part of the 

Test 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to require that the first part of 

the test consist of a period of stable 

operation. DOE also seeks comment on 

its proposed definition for stable 

operation, which would require 

compartment temperature changes 

during the period to not exceed 0.042 °F 

per hour. 

i. Second Part of the Test 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal that the second part of the test 

that would be conducted for each 

compressor system that has a defrost 

cycle must include start and end points 

that occur during stable operation while 

surrounding the defrost cycle being 

measured. Further, DOE requests 

comment on the proposal that both the 

start and end of the test period occur 

either (a) when the primary compressor 

on-cycle starts or (b) when the primary 

compressor on-cycle stops—or 

alternatively that both the start and end 

of the test period occur either (c) when 

the compartment temperature associated 

with the primary compressor is at a 

maximum or (d) when the compartment 

temperature associated with the primary 

compressor is at a minimum. Finally, 

DOE requests comment on its proposal 

to allow start and end times for the test 

period for products with non-cycling 

compressors to occur when the 

compartment temperatures are within 

0.5 °F of their averages for the first part 

of the test. 

j. Measurement Changes for Multiple 

Compressor Products 

DOE requests information regarding 

any refrigeration products with multiple 

compressors (other than those already 

covered by test procedure waivers) and 

whether the proposed test procedure 

would alter the measurement of energy 

use of any multiple compressor 

products. If the proposed test procedure 

would alter the measured energy use, 

DOE requests information regarding 

how large the change would be and 

what aspects of the proposed test would 

be most responsible for that change. 

k. Multiple Compressor Products With 

Manual Defrost 

DOE requests comment on whether 

any multiple compressor refrigeration 

products with manual defrost exist and 

whether the test procedure proposal 

should address such products. 

4. Triangulation Approach 

DOE welcomes comment on its 

proposal to include the triangulation 

approach as an optional interpolation 

method in the test procedure, including 

comment on the proposed approach for 

implementing this method in the test 

procedure and the proposed 

requirement to indicate in certification 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41661 

reports that triangulation has been used 

for certification. DOE also welcomes 

comment on its proposal to use 

triangulation for assessment and 

enforcement testing if (a) the product 

was certified using this method, or (b) 

the measurement results calculated 

based on the first two tests differ by 

more than five percent using the two 

different compartment temperatures for 

the interpolations. 

5. Anti-Circumvention Language 

a. Modification to Anti-Circumvention 

Language 

DOE invites stakeholder comment on 

its proposal to modify the anticircumvention language. 

b. Components That Operate Differently 

During Testing 

DOE seeks comment on potential 

revisions to the anti-circumvention 

language that would, in limited 

circumstances, permit the use of control 

algorithms that may cause a system to 

operate differently during testing from 

how it would operate in the field. 

6. Incomplete Cycling 

DOE seeks comment on its proposed 

amendment to the incomplete cycling 

definition and the associated 

modification of the test period for such 

products from 24 hours to one whole 

compressor cycle. DOE also seeks 

comment on its proposal to alter the test 

period requirements of Appendices A 

and B for products with automatic (but 

not long-time or variable) defrost so that 

the temperature measurements are made 

during test periods that do not include 

any of the events associated with defrost 

cycles. DOE also requests comment on 

whether temperature measurement 

requirements for incomplete cycling or 

non-cycling products in Appendices A1 

and B1 should be made consistent with 

the temperature measurement 

requirements in Appendices A and B, 

i.e., that the temperature measurement 

and energy measurement test periods 

would coincide. 

7. Mechanical Control Settings 

DOE invites stakeholder comment on 

its proposal to modify its test 

procedures to clarify the setting of 

mechanical controls during testing. 

8. Ambient Temperature Conditions 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposed changes to ambient 

temperature and ambient temperature 

gradient requirements and its proposed 

approach to implementing these 

changes. 

9. Definitions Associated With Defrost 

Cycles 

DOE welcomes comment on the 

proposed definitions for terms 

associated with defrost cycles— 

‘‘precooling’’, ‘‘recovery’’, ‘‘stable 

operation’’, and ‘‘stable period of 

compressor operation’’. 

10. Elimination of Product Height 

Reporting 

DOE invites comment on its proposal 

to eliminate the certification 

requirement for reporting product 

height starting September 15, 2014. 

11. Measurement of Product Volume 

DOE seeks comment on its proposal to 

permit the use of CAD models to 

measure product volumes for the 

purposes of certification, the proposed 2 

percent (or 0.5/0.2 cubic foot) allowance 

with respect to differences between the 

certified and measured volumes, and 

the requirements for retention of CADgenerated volume calculations as part of 

certification test reports. DOE also 

requests information on the 

documentation kept by manufacturers of 

CAD modeling used for calculations of 

volume and whether this 

documentation is in or could be 

converted to a format that would allow 

review by DOE without use of CAD 

software. 

12. Package Loading 

DOE requests comment on its 

clarifications of the appropriate method 

for determining that the 75% package 

loading requirement for manual defrost 

freezers in section 5.5.5.3 of HRF–1– 

2008 has been met and the proposed 

amendments to the text of Appendix B 

to address this issue. 

13. Product Clearance to the Wall 

During Testing 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposed revisions to the text of 

Appendices A and B to address product 

clearance to the wall during testing. 

14. Relocation of Shelving 

DOE requests comments on its 

proposal to require that shelving and/or 

other components whose position is 

adjustable by consumers be relocated to 

assure that temperature sensors 

maintain the required clearance from 

hardware, while indicating that the 

shelving be installed as evenly as 

possible if relocation for temperature 

sensors is required. 

15. Built-in Refrigerators 

DOE requests comment on whether 

testing in a built-in condition would 

generally be more representative of 

energy consumption in average use and, 

if so, the extent to which testing in this 

condition would be expected to affect 

the measured energy use of these 

products. DOE is also interested in 

receiving comment on whether there 

would be a significant additional test 

burden resulting from a requirement 

that specifies these products be tested in 

a built-in condition. 

16. Measurement of Product Volume 

DOE requests comment on its 

interpretations of the volume 

measurement provisions of AHAM 

HRF–1–2008 pertaining to air ducts and 

water coolers, and its proposed 

revisions to section 5.3 of the test 

procedures in Appendices A and B 

addressing volume measurement. 

17. Test Burden 

DOE seeks comment regarding its 

assessment of the test burden impacts of 

the test procedure amendments 

proposed in this notice. 

18. Changes in Measured Energy Use 

DOE invites stakeholder comment 

regarding DOE’s assessments of the 

potential changes in measured energy 

use associated with the proposed test 

procedure changes. DOE requests 

comment on whether any of the 

proposed amendments to the test 

procedures could alter energy use 

measurements, and, if so, DOE requests 

data showing the magnitude of the 

measurement changes. 

19. Standby and Off/Mode Energy Use 

DOE tentatively proposed that no 

separate changes are needed to account 

for standby and off mode energy 

consumption, since the current (and as 

proposed) procedures already address 

energy consumed in standby and off 

modes. DOE requests comments on this 

determination. 

20. Regulatory Flexibility 

DOE requests comment on its initial 

conclusion that there are no small 

business manufacturers of refrigeration 

products that would be affected by the 

proposed changes in the test procedures 

for products with automatic icemakers. 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this proposed 

rulemaking. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41662 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Household appliances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Small 

businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 28, 

2013. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend parts 

429 and 430 of chapter II of title 10, of 

the Code of Federal Regulations, as set 

forth below: 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 2. Section 429.14 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4), and 

by revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) 

to read as follows: 

§ 429.14 Residential refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers and freezers. 

(a) * * * 

(3) Where the test procedures for 

these products provide more than one 

means for measuring the energy 

consumption of a basic model, all units 

of the basic model must be tested using 

the same method. 

(4) The value of total refrigerated 

volume of a basic reported in 

accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section shall be the mean of the total 

refrigerated volumes measured for each 

tested unit of the basic model or the 

total refrigerated volume of the basic 

model as calculated in accordance with 

§ 429.72. 

(b) * * * 

(2) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a 

certification report shall include the 

following public product-specific 

information: The annual energy use in 

kilowatt hours per year (kWh/yr); the 

fresh food compartment volume in 

cubic feet (ft3) and the freezer 

compartment volume in cubic feet (ft3), 

as applicable; whether the basic model 

has variable defrost control; whether the 

basic model has variable anti-sweat 

heater control; whether testing has been 

conducted with modifications to the 

standard temperature sensor locations 

specified by the figures referenced in 

section 5.1 of appendices A1, B1, A, and 

B to subpart B of part 430; and whether 

the optional triangulation approach of 

section 3.3 of appendix A was used for 

certification testing. 

(3) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a 

certification report shall include the 

following additional product-specific 

information: for models with variable 

defrost control, the values, if any, of CTL

and CTM (for an example, see section 

5.2.1.3 in appendix A to subpart B of 

part 430) used in the calculation of 

energy consumption; and, for models 

with variable anti-sweat heater control, 

the values of heater watts at the ten 

relative humidity levels (5%, 15%, 

25%, 35%, 45%, 55%, 65%, 75%, 85%, 

and 95%) used to calculate the variable 

anti-sweat heater ‘‘Correction Factor’’. 

■ 3. Add § 429.72 to read as follows: 

§ 429.72 Alternative methods for 

determining non-energy ratings. 

(a) General. Where §§ 429.14 through 

429.54 authorize the use of an 

alternative method for determining a 

physical or operating characteristic 

other than the energy consumption or 

efficiency, such characteristics must be 

determined either by testing in 

accordance with the applicable test 

procedure and applying the specified 

sampling plan provisions established in 

those sections or as described in the 

appropriate product-specific paragraph 

below. In all cases, the models, 

measurements, and calculations used to 

determine the rating for the physical or 

operating characteristic shall be retained 

as part of the test records underlying the 

certification of the basic model in 

accordance with 10 CFR 429.71. 

(b) Testing. [Reserved] 

(c) Residential refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. The 

total refrigerated volume of a basic 

model of refrigerator, refrigeratorfreezer, or freezer may be determined by 

performing a calculation of the volume 

based upon computer-aided design 

(CAD) models of the basic model in lieu 

of physical measurements of a 

production unit of the basic model. Any 

value of total refrigerated volume of a 

basic model reported to DOE in a 

certification of compliance in 

accordance with § 429.14(b)(2) must be 

calculated using the CAD-derived 

volume(s) and the applicable provisions 

in the test procedures in part 430 for 

measuring volume, and must be within 

two percent, or 0.5 cubic feet (0.2 cubic 

feet for compact products), whichever is 

greater, of the volume of a production 

unit of the basic model measured in 

accordance with the applicable test 

procedure in part 430. 

■ 4. Add § 429.134 to read as follows: 

§ 429.134 Product-specific enforcement 

provisions. 

(a) General. The following provisions 

apply to enforcement testing of the 

relevant products. 

(b) Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

and freezers. 

(1) Verification of total refrigerated 

volume. The total refrigerated volume of 

the basic model will be measured 

pursuant to the test requirements of part 

430 for each unit tested. The results of 

the measurement(s) will be averaged 

and compared to the value of total 

refrigerated volume certified by the 

manufacturer. The certified volume will 

be considered valid only if: 

(i) The measurement is within two 

percent, or 0.5 cubic feet (0.2 cubic feet 

for compact products), whichever is 

greater, of the certified volume, or 

(ii) The measurement is greater than 

the certified volume. 

(A) If the certified total refrigerated 

volume is found to be valid, that volume 

will be used as the basis for calculation 

of maximum allowed energy use for the 

basic model. 

(B) If the certified total refrigerated 

volume is found to be invalid, the 

average measured volume will serve as 

the basis for calculation of maximum 

allowed energy use for the tested basic 

model. 

(2) Reserved. 

(b) Test for Models with Two 

Compartments and User Operable 

Controls. The test described in section 

3.3 of the applicable test procedure for 

refrigerators or refrigerator-freezers shall 

be used if: 

(1) The certification report indicates 

that the basic model was certified using 

this method, or 

(2) The difference between the two 

values calculated as described in section 

6.2.2.2 of the test procedure is greater 

than five percent of the larger value for 

any one unit of the basic model. 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 6. Section 430.2 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘compact 

refrigerator/refrigerator-freezer/freezer’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 430.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41663 

Compact refrigerator/refrigeratorfreezer/freezer means any refrigerator, 

refrigerator-freezer or freezer with total 

refrigerated volume less than 7.75 cubic 

foot (220 liters) (total refrigerated 

volume as determined in appendices A1 

and B1 of subpart B of this part before 

appendices A and B become mandatory 

and as determined in appendices A and 

B of this subpart once appendices A and 

B become mandatory (see the notes at 

the beginning of appendices A and B)). 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 430.3 is amended by adding 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 430.3 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

* * * * * 

(e) AS/NZS. Australian/New Zealand 

Standard, GPO Box 476, Sydney NSW 

2001, (02) 9237–6000 or (12) 0065–4646, 

or go to www.standards.org.au/ 

Standards New Zealand, Level 10 Radio 

New Zealand House 144 The Terrace 

Wellington 6001 (Private Bag 2439 

Wellington 6020), (04) 498–5990 or (04) 

498–5991, or go to 

www.standards.co.nz. 

(1) AS/NZS 4474.1:2007, Performance 

of Household Electrical Appliances— 

Refrigerating Appliances; Part 1: Energy 

Consumption and Performance, August 

15, 2007, IBR approved for Appendix A 

to Subpart B. 

(2) Reserved. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 430.23 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(10) and (b)(7) to 

read as follows: 

§ 430.23 Test procedures for the 

measurement of energy and water 

consumption. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(10) The following principles of 

interpretation should be applied to the 

test procedure. The intent of the energy 

test procedure is to simulate typical 

room conditions (approximately 70 °F 

(21 °C)) with door openings by testing 

at 90 °F (32.2 °C) without door 

openings. Except for operating 

characteristics that are affected by 

ambient temperature (for example, 

compressor percent run time), the unit, 

when tested under this test procedure, 

shall operate in a manner equivalent to 

the unit in typical room conditions. 

(i) The energy used by the unit shall 

be calculated when a calculation is 

provided by the test procedure. Energy 

consuming components that operate in 

typical room conditions (including as a 

result of door openings, or a function of 

humidity), and that are not exempted by 

this test procedure, shall operate in an 

equivalent manner during energy testing 

under this test procedure, or be 

accounted for by all calculations as 

provided for in the test procedure. 

Examples: 

A. Energy saving features that are 

designed to operate when there are no 

door openings for long periods of time 

shall not be functional during the 

energy test. 

B. The defrost heater shall not either 

function or turn off differently during 

the energy test than it would when in 

typical room conditions. Also, the 

product shall not recover differently 

during the defrost recovery period than 

it would in typical room conditions. 

C. Electric heaters that would 

normally operate at typical room 

conditions with door openings shall 

also operate during the energy test. 

D. Energy used during adaptive 

defrost shall continue to be tested and 

adjusted per the calculation provided 

for in this test procedure. 

(ii) DOE recognizes that there may be 

situations that may not be completely 

addressed by the test procedures. A 

manufacturer must obtain a waiver in 

accordance with the relevant provisions 

of 10 CFR part 430 in such cases, if: 

A. A product contains energy 

consuming components that operate 

differently during the prescribed testing 

than they would during representative 

average consumer use; and 

B. Applying the prescribed test to that 

product would evaluate it in a manner 

that is unrepresentative of its true 

energy consumption (thereby providing 

materially inaccurate comparative data). 

(b) * * * 

(7) The following principles of 

interpretation should be applied to the 

test procedure. The intent of the energy 

test procedure is to simulate typical 

room conditions (approximately 70 °F 

(21 °C)) with door openings by testing 

at 90 °F (32.2 °C) without door 

openings. Except for operating 

characteristics that are affected by 

ambient temperature (for example, 

compressor percent run time), the unit, 

when tested under this test procedure, 

shall operate in a manner equivalent to 

the unit in typical room conditions. 

(i) The energy used by the unit shall 

be calculated when a calculation is 

provided by the test procedure. Energy 

consuming components that operate in 

typical room conditions (including as a 

result of door openings, or a function of 

humidity), and that are not exempted by 

this test procedure, shall operate in an 

equivalent manner during energy testing 

under this test procedure, or be 

accounted for by all calculations as 

provided for in the test procedure. 

Examples: 

A. Energy saving features that are 

designed to operate when there are no 

door openings for long periods of time 

shall not be functional during the 

energy test. 

B. The defrost heater shall not either 

function or turn off differently during 

the energy test than it would when in 

typical room conditions. Also, the 

product shall not recover differently 

during the defrost recovery period than 

it would in typical room conditions. 

C. Electric heaters that would 

normally operate at typical room 

conditions with door openings shall 

also operate during the energy test. 

D. Energy used during adaptive 

defrost shall continue to be tested and 

adjusted per the calculation provided 

for in this test procedure. 

(ii) DOE recognizes that there may be 

situations that may not be completely 

addressed by the test procedures. A 

manufacturer must obtain a waiver in 

accordance with the relevant provisions 

of 10 CFR part 430 in such cases, if: 

A. A product contains energy 

consuming components that operate 

differently during the prescribed testing 

than they would during representative 

average consumer use; and 

B. Applying the prescribed test to that 

product would evaluate it in a manner 

that is unrepresentative of its true 

energy consumption (thereby providing 

materially inaccurate comparative data). 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Appendix A to subpart B of part 

430 is amended: 

■ a. In section 1. Definitions, by: 

■ 1. Redesignating section 1.5 as 1.6; 

■ 2. Redesignating section 1.6 as 1.7; 

■ 3. Redesignating section 1.7 as 1.9; 

■ 4. Redesignating section 1.8 as 1.10; 

■ 5. Redesignating section 1.9 as 1.11 

and revising the newly designated 

section 1.11; 

■ 6. Redesignating section 1.10 as 1.12; 

■ 7. Redesignating section 1.11 as 1.14; 

■ 8. Redesignating section 1.12 as 1.17; 

■ 9. Redesignating section 1.13 as 1.21; 

■ 10. Redesignating section 1.14 as 1.22; 

■ 11. Redesignating section 1.15 as 1.23; 

■ 12. Redesignating section 1.16 as 1.26; 

■ 13. Redesignating section 1.17 as 1.28; 

■ 14. Redesignating section 1.18 as 1.29; 

■ 15. Adding sections 1.5, 1.8, 1.11, 

1.13, 1.15, 1.16, 1.18, 1.19, 1.20, 1.24 

1.25, and 1.26; 

■ b. In section 2. Test Conditions, by: 

■ 1. Revising sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.6, and 

2.8; 

■ 2. Adding sections, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 

and 2.11; 

■ c. In section 3. Test Control Setting, 

by: 

■ 1. Revising section 3.2.1; 

■ 2. Adding section 3.3; 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41664 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

■ 3. Revising Tables 1 and 2; 

■ d. In section 4. Test period, by: 

■ 1. Revising sections 4.1, 4.2, and 4.2.3; 

■ 2. Adding sections 4.2.3.1, 4.2.3.2, 

4.2.3.3, 4.2.3.4, 4.2.3.4.1, 4.2.3.4.2, 

4.2.3.4.3; 

■ 3. In section 5. Test Measurements, by 

revising sections 5.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 

5.2.1.1, 5.2.1.3, 5.2.1.4, 5.2.1.5, and 5.3; 

■ e. In section 6. Calculation of Derived 

Results from Test Measurements, by: 

■ 1. Revising sections 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 

6.2.2.1, 6.2.2.2; and; 

■ 2. Adding section 6.2.2.3; 

■ f. Adding section 8. Icemaking Test. 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Electric 

Refrigerators and Electric RefrigeratorFreezers 

* * * * * 

1. Definitions 

* * * * * 

1.5 ‘‘AS/NZS 44474.1:2007’’ means 

Australian/New Zealand Standard 

44474.1:2007, Performance of household 

electrical appliances—Refrigerating 

appliances, Part 1: Energy consumption and 

performance. Only sections of AS/NZS 

44474.1:2007 (incorporated by reference; see 

§ 430.3) specifically referenced in this test 

procedure are part of this test procedure. In 

cases where there is a conflict, the language 

of the test procedure in this appendix takes 

precedence over AS/NZS 44474.1:2007. 

* * * * * 

1.8 ‘‘Complete temperature cycle’’ means 

a time period defined based upon the cycling 

of compartment temperature that starts when 

the compartment temperature is at a 

maximum and ends when the compartment 

temperature returns to an equivalent 

maximum (within 0.5 °F of the starting 

temperature), having in the interim fallen to 

a minimum and subsequently risen again to 

reach the second maximum. Alternatively, a 

complete temperature cycle can be defined to 

start when the compartment temperature is at 

a minimum and ends when the compartment 

temperature returns to an equivalent 

minimum (within 0.5 °F of the starting 

temperature), having in the interim risen to 

a maximum and subsequently fallen again to 

reach the second minimum. 

* * * * * 

1.11 ‘‘Defrost cycle type’’ means a 

distinct sequence of control whose function 

is to remove frost and/or ice from a 

refrigerated surface. There may be variations 

in the defrost control sequence such as the 

number of defrost heaters energized. Each 

such variation establishes a separate distinct 

defrost cycle type. However, defrost achieved 

regularly during the compressor off-cycles by 

warming of the evaporator without active 

heat addition, although a form of automatic 

defrost, does not constitute a unique defrost 

cycle type for the purposes of identifying the 

test period in accordance with section 4 of 

this appendix. 

* * * * * 

1.13 ‘‘Harvest’’ means the process of 

freeing or removing ice pieces from an 

automatic icemaker. 

* * * * * 

1.15 ‘‘Ice piece’’ means a piece of ice 

made by an automatic icemaker that has not 

been reduced in size by crushing or other 

mechanical action. 

1.16 ‘‘Ice storage bin’’ means a container 

in which ice can be stored. 

* * * * * 

1.18 ‘‘Multiple compressor’’ refrigerator 

or refrigerator-freezer means a refrigerator or 

refrigerator-freezer with more than one 

compressor. 

1.19 ‘‘Precooling’’ means operating a 

refrigeration system before initiation of a 

defrost cycle to reduce one or more 

compartment temperatures significantly 

(more than 0.5 °F) below its minimum during 

stable operation between defrosts. 

1.20 ‘‘Recovery’’ means operating a 

refrigeration system after the conclusion of a 

defrost cycle to reduce the temperature of 

one or more compartments to the 

temperature range that the compartment(s) 

exhibited during stable operation between 

defrosts. 

* * * * * 

1.24 ‘‘Stable operation’’ means operation 

after steady-state conditions have been 

achieved but excluding any events associated 

with defrost cycles. During stable operation 

the rate of change of all compartment 

temperatures must not exceed 0.042 °F (0.023 

°C) per hour. Such a calculation performed 

for compartment temperatures at any two 

times, or for any two complete cycles, during 

stable operation must meet this requirement. 

(A) If compartment temperatures do not 

cycle, the relevant calculation shall be the 

difference between the temperatures at two 

points in time divided by the difference, in 

hours, between those points in time. 

(B) If compartment temperatures cycle as a 

result of compressor cycling or other cycling 

operation of any system component (e.g., a 

damper, fan, or heater), the relevant 

calculation shall be the difference between 

compartment temperature averages evaluated 

for whole compressor cycles or complete 

temperature cycles divided by the difference, 

in hours, between either the starts, ends, or 

mid-times of the two cycles. 

1.25 ‘‘Stable period of compressor 

operation’’ is a period of stable operation of 

a refrigeration system that has a compressor. 

1.26 ‘‘Through-the-door ice/water 

dispenser’’ means a device incorporated 

within the cabinet, but outside the boundary 

of the refrigerated space, that delivers to the 

user on demand ice or water from within the 

refrigerated space without opening an 

exterior door. This definition includes 

dispensers that are capable of dispensing ice 

and water, ice only, or water only. 

* * * * * 

2. Test Conditions 

2.1 Ambient Temperature Measurement. 

Temperature measuring devices shall be 

shielded so that indicated temperatures are 

not affected by the operation of the 

condensing unit or adjacent units. 

2.1.1 Ambient Temperature. The ambient 

temperature shall be recorded at points 

located 3 feet (91.5 cm) above the floor and 

10 inches (25.4 cm) from the center of the 

two sides of the unit under test. The ambient 

temperature shall be 90.0 ±1.0 °F (32.2 ±0.6 

°C) during the stabilization period and the 

test period. 

2.1.2 Ambient Temperature Gradient. The 

test room vertical ambient temperature 

gradient in any foot of vertical distance from 

2 inches (5.1 cm) above the floor or 

supporting platform to a height of 7 feet (2.2 

m) or to a height 1 foot (30.5 cm) above the 

top of the unit under test, whichever is 

greater, is not to exceed 0.5 °F per foot (0.9 

°C per meter). 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. To demonstrate 

that this requirement has been met, test data 

must include measurements taken using 

temperature sensors at locations 2 inches (5.1 

cm) and 36 inches (91.4 cm) above the floor 

or supporting platform and at a height of 1 

foot (30.5 cm) above the unit under test. 

2.1.3 Platform. A platform must be used 

if the floor temperature is not within 3 °F (1.7 

°C) of the measured ambient temperature. If 

a platform is used, it is to have a solid top 

with all sides open for air circulation 

underneath, and its top shall extend at least 

1 foot (30.5 cm) beyond each side and front 

of the unit under test and extend to the wall 

in the rear. 

2.2 Operational Conditions. The unit 

under test shall be installed and its operating 

conditions maintained in accordance with 

HRF–1–2008, (incorporated by reference; see 

§ 430.3), sections 5.3.2 through section 

5.5.5.5 (excluding section 5.5.5.4). 

Exceptions and clarifications to the cited 

sections of HRF–1–2008 are noted in sections 

2.3 through 2.8, and 5.1 of this appendix. 

* * * * * 

2.6 The unit under test and its 

refrigerating mechanism shall be assembled 

and set up in accordance with the printed 

consumer instructions supplied with the 

unit. Set-up of the unit shall not deviate from 

these instructions, unless explicitly required 

or allowed by this test procedure. Specific 

required or allowed deviations from such setup include the following: 

(a) Connection of water lines and 

installation of water filters are required only 

when conducting the icemaking test 

described in section 8 of this appendix; 

(b) Clearance requirements from surfaces of 

the unit shall be as described in section 2.8 

of this appendix; 

(c) The electric power supply shall be as 

described in HRF–1–2008 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3), section 5.5.1; 

(d) Temperature control settings for testing 

shall be as described in section 3 of this 

appendix. Settings for convertible 

compartments and other temperaturecontrollable or special compartments shall be 

as described in section 2.7 of this appendix; 

(e) The unit does not need to be anchored 

or otherwise secured to prevent tipping 

during energy testing; 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41665 

(f) All the unit’s chutes and throats 

required for the delivery of ice shall be free 

of packing, covers, or other blockages that 

may be fitted for shipping or when the 

icemaker is not in use; and 

(g) Ice storage bins shall be emptied of ice 

except as required for the icemaking test 

described in section 8 of this appendix. 

For cases in which set-up is not clearly 

defined by this test procedure, manufacturers 

must submit a petition for a waiver (see 

section 7 of this appendix). 

* * * * * 

2.8 Rear Clearance. 

(a) General. The space between the lowest 

edge of the rear plane of the cabinet and a 

vertical surface (the test room wall or 

simulated wall) shall be the minimum 

distance in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s instructions, unless other 

provisions of this section apply. The rear 

plane shall be considered to be the largest flat 

surface at the rear of the cabinet, excluding 

features that protrude beyond this surface, 

such as brackets, the compressor, or rearwall-mounted condensers. 

(b) Maximum clearance. The clearance 

shall not be greater than 2 inches (51 mm) 

from the lowest edge of the rear plane to the 

vertical surface, unless the provisions of 

subsection (c) of this section apply. 

(c) If permanent rear spacers or other 

components that protrude beyond the rear 

plane extend further than the 2 inch (51 mm) 

distance, or if the highest edge of the rear 

plane is in contact with the vertical surface 

when the unit is positioned with the lowest 

edge of the rear plane at or further than the 

2 inch (51 mm) distance from the vertical 

surface, the appliance shall be located with 

the spacers or other components protruding 

beyond the rear plane, or the highest edge of 

the rear plane, in contact with the vertical 

surface. 

* * * * * 

2.11 Refrigerators and RefrigeratorFreezers with Demand-Response Capability. 

For refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers that 

have a communication module for demandresponse functions, whether integrated 

within the cabinet or external to the cabinet 

and connected by the consumer, the 

communication module must be installed, 

energized, and connected to a network, but 

there shall be no active communication 

during testing. 

* * * * * 

3. Test Control Settings 

3.2 * * * 

3.2.1 A first test shall be performed with 

all compartment temperature controls set at 

their median position midway between their 

warmest and coldest settings. For mechanical 

control systems, (a) knob detents shall be 

mechanically defeated if necessary to attain 

a median setting, and (b) the warmest and 

coldest settings shall correspond to the 

positions in which the indicator is aligned 

with control symbols indicating the warmest 

and coldest settings. For electronic control 

systems, the test shall be performed with all 

compartment temperature controls set at the 

average of the coldest and warmest settings— 

if there is no setting equal to this average, the 

setting closest to the average shall be used. 

If there are two such settings equally close to 

the average, the higher of these temperature 

control settings shall be used. A second test 

shall be performed with all controls set at 

their warmest setting or all controls set at 

their coldest setting (not electrically or 

mechanically bypassed). For all-refrigerators, 

this setting shall be the appropriate setting 

that attempts to achieve compartment 

temperatures measured during the two tests 

that bound (i.e., one is above and one is 

below) the standardized temperature for all 

refrigerators. For refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers, the second test shall be 

conducted with all controls at their coldest 

setting, unless all compartment temperatures 

measured during the first part of the test are 

lower than the standardized temperatures, in 

which case the second test shall be 

conducted with all controls at their warmest 

setting. Refer to Table 1 of this appendix for 

all refrigerators or Table 2 of this appendix 

for refrigerators with freezer compartments 

and refrigerator-freezers to determine which 

test results to use in the energy consumption 

calculation. If any compartment is warmer 

than its standardized temperature for a test 

with all controls at their coldest position, the 

tested unit fails the test and cannot be rated. 

TABLE 1—TEMPERATURE SETTINGS FOR ALL REFRIGERATORS

First test Second test Energy calculation 

based on— Settings Results Settings Results 

Mid ..................................... Low ................................... Warm ................................ Low ...................................

High ..................................

Second Test Only. 

First and Second Tests. 

High .................................. Cold .................................. Low ...................................

High ..................................

First and Second Tests. 

No Energy Use Rating. 

TABLE 2—TEMPERATURE SETTINGS FOR REFRIGERATORS WITH FREEZER COMPARTMENTS AND REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS

First test Second test Energy calculation 

based on— Settings Results Settings Results 

Fzr Mid .............................. Fzr Low ............................. Fzr Warm .......................... Fzr Low ............................. Second Test Only. 

FF Mid ............................... FF Low ............................. FF Warm .......................... FF Low .............................

Fzr Low 

FF High .............................

First and Second Tests.

FF High 

Fzr High First and Second Test.

FF Low 

Fzr High First and Second Test.

FF High 

....................................... Fzr Low ............................. Fzr Cold ............................ Fzr Low ............................. No Energy Use Rating. 

....................................... FF High ............................. FF Cold ............................. FF High ............................. No Energy Use Rating. 

Fzr Low ............................. First and Second Tests 

FF Low .............................

Fzr High ............................ Fzr Cold ............................ Fzr High ............................ No Energy Use Rating. 

FF Low ............................. FF Cold ............................. FF Low .............................

Fzr Low .............................. First and Second Tests..

FF Low .............................

Fzr High ............................ Fzr Cold ............................ Fzr Low ............................. First and Second Tests. 

....................................... FF High ............................. FF Cold ............................. FF Low .............................

Fzr Low .............................. No Energy Use Rating.


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41666 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—TEMPERATURE SETTINGS FOR REFRIGERATORS WITH FREEZER COMPARTMENTS AND REFRIGERATORFREEZERS—Continued 

First test Second test Energy calculation 

based on— Settings Results Settings Results 

FF High .............................

Fzr High ............................. No Energy Use Rating.

FF Low .............................

Fzr High ............................. No Energy Use Rating.

FF High ..............................

NOTES: Fzr = Freezer Compartment, FF = Fresh Food Compartment. 

* * * * * 

3.3 Optional Test for Models with Two 

Compartments and User Operable Controls. 

As an alternative to section 3.2, in addition 

to the two tests described in section 3.2.1, 

perform a third test such that the set of tests 

meets the ‘‘minimum requirements for 

interpolation’’ of AS/NZS 44474.1:2007 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) 

appendix M, section M3, paragraphs (a) 

through (c) and as illustrated in Figure M1. 

The target temperatures txA and txB defined 

in section M4(a)(i) of AS/NZ 44474.1:2007 

shall be the standardized temperatures 

defined in section 3.2 of this appendix. 

4. Test Period 

* * * * * 

4.1 Non-Automatic Defrost. If the model 

being tested has no automatic defrost system, 

the test period shall start after steady-state 

conditions (see section 2.9 of this appendix) 

have been achieved and be no less than three 

hours in duration. During the test period, the 

compressor motor shall complete two or 

more whole compressor cycles. (A 

compressor cycle is a complete ‘‘on’’ and a 

complete ‘‘off’’ period of the motor.) If no 

‘‘off’’ cycling occurs, the test period shall be 

three hours. If incomplete cycling occurs 

(fewer than two compressor cycles during a 

24-hour period), then a single complete 

compressor cycle may be used. 

4.2 Automatic Defrost. If the model being 

tested has an automatic defrost system, the 

test period shall start after steady-state 

conditions have been achieved and be from 

one point during a defrost period to the same 

point during the next defrost period. If the 

model being tested has a long-time automatic 

defrost system, the alternative provisions of 

section 4.2.1 may be used. If the model being 

tested has a variable defrost control, the 

provisions of section 4.2.2 shall apply. If the 

model is a multiple compressor product with 

automatic defrost, the provisions of section 

4.2.3 shall apply. If the model being tested 

has long-time automatic or variable defrost 

control involving multiple defrost cycle 

types, such as for a product with a single 

compressor and two or more evaporators in 

which the evaporators are defrosted at 

different frequencies, the provisions of 

section 4.2.4 shall apply. If the model being 

tested has multiple defrost cycle types for 

which compressor run time between defrosts 

is a fixed time of less than 14 hours for all 

such cycle types, and for which the 

compressor run times between defrosts for 

different defrost cycle types are equal to or 

multiples of each other, the test period shall 

be from one point of the defrost cycle type 

with the longest compressor run time 

between defrosts to the same point during the 

next occurrence of this defrost cycle type. For 

such products not using the procedures of 

section 4.2.4, energy consumption shall be 

calculated as described in section 5.2.1.1 of 

this appendix. 

* * * * * 

4.2.3 Multiple Compressor Products with 

Automatic Defrost. 

4.2.3.1 Measurement Frequency. 

Measurements shall be taken at regular 

intervals not exceeding one minute. 

4.2.3.2 Steady-state Condition. The 

requirements of section 2.9 of this appendix 

shall be met for the compartment 

temperature of each compartment served by 

each of the compressors of the multiple 

compressor product. As an alternative to 

evaluating steady-state conditions based on 

complete compressor cycles, this evaluation 

may be based on complete temperature 

cycles for the compartments served by each 

of the compressors. 

4.2.3.3 Short-Time Defrost for a Single 

Compressor. For multiple compressor 

products where (a) only one compressor 

system has automatic defrost and (b) this is 

a short-time defrost (i.e., not long-time or 

variable), the test period shall start after 

steady-state conditions have been achieved 

and be from one point during a defrost period 

to the same point during the next defrost 

period. 

4.2.3.4 If the conditions of section 4.2.3.3 

do not apply, the two-part method shall be 

used. The first part is a stable period of 

compressor operation that includes no 

defrost cycles or events associated with a 

defrost cycle, such as precooling or recovery, 

for any compressor system. The second part 

is designed to capture the energy consumed 

during all of the events occurring with the 

defrost control sequence that are outside of 

stable operation. The second part of the test 

shall be conducted separately for each 

automatic defrost system present. 

4.2.3.4.1 Multiple Compressor Products 

with at Least Two Cycling Compressors. For 

a multiple compressor product with at least 

two cycling compressors, test periods shall 

be based on compressor or temperature 

cycles associated with the primary 

compressor system (these are referred to as 

primary compressor cycles or primary 

temperature cycles). If the freezer compressor 

cycles, it shall be the primary compressor 

system. The first part of the test shall include 

a whole number of complete primary 

compressor cycles or a whole number of 

complete primary temperature cycles 

comprising at least 24 hours of stable 

operation. If a defrost occurs prior to 

completion of 24 hours of stable operation, 

the first part of the test shall be at least 18 

hours long. 

The second part of the test starts during 

stable operation before all portions of the 

defrost cycle at the beginning of a complete 

primary compressor or temperature cycle. 

The test period for the second part of the test 

ends after all portions of the defrost cycle 

and after all compartment temperatures have 

fully recovered to their stable operation 

conditions at the termination of a complete 

primary compressor or temperature cycle. If 

the test period is based on compressor cycles, 

the start and stop shall both occur either 

when the primary compressor starts or when 

the primary compressor stops. If the test 

period is based on temperature cycles, the 

start and stop shall both occur either when 

the primary compartment temperature is at a 

maximum or when it is at a minimum. For 

each compressor system, the compartment 

temperature averages for the first and last 

complete compressor or temperature cycles 

that lie completely within the second part of 

the test must be within 0.5 °F (0.3 °C) of the 

average compartment temperature measured 

for the first part of the test. If any one of the 

compressor systems is non-cycling, its 

compartment temperature averages during 

the first and last complete primary 

compressor or temperature cycles of the 

second part of the test must be within 0.5 °F 

(0.3 °C) of the average compartment 

temperature measured for the first part of the 

test. 

4.2.3.4.2 Multiple Compressor Products 

with Non-Cycling Compressors. For a 

multiple compressor product with no cycling 

compressors, the first part of the test is a 

stable period of compressor operation that 

includes no defrost cycles or events 

associated with a defrost cycle, such as 

precooling or recovery, that shall start after 

steady-state conditions (see section 2.9 of this 

appendix) have been achieved, and shall be 

three hours in duration. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41667 

The second part of the test starts during 

stable operation before all portions of the 

defrost cycle when the compartment 

temperatures of all compressor systems are 

within 0.5 °F (0.3 °C) of their average 

temperatures measured for the first part of 

the test. The second part stops during stable 

operation after all portions of the defrost 

cycle when the compartment temperatures of 

all compressor systems are within 0.5 °F (0.3 

°C) of their average temperatures measured 

for the first part of the test. 

4.2.3.4.3 Multiple Compressor Products 

with One Cycling Compressor. For a multiple 

compressor product with one cycling 

compressor, the first part of the test is a 

stable period of compressor operation that 

includes no defrost cycles or events 

associated with a defrost cycle, such as 

precooling or recovery, that shall start after 

steady-state conditions (see section 2.9 of this 

appendix) have been achieved, shall be no 

less than three hours in duration, and shall 

consist of two or more whole compressor or 

temperature cycles of the cycling compressor 

system. 

The second part of the test shall be as 

described in section 4.2.3.4.1 for the second 

part of the test for multiple compressor 

products with at least two cycling 

compressors. The single cycling compressor 

system shall be considered the primary 

compressor system. 

* * * * * 

5. Test Measurements 

* * * * * 

5.1 Temperature Measurements. 

Temperature measurements shall be made at 

the locations prescribed in Figures 5.1 and 

5.2 of HRF–1–2008 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3) and shall be accurate 

to within ±0.5 °F (0.3 °C). No freezer 

temperature measurements need be taken in 

an all-refrigerator model. 

If the interior arrangements of the unit 

under test do not conform with those shown 

in Figure 5.1 and 5.2 of HRF–1–2008, the 

unit may be tested by relocating the 

temperature sensors from the locations 

specified in the figures to avoid interference 

with non-adjustable hardware or components 

within the unit, in which case the specific 

locations used for the temperature sensors 

shall be noted in the test data records 

maintained by the manufacturer in 

accordance with 10 CFR 429.71, and the 

certification report shall indicate that nonstandard sensor locations were used. If the 

temperature sensor placement required by 

this section is impeded by adjustable shelves 

or other components that could be relocated 

by the consumer, those components shall be 

repositioned as necessary to allow for 

placement of the sensors in the required 

locations. Any repositioning of components 

shall adhere as closely as practicable to the 

set-up instructions specified in section 5.5.2 

of HRF–1–2008 while maintaining a 

minimum 1-inch air space between the 

sensor thermal mass and adjacent hardware. 

5.1.1 Measured Temperature. The 

measured temperature of a compartment is 

the average of all sensor temperature readings 

taken in that compartment at a particular 

point in time. Measurements shall be taken 

at regular intervals not to exceed 4 minutes. 

Measurements for products with multiple 

compressor systems shall be taken at regular 

intervals not to exceed one minute. 

5.1.2 Compartment Temperature. The 

compartment temperature for each test 

period shall be an average of the measured 

temperatures taken in a compartment during 

the test period as defined in section 4 of this 

appendix. For long-time automatic defrost 

models, compartment temperatures shall be 

those measured in the first part of the test 

period specified in section 4.2.1 of this 

appendix. For models with variable defrost 

controls, compartment temperatures shall be 

those measured in the first part of the test 

period specified in section 4.2.2 of this 

appendix. For models with automatic defrost 

that is neither long-time nor variable defrost, 

the compartment temperature shall be an 

average of the measured temperatures taken 

in a compartment during a stable period of 

compressor operation that (a) includes no 

defrost cycles or events associated with a 

defrost cycle, such as precooling or recovery, 

(b) is no less than three hours in duration, 

and (c) includes two or more whole 

compressor cycles or two or more complete 

temperature cycles. If neither the compressor 

nor the temperature cycles, the stable period 

used for the temperature average shall be 

three hours in duration. 

* * * * * 

5.2 * * * 

5.2.1 * * * 

5.2.1.1 Non-automatic Defrost, Automatic 

Defrost, and Multiple Compressor Products 

in which only one compressor system uses 

automatic defrost (but not long-time or 

variable). The energy consumption in 

kilowatt-hours per day shall be calculated 

equivalent to: 

ET = EP × 1440/T 

Where: 

ET = test cycle energy expended in kilowatthours per day; 

EP = energy expended in kilowatt-hours 

during the test period; 

T = length of time of the test period in 

minutes; and 

1440 = conversion factor to adjust to a 24- 

hour period in minutes per day. 

* * * * * 

5.2.1.3 Variable Defrost Control. The 

energy consumption in kilowatt-hours per 

day shall be calculated equivalent to: 

ET = (1440 × EP1/T1) + (EP2 ¥ (EP1 × T2/ 

T1)) × (12/CT), 

Where: 

1440 is defined in 5.2.1.1 and EP1, EP2, T1, 

T2, and 12 are defined in 5.2.1.2; 

CT = (CTL × CTM)/(F × (CTM ¥ CTL) + CTL); 

CTL = the shortest compressor run time 

between defrosts observed for the test— 

or the shortest compressor run time 

between defrosts used in the variable 

defrost control algorithm (greater than or 

equal to 6 but less than or equal to 12 

hours)—whichever is shorter, in hours 

rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour; 

CTM = maximum compressor run time 

between defrosts in hours rounded to the 

nearest tenth of an hour (greater than 

CTL but not more than 96 hours); 

F = ratio of per day energy consumption in 

excess of the least energy and the 

maximum difference in per-day energy 

consumption and is equal to 0.20. 

For variable defrost models with no values 

for CTL and CTM in the algorithm, the default 

values of 6 and 96 shall be used, respectively. 

However, the shortest compressor run time 

between defrosts observed for the test shall 

be used for CTL, if it is less than 6. 

5.2.1.4 Multiple Compressor Products 

with Automatic Defrost. For multiple 

compressor products that do not meet the 

conditions of section 4.2.3.3 of this appendix, 

the two-part test method in section 4.2.3.4 of 

this appendix must be used. The energy 

consumption in kilowatt-hours per day shall 

be calculated equivalent to: 

Where: 

1440, EP1, T1, and 12 are defined in 5.2.1.2; 

i = a variable that can equal 1, 2, or more that 

identifies each individual compressor 

system that has automatic defrost; 

D = the total number of compressor systems 

with automatic defrost. 

EP2i = energy expended in kilowatt-hours 

during the second part of the test for 

compressor system i; 

T2i = length of time in minutes of the second 

part of the test for compressor system i; 

CTi = the compressor run time between 

defrosts for compressor system i in hours 

rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour, 

for long-time automatic defrost control 

equal to a fixed time in hours, and for 

variable defrost control equal to 

(CTLi × CTMi)/(F × (CTMi¥ CTLi) + CTLi); 

Where: 

CTLi = for compressor system i, the shortest 

compressor run time between defrosts 

observed for the test—or the shortest 

compressor run time between defrosts 

used in the variable defrost control 

algorithm (greater than or equal to 6 but 

less than or equal to 12 hours)— 

whichever is shorter, in hours rounded 

to the nearest tenth of an hour; 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP10JY13.030</GPH>
41668 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

CTMi = maximum compressor run time 

between defrosts for compressor system 

i in hours rounded to the nearest tenth 

of an hour (greater than CTLi but not 

more than 96 hours); 

F = default defrost energy consumption 

factor, equal to 0.20. 

For variable defrost models with no values 

for CTLi and CTMi in the algorithm, the 

default values of 6 and 96 shall be used, 

respectively. However, the shortest 

compressor run time between defrosts 

observed for compressor system i during the 

test shall be used for CTLi, if it is less than 

6. 

5.2.1.5 Long-time or Variable Defrost 

Control for Systems with Multiple Defrost 

Cycle Types. The energy consumption in 

kilowatt-hours per day shall be calculated 

equivalent to: 

Where: 

1440 is defined in 5.2.1.1 and EP1, T1, and 

12 are defined in 5.2.1.2; 

i is a variable that can equal 1, 2, or more 

that identifies the distinct defrost cycle 

types applicable for the refrigerator or 

refrigerator-freezer; 

EP2i = energy expended in kilowatt-hours 

during the second part of the test for 

defrost cycle type i; 

T2i = length of time in minutes of the second 

part of the test for defrost cycle type i; 

CTi is the compressor run time between 

instances of defrost cycle type i, for longtime automatic defrost control equal to a 

fixed time in hours rounded to the 

nearest tenth of an hour, and for variable 

defrost control equal to 

(CTLi × CTMi)/(F × (CTMi ¥ CTLi) + CTLi); 

CTLi = for defrost cycle type i, the shortest 

compressor run time between defrosts of 

this type observed for the test—or the 

shortest compressor run time between 

defrosts of this type used in the variable 

defrost control algorithm (greater than or 

equal to 6 but less than or equal to 12 

hours for the defrost cycle type with the 

longest compressor run time between 

defrosts)—whichever is shorter, in hours 

rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour; 

CTMi = maximum compressor run time 

between instances of defrost cycle type 

i in hours rounded to the nearest tenth 

of an hour (greater than CTLi but not 

more than 96 hours); 

For cases in which there is more than one 

fixed CT value (for long-time defrost models) 

or more than one CTM and/or CTL value (for 

variable defrost models) for a given defrost 

cycle type, an average fixed CT value or 

average CTM and CTL values shall be selected 

for this cycle type so that 12 divided by this 

value or values is the frequency of 

occurrence of the defrost cycle type in a 24 

hour period, assuming 50% compressor run 

time. 

F = default defrost energy consumption 

factor, equal to 0.20. 

For variable defrost models with no values 

for CTLi and CTMi in the algorithm, the 

default values of 6 and 96 shall be used, 

respectively. However, the shortest 

compressor run time between defrosts 

observed for defrost cycle type i during the 

test shall be used for CTLi, if it is less than 

6. 

D is the total number of distinct defrost 

cycle types. 

5.3 Volume Measurements. The unit’s 

total refrigerated volume, VT, shall be 

measured in accordance with HRF–1–2008 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), 

section 3.30 and sections 4.2 through 4.3. 

The measured volume shall include all 

spaces within the insulated volume of each 

compartment except for the volumes that 

must be deducted in accordance with section 

4.2.2 of HRF–1–2008, and be calculated 

equivalent to: 

VT = VF + VFF 

Where: 

VT = total refrigerated volume in cubic feet, 

VF = freezer compartment volume in cubic 

feet, and 

VFF = fresh food compartment volume in 

cubic feet. 

In the case of products with automatic 

icemakers, the volume occupied by the 

automatic icemaker, including its ice storage 

bin, is to be included in the volume 

measurement. 

Total refrigerated volume is determined by 

physical measurement of the test unit. 

Measurements and calculations used to 

determine the total refrigerated volume shall 

be retained as part of the test records 

underlying the certification of the basic 

model in accordance with 10 CFR 429.71. 

* * * * * 

6. Calculation of Derived Results From Test 

Measurements 

* * * * * 

6.2 Average Per-Cycle Energy 

Consumption. The average per-cycle energy 

consumption for a cycle type, E, is expressed 

in kilowatt-hours per cycle to the nearest one 

hundredth (0.01) kilowatt-hour and shall be 

calculated according to the sections below. 

6.2.1 All-Refrigerator Models. The 

average per-cycle energy consumption shall 

depend upon the temperature attainable in 

the fresh food compartment as shown below. 

* * * * * 

6.2.2 Refrigerators and RefrigeratorFreezers. The average per-cycle energy 

consumption shall be defined in one of the 

following ways as applicable. 

6.2.2.1 If the fresh food compartment 

temperature is at or below 39 °F (3.9 °C) 

during both tests and the freezer 

compartment temperature is at or below 15 

°F (¥9.4 °C) during both tests of a refrigerator 

or at or below 0 °F (¥17.8 °C) during both 

tests of a refrigerator-freezer, the average percycle energy consumption shall be: 

E = ET1 + IET 

Where: 

ET is defined in 5.2.1; 

IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle, 

equals 0 (zero) for products without an 

automatic icemaker, and for products 

with an automatic icemaker, shall be 

equal to 0.23 until the energy 

conservation standards at 10 CFR 

430.32(a) are amended. Beginning on the 

compliance date of any such amended 

standards, the icemaking energy shall be 

calculated as described in section 8.3.6 

of this appendix; and 

The number 1 indicates the test period 

during which the highest freezer 

compartment temperature was measured. 

6.2.2.2 If the conditions of 6.2.2.1 do not 

exist, the average per-cycle energy 

consumption shall be defined by the higher 

of the two values calculated by the following 

two formulas: 

E = ET1 + ((ET2 ¥ ET1) × (39.0 ¥ TR1)/(TR2 

¥ TR1)) + IET 

and 

E = ET1 + ((ET2 ¥ ET1) × (k ¥ TF1)/(TF2 

¥ TF1)) + IET 

Where: 

ET is defined in 5.2.1; 

IET is defined in 6.2.2.1; 

TR and the numbers 1 and 2 are defined in 

6.2.1.2; 

TF = freezer compartment temperature 

determined according to 5.1.4 in degrees 

F; 

39.0 is a specified fresh food compartment 

temperature in degrees F; and k is a 

constant 15.0 for refrigerators or 0.0 for 

refrigerator-freezers, each being 

standardized freezer compartment 

temperatures in degrees F. 

6.2.2.3 Optional Test for Models with 

Two Compartments and User Operable 

Controls. If the procedure of section 3.3 of 

this appendix is used for setting temperature 

controls, the average per-cycle energy 

consumption shall be defined as follows: 

E = Ex + IET 

Where: 

E is defined in 6.2.1.1; 

IET is defined in 6.2.2.1; and 

Ex is defined and calculated as described in 

AS/NZS 44474.1:2007 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3) appendix M, 

section M4(a). The target temperatures 

txA and txB defined in section M4(a)(i) of 

AS/NZS 44474.1:2007 shall be the 

standardized temperatures defined in 

section 3.2 of this appendix. 

* * * * * 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP10JY13.031</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41669 

8. Icemaking Test 

This section would apply to manufacturers 

seeking to demonstrate compliance with any 

new or amended energy conservation 

standard that DOE may issue in a final rule 

for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers that DOE may issue after September 

15, 2014. Absent the issuance of a test 

procedure waiver by the Department of 

Energy permitting the earlier use of this 

section, this section is not required unless 

and until such final rule is issued. 

8.1 Special Test Conditions. 

8.1.1 Multiple Icemakers. If one of the 

automatic icemakers in a product with 

multiple icemakers serves a through-the-door 

ice dispenser, initiate icemaking only for this 

icemaker when conducting the icemaking 

part of the test of section 8.3. 

8.1.2 Anti-sweat Heater. The anti-sweat 

heater switch shall be off for the icemaking 

test. In the case of a product equipped with 

variable anti-sweat heater control but without 

an anti-sweat heater switch, the test shall be 

conducted in an ambient humidity condition 

that will prevent the anti-sweat heater from 

being energized. 

8.1.3 Connection of water lines and 

installation of water filters are required. Inlet 

water temperature shall be 90 +/¥ 2 °F. The 

water supply system shall be designed to 

assure that inlet water temperature stays 

within this specified range at all times during 

the test. Inlet water pressure shall be 60 +/ 

¥ 15 psig. 

8.1.4 Data collection frequency for 

temperatures, power, and energy shall be no 

less than once per minute. 

8.1.5 Icemaker Cycle Indication. The end 

of one icemaker cycle and the start of the 

following icemaker cycle is defined to occur 

when the mold heater (to release ice pieces) 

is turned off. When measuring energy use for 

an icemaker (a) without a mold heater or (b) 

for which review of test data does not allow 

easy determination of the times that a mold 

heater was turned off, the end of one 

icemaker cycle and the start of the following 

icemaker cycle is defined to occur when one 

of the methods described in this section 

indicates the initiation of water flow into the 

icemaker mold. One of the following 

measurement approaches shall be used to 

indicate the start and end of icemaker cycles 

using measurements at a data acquisition 

time interval no greater than the data 

acquisition time interval used for the test’s 

energy and temperature measurements. The 

test data record maintained in accordance 

with 10 CFR 429.71 shall indicate which of 

these three methods is used. 

8.1.5.1 Mold Temperature. Measure 

icemaker mold temperature during the test 

with a temperature sensor adhered to the 

bottom of the icemaker mold. Ensure that the 

temperature sensor is installed so that the 

icemaker operation, including operations 

such as twisting of the icemaker mold and ice 

dropping into the ice bin, will not be 

impeded by the temperature sensor and its 

connecting wire(s), and that neither the 

temperature sensor nor its connecting wire(s) 

will be dislodged or damaged by icemaker 

operation. 

8.1.5.2 Water Supply Temperature. 

Measure the temperature of the water at a 

location in the water supply line where the 

measured temperature changes (within the 90 

+/¥2F supply temperature range) when 

water is supplied to the icemaker, thus 

reliably indicating the start of an icemaking 

cycle. If the temperature changes measurably 

when the icemaker water supply valve opens, 

this change may be used to provide an 

indication of when a new icemaker cycle has 

started. 

8.1.5.3 Solenoid Valve Activation. 

Measure power input, voltage, or current 

supplied to the icemaker water supply 

solenoid valve to indicate when the valve is 

energized. Make this measurement at a 

frequency sufficient to identify individual 

valve activation events, or use an event 

counter to track valve activation events. 

Alternatively, measure energy use of the 

valve with a precision sufficient to indicate 

individual activation events. 

8.2 Baseline Test. Render the icemaker 

inoperative as described in HRF–1–2008 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), 

section 5.5.2(c), and empty the ice storage bin 

before beginning the baseline test. 

8.2.1 Baseline Test Temperature Control 

Settings. Baseline test compartment 

temperatures shall be as defined in sections 

5.1.3 and 5.1.4 of this appendix and 

measured during the same test period used 

to determine baseline test average power, as 

described in section 8.2.3. Temperature 

controls shall be adjusted to their warmest 

settings for which baseline test compartment 

temperatures are no more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) 

warmer than their standardized 

temperatures, as defined in section 3.2 of this 

appendix. For products with a single 

temperature control, this requirement shall 

apply to the freezer compartment. For 

mechanical temperature controls, only 

settings corresponding to positions in which 

the indicator is aligned with a control symbol 

shall be used. Temperature controls shall be 

readjusted and stabilization shall be 

repeated, if necessary to meet this 

requirement. Temperature controls shall not 

be adjusted between the icemaking baseline 

test and subsequent parts of the icemaking 

test except as described in section 8.3.2.2. 

8.2.2 Stabilization. After setting the 

temperature controls as described in section 

8.2.1, wait until steady-state conditions have 

been confirmed, as described in section 2.9 

of this appendix. 

8.2.3 Baseline Test Average Power. The 

test period shall be as described in section 

4.1 of this appendix and shall not include 

any defrost cycles or events associated with 

a defrost cycle, such as precooling or 

recovery. The stabilization period and the 

baseline test period may overlap, provided 

the baseline test period ends no earlier than 

the stabilization period. The baseline test 

average power, expressed in Watts (W), shall 

be calculated as: 

Where: 

EPI1 = Energy use measured for the baseline 

test period (Icemaking Test Period 1), 

expressed in kilowatt-hours; 

TI1 = Length of time in minutes of the 

baseline test period; 

1,000 = conversion factor to adjust kilowatthours to watt-hours; and 

60 = conversion factor to adjust minutes to 

hours. 

8.3 Icemaking Test. 

8.3.1 Initiation and Duration of Icemaking 

Operation. 

8.3.1.1 For units that can complete 24 

hours of icemaking or can fill their ice 

storage bin without encountering a defrost or 

the precooling preceding the defrost, or for 

units for which the defrost can be disabled 

or bypassed by the tester, verify that the ice 

storage bin is empty and initiate icemaking 

during a compressor on cycle. Continue the 

icemaking operation until either: 

(a) The ice storage bin becomes full and 

stops the icemaker, or 

(b) an icemaker harvest occurs at least 24 

hours after the initial icemaker harvest. 

8.3.1.2 For units that cannot complete 24 

hours of icemaking without encountering a 

defrost or the precooling preceding the 

defrost, verify that the ice storage bin is 

empty and initiate icemaking shortly after the 

start of the compressor after a defrost. 

Continue the icemaking operation until 

either (a) the ice storage bin becomes full and 

stops the icemaker, or (b) the next defrost 

cycle occurs. 

8.3.2 Compartment Temperatures. 

8.3.2.1 Compartment Temperature 

Measurement. For products with cycling 

compressors during icemaking, the 

compartment temperatures shall be as 

measured for Icemaking Test Period 3, which 

is defined in section 8.3.5.2 and comprises a 

whole number of compressor cycles. For 

products with non-cycling compressors 

during icemaking, compartment temperatures 

shall be as measured for Icemaking Test 

Period 2, which is defined in section 8.3.4.1 

and comprises a whole number of icemaking 

cycles. 

8.3.2.2 Temperature Control Settings. If 

either compartment temperature is warmer 

during the icemaking test than it was during 

the baseline test without making temperature 

control setting adjustments, the compartment 

temperature controls shall be adjusted to 

their warmest settings for which 

compartment temperatures are no more than 

1 °F warmer than their temperatures 

measured for the baseline test. For products 

with a single temperature control, this 

requirement shall apply to the freezer 

compartment. For mechanical temperature 

controls, only settings corresponding to 

positions in which the indicator is aligned 

with a control symbol shall be used. For 

products with controls that automatically 

reduce compartment temperature settings or 

automatically increase compressor duty cycle 

or compressor speed to enhance cooling for 

icemaking, this enhanced cooling feature 

shall not be disabled during icemaking, and 

temperature control settings shall not be 

adjusted. 

8.3.3 Ice Mass per Icemaker Cycle. 

8.3.3.1 Total Ice Mass. After completion 

of icemaking, determine the total mass of ice 

produced, MICE, expressed in pounds, by 

weighing the ice storage bin when it contains 

the ice made during the test and subtracting 

the weight of the empty ice storage bin. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP10JY13.032</GPH>
41670 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

8.3.3.2 Total Number of Icemaker Cycles. 

Count the total number of icemaker cycles 

(i.e., number of harvests), TNCYC, that have 

occurred between initiation of icemaking and 

ice weight measurement based on 

examination of the recorded power input 

data or the measurements described in 

section 8.1.5. 

8.3.3.3 The Ice Mass per Icemaker Cycle, 

expressed in pounds, shall be calculated as: 

MICE_CYC = MICE/TNCYC

Where: 

MICE is defined in section 8.3.3.1; and 

TNCYC is defined in section 8.3.3.2. 

8.3.4 Energy Use per Ice Mass for NonCycling Compressor During Icemaking. This 

section describes the calculation of energy 

use per mass of ice produced if the 

compressor does not cycle during the 

icemaking test. Icemaking Test Period 2 can 

be used to measure both energy use per 

icemaker cycle and icemaking test average 

power. 

8.3.4.1 Icemaking Test Period 2. The test 

period shall include a whole number of 

icemaker cycles (defined in section 8.1.5). 

The following stability requirement shall 

apply for the chosen test period: the average 

temperature of the freezer compartment for 

each complete icemaker cycle included in 

the test period shall be within 3 °F (1.7 °C) 

of its temperature average for the full test 

period. The number of icemaker cycles 

within the test period is designated NCYC, 

which can be less than or equal to TNCYC. 

8.3.4.2 Icemaking Test Average Power. 

The test period shall be as described in 

section 8.3.4.1. The icemaking test average 

power, expressed in Watts (W), shall be 

calculated as: 

Where: 

EPI2 = Energy use measured for the 

icemaking test period (Icemaking Test 

Period 2), expressed in kilowatt-hours; 

TI2 = Length of time in minutes of the 

icemaking test period; 

1,000 = conversion factor to adjust kilowatthours to watt-hours; and 

60 = conversion factor to adjust minutes to 

hours. 

8.3.4.3 Energy Use per Ice Mass. The 

energy use per mass of ice produced, EIM, 

expressed in kilowatt-hours per pound, shall 

be calculated as: 

Where: 

PI2 and TI2 are defined in section 8.3.4.2; 

PI1 is defined in section 8.2.3; 

MICE_CYC is defined in section 8.3.3.4; 

NCYC is defined in section 8.3.4.1; 

1,000 = conversion factor to adjust watthours to kilowatt-hours; and 

60 = conversion factor to adjust minutes to 

hours. 

8.3.5 Energy Use per Ice Mass for Cycling 

Compressor During Icemaking. This section 

describes the calculation of energy use per 

mass of ice produced if the compressor 

cycles during the icemaking test. Icemaking 

Test Period 2 shall be used to measure energy 

use per icemaker cycle and Icemaking Test 

Period 3 shall be used to measure icemaking 

test average power. 

8.3.5.1 Icemaking Test Period 2. The 

icemaking test period for measuring energy 

use per icemaker cycle shall be as described 

in section 8.3.4.1, except that the stability 

requirement shall be evaluated for Icemaking 

Test Period 3 rather than for Icemaking Test 

Period 2 as follows: the average temperature 

of the freezer compartment for each 

compressor cycle within Test Period 3 must 

be within 3 °F (1.7 °C) of the average 

temperature of the freezer compartment 

during Icemaking Test Period 3, which 

comprises a whole number of compressor 

cycles. The stability requirement is satisfied 

if the freezer compartment temperature 

determined for each compressor cycle 

contained in the test period is within 3 °F 

(1.7 °C) of the compartment’s temperature for 

Icemaking Test Period 3. 

8.3.5.2 Icemaking Test Period 3. The test 

period for measuring icemaking average 

power shall be the longest period that can be 

selected from the test data that includes a 

whole number of compressor cycles starting 

after the start of Icemaking Test Period 2 and 

ending before the end of Icemaking Test 

Period 2. 

8.3.5.3 Icemaking Test Average Power. 

The test period for measuring average power 

shall be as described in section 8.3.5.2. The 

icemaking test average power, expressed in 

Watts (W), shall be calculated as: 

Where: 

EPI3 = Energy use measured for Icemaking 

Test Period 3, expressed in kilowatthours; 

TI3 = Length of time in minutes of Icemaking 

Test Period 3; 

1,000 = conversion factor to adjust kilowatthours to watt-hours; and 

60 = conversion factor to adjust minutes to 

hours. 

8.3.5.4 Energy Use per Ice Mass. The 

energy use per mass of ice produced, EIM, 

expressed in kilowatt-hours per pound, shall 

be calculated as: 

Where: 

PI3 is defined in section 8.3.5.3; 

PI1 is defined in section 8.2.3; 

EPI2 = Energy use, expressed in kilowatthours, measured during Icemaking Test 

Period 2, defined in section 8.3.4.1; 

MICE_CYC is defined in section 8.3.3.4; and 

NCYC is defined in section 8.3.4.1; 

8.3.6 The icemaking energy use per cycle, 

IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle, 

shall be calculated as: 

IET = 1.8 × EIM 

Where: 

EIM = Energy use per ice mass, defined in 

section 8.3.4.3 or 8.3.5.4; and 

1.8 = Daily ice production in pounds. 

■ 10. Appendix B to subpart B of part 

430 is amended: 

■ a. In section 1. Definitions, by: 

■ 1. Redesignating section 1.6 as 1.7; 

■ 2. Redesignating section 1.7 as 1.8; 

■ 3. Redesignating section 1.8 as 1.10; 

■ 4. Redesignating section 1.9 as 1.13; 

■ 5. Redesignating section 1.10 as 1.15; 

■ 6. Redesignating section 1.11 as 1.17; 

■ 7. Redesignating section 1.12 as 1.18; 

■ 8. Redesignating section 1.13 as 1.19; 

■ 9. Redesignating section 1.14 as 1.22; 

■ 10. Redesignating section 1.15 as 1.24; 

■ 11. Adding sections 1.6, 1.9, 1.11, 

1.12, 1.14, 1.16, 1.20 1.21, and 1.23; 

■ b. In section 2. Test Conditions, by; 

■ 1. Revising sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 

and 2.6; 

■ 2. Adding sections 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 

2.8, and 2.9; 

■ c. Revising section 3.2.1 and Table 1 

in section 3. Test Control Settings; 

■ d. Revising section 4.1 in section 4. 

Test Period; 

■ e. Revising sections 5.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1.3, 

and 5.3 in section 5. Test 

Measurements; 

■ f. In section 6. Calculation of Derived 

Results from Test Measurements, by: 

■ 1. Revising section 6.2; 

■ 2. Removing section 6.2.1 

■ 3. Redesignating section 6.2.1.1 as 

6.2.1 and revising the newly designated 

section 6.2.1; 

■ 4. Redesignating section 6.2.1.2 as 

6.2.2 and revising the newly designated 

section 6.2.2; 

■ 5. Redesignating section 6.2.2 as 6.2.3 

and revising the newly designated 

section 6.2.3; 

■ g. Adding section 8, Icemaking Test. 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Freezers 

* * * * * 

1. Definitions 

1.6 ‘‘Complete temperature cycle’’ means 

a time period defined based upon cycling of 

compartment temperature that starts when 

the compartment temperature is at a 

maximum and ends when the compartment 

temperature returns to an equivalent 

maximum (within 0.5 °F of the starting 

temperature), having in the interim fallen to 

a minimum and subsequently risen again to 

reach the second maximum. Alternatively, a 

complete temperature cycle can be defined to 

start when the compartment temperature is at 

a minimum and ends when the compartment 

temperature returns to an equivalent 

minimum (within 0.5 °F of the starting 

temperature), having in the interim risen to 

a maximum and subsequently fallen again to 

reach the second minimum. 

* * * * * 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP10JY13.033</GPH> EP10JY13.034</GPH> EP10JY13.035</GPH> EP10JY13.036</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41671 

1.9 ‘‘Harvest’’ means the process of 

freeing or removing ice pieces from an 

automatic icemaker. 

* * * * * 

1.11 ‘‘Ice piece’’ means a piece of ice 

made by an automatic icemaker that has not 

been reduced in size by crushing or other 

mechanical action. 

1.12 ‘‘Ice storage bin’’ means a container 

in which ice can be stored. 

* * * * * 

1.14 ‘‘Precooling’’ means operating a 

refrigeration system before initiation of a 

defrost cycle to reduce one or more 

compartment temperatures significantly 

(more than 0.5 °F) below its minimum during 

stable operation between defrosts. 

* * * * * 

1.16 ‘‘Recovery’’ means operating a 

refrigeration system after the conclusion of a 

defrost cycle to reduce the temperature of 

one or more compartments to the 

temperature range that the compartment(s) 

exhibited during stable operation between 

defrosts. 

* * * * * 

1.20 ‘‘Stable operation’’ means operation 

after steady-state conditions have been 

achieved but excluding any events associated 

with defrost cycles. During stable operation 

the rate of change of all compartment 

temperatures must not exceed 0.042 °F (0.023 

°C) per hour. Such a calculation performed 

for compartment temperatures at any two 

times, or for any two complete cycles, during 

stable operation must meet this requirement. 

(A) If compartment temperatures do not 

cycle, the relevant calculation shall be the 

difference between the temperatures at two 

points in time divided by the difference, in 

hours, between those points in time. 

(B) If compartment temperatures cycle as a 

result of compressor cycling or other cycling 

operation of any system component (e.g., a 

damper, fan, or heater), the relevant 

calculation shall be the difference between 

compartment temperature averages evaluated 

for whole compressor cycles or complete 

temperature cycles divided by the difference, 

in hours, between either the starts, ends, or 

mid-times of the two cycles. 

1.21 ‘‘Stable period of compressor 

operation’’ is a period of stable operation of 

a refrigeration system that has a compressor. 

* * * * * 

1.23 ‘‘Through-the-door ice/water 

dispenser’’ means a device incorporated 

within the cabinet, but outside the boundary 

of the refrigerated space, that delivers to the 

user on demand ice or water from within the 

refrigerated space without opening an 

exterior door. This definition includes 

dispensers that are capable of dispensing ice 

and water, ice only, or water only. 

* * * * * 

2. Test Conditions 

2.1 Ambient Temperature Measurement. 

Temperature measuring devices shall be 

shielded so that indicated temperatures are 

not affected by the operation of the 

condensing unit or adjacent units. 

2.1.1 Ambient Temperature. The ambient 

temperature shall be recorded at points 

located 3 feet (91.5 cm) above the floor and 

10 inches (25.4 cm) from the center of the 

two sides of the unit under test. The ambient 

temperature shall be 90.0 ±1.0 °F (32.2 ±0.6 

°C) during the stabilization period and the 

test period. 

2.1.2 Ambient Temperature Gradient. The 

test room vertical ambient temperature 

gradient in any foot of vertical distance from 

2 inches (5.1 cm) above the floor or 

supporting platform to a height of 7 feet (2.2 

m) or to a height 1 foot (30.5 cm) above the 

top of the unit under test, whichever is 

greater, is not to exceed 0.5 °F per foot (0.9 

°C per meter). 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. To demonstrate 

that this requirement has been met, test data 

must include measurements taken using 

temperature sensors at locations 2 inches (5.1 

cm) and 36 inches (91.4 cm) above the floor 

or supporting platform and at a height of 1 

foot (30.5 cm) above the unit under test. 

2.1.3 Platform. A platform must be used 

if the floor temperature is not within 3 °F (1.7 

°C) of the measured ambient temperature. If 

a platform is used, it is to have a solid top 

with all sides open for air circulation 

underneath, and its top shall extend at least 

1 foot (30.5 cm) beyond each side and front 

of the unit under test and extend to the wall 

in the rear. 

2.2 Operational Conditions. The freezer 

shall be installed and its operating conditions 

maintained in accordance with HRF–1–2008 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), 

sections 5.3.2 through section 5.5.5.5 (but 

excluding sections 5.5.5.2 and 5.5.5.4). The 

quick freeze option shall be switched off 

except as specified in section 3.1 of this 

appendix. Additional clarifications are noted 

in sections 2.3 through 2.9 of this appendix. 

2.3 Anti-Sweat Heaters. The anti-sweat 

heater switch is to be on during one test and 

off during a second test. In the case of an 

electric freezer with variable anti-sweat 

heater control, the standard cycle energy use 

shall be the result of the calculation 

described in 6.2.3. 

2.4 The unit under test and its 

refrigerating mechanism shall be assembled 

and set up in accordance with the printed 

consumer instructions supplied with the 

unit. Set-up of the freezer shall not deviate 

from these instructions, unless explicitly 

required or allowed by this test procedure. 

Specific required or allowed deviations from 

such set-up include the following: 

(a) Connection of water lines and 

installation of water filters are required only 

when conducting the icemaking test 

described in section 8 of this appendix; 

(b) Clearance requirements from surfaces of 

the unit shall be as described in section 2.6 

of this appendix; 

(c) The electric power supply shall be as 

described in HRF–1–2008 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3) section 5.5.1; 

(d) Temperature control settings for testing 

shall be as described in section 3 of this 

appendix. Settings for special compartments 

shall be as described in section 2.5 of this 

appendix; 

(e) The unit does not need to be anchored 

or otherwise secured to prevent tipping 

during energy testing; 

(f) All the unit’s chutes and throats 

required for the delivery of ice shall be free 

of packing, covers, or other blockages that 

may be fitted for shipping or when the 

icemaker is not in use; and 

(g) Ice storage bins shall be emptied of ice 

except as required for the icemaking test 

described in section 8 of this appendix. 

For cases in which set-up is not clearly 

defined by this test procedure, manufacturers 

must submit a petition for a waiver (see 

section 7 of this appendix). 

* * * * * 

2.6 Rear Clearance. 

(a) General. The space between the lowest 

edge of the rear plane of the cabinet and a 

vertical surface (the test room wall or 

simulated wall) shall be the minimum 

distance in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s instructions, unless other 

provisions of this section apply. The rear 

plane shall be considered to be the largest flat 

surface at the rear of the cabinet, excluding 

features that protrude beyond this surface, 

such as brackets, the compressor, or rearwall-mounted condensers. 

(b) Maximum clearance. The clearance 

shall not be greater than 2 inches (51 mm) 

from the lowest edge of the rear plane to the 

vertical surface, unless the provisions of 

subsection (c) of this section apply. 

(c) If permanent rear spacers or other 

components that protrude beyond the rear 

plane extend further than the 2 inch (51 mm) 

distance, or if the highest edge of the rear 

plane is in contact with the vertical surface 

when the unit is positioned with the lowest 

edge of the rear plane at or further than the 

2 inch (51 mm) distance from the vertical 

surface, the appliance shall be located with 

the spacers or other components protruding 

beyond the rear plane, or the highest edge of 

the rear plane, in contact with the vertical 

surface. 

* * * * * 

2.8 Freezers with Demand-Response 

Capability. For freezers that have a 

communication module for demand-response 

functions, whether integrated within the 

cabinet or external to the cabinet and 

connected by the consumer, the 

communication module must be installed, 

energized, and connected to a network, but 

there shall be no active communication 

during testing. 

2.9 For products that require the freezer 

compartment to be loaded with packages in 

accordance with section 5.5.5.3 of HRF–1– 

2008, the number of packages comprising the 

75% load shall be determined by filling the 

compartment completely with the packages 

that are to be used for the test, such that the 

packages fill as much of the usable 

refrigerated space within the compartment as 

is physically possible and removing from the 

compartment a number of packages so that 

the compartment contains 75% of the 

packages that were placed in the 

compartment to completely fill it. For multishelf units this method should be applied to 

each shelf. The remaining packages may be 

arranged as necessary to provide the required 

air gap and thermocouple placement. The 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41672 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

number of packages comprising the 100% 

and 75% loading conditions should be 

recorded in the test data maintained in 

accordance with 10 CFR 429.71. 

3. Test Control Settings 

* * * * * 

3.2 * * * 

3.2.1 A first test shall be performed with 

all temperature controls set at their median 

position midway between their warmest and 

coldest settings. For mechanical control 

systems, (a) knob detents shall be 

mechanically defeated if necessary to attain 

a median setting, and (b) the warmest and 

coldest settings shall correspond to the 

positions in which the indicator is aligned 

with control symbols indicating the warmest 

and coldest settings. For electronic control 

systems, the test shall be performed with all 

compartment temperature controls set at the 

average of the coldest and warmest settings— 

if there is no setting equal to this average, the 

setting closest to the average shall be used. 

If there are two such settings equally close to 

the average, the higher of these temperature 

control settings shall be used. 

A second test shall be performed with all 

controls set at either their warmest or their 

coldest setting (not electrically or 

mechanically bypassed), whichever is 

appropriate, to attempt to achieve 

compartment temperatures measured during 

the two tests that bound (i.e., one is above 

and one is below) the standardized 

temperature. If the compartment 

temperatures measured during these two 

tests bound the standardized temperature, 

then these test results shall be used to 

determine energy consumption. If the 

compartment temperature measured with all 

controls set at their coldest setting is above 

the standardized temperature, the tested unit 

fails the test and cannot be rated. If the 

compartment temperature measured with all 

controls set at their warmest setting is below 

the standardized temperature, then the result 

of this test alone will be used to determine 

energy consumption. Also see Table 1 of this 

appendix, which summarizes these 

requirements. 

TABLE 1—TEMPERATURE SETTINGS FOR FREEZERS

First test Second test Energy calculation based 

on— Settings Results Settings Results 

Mid ..................................... Low ................................... Warm ................................ Low ................................... Second Test Only. 

High .................................. First and Second Tests. 

High .................................. Cold .................................. Low ................................... First and Second Tests. 

High .................................. No Energy Use Rating. 

* * * * * 

4. Test Period 

* * * * * 

4.1 Non-automatic Defrost. If the model 

being tested has no automatic defrost system, 

the test period shall start after steady-state 

conditions (see section 2.7 of this appendix) 

have been achieved and be no less than three 

hours in duration. During the test period, the 

compressor motor shall complete two or 

more whole compressor cycles. (A whole 

compressor cycle is a complete ‘‘on’’ and a 

complete ‘‘off’’ period of the motor.) If no 

‘‘off’’ cycling occurs, the test period shall be 

three hours. If incomplete cycling occurs 

(less than two compressor cycles during a 24- 

hour period), then a single complete 

compressor cycle may be used. 

* * * * * 

5. Test Measurements 

* * * * * 

5.1 Temperature Measurements. 

Temperature measurements shall be made at 

the locations prescribed in Figure 5.2 of 

HRF–1–2008 (incorporated by reference; see 

§ 430.3) and shall be accurate to within 

±0.5 °F (0.3 °C). 

If the interior arrangements of the unit 

under test do not conform with those shown 

in Figure 5.2 of HRF–1–2008, the unit may 

be tested by relocating the temperature 

sensors from the locations specified in the 

figures to avoid interference with nonadjustable hardware or components within 

the unit, in which case the specific locations 

used for the temperature sensors shall be 

noted in the test data records maintained by 

the manufacturer in accordance with 10 CFR 

429.71, and the certification report shall 

indicate that non-standard sensor locations 

were used. 

If the temperature sensor placement 

required by this section is impeded by 

adjustable shelves or other components that 

could be relocated by the consumer, those 

components shall be repositioned as 

necessary to allow for placement of the 

sensors in the required locations. Any 

repositioning of components shall adhere as 

closely as practicable to the set-up 

instructions specified in section 5.5.2 of 

HRF–1–2008 while maintaining a minimum 

1 inch air space between the sensor thermal 

mass and adjacent hardware. 

* * * * * 

5.1.2 Compartment Temperature. The 

compartment temperature for each test 

period shall be an average of the measured 

temperatures taken in a compartment during 

the test period as defined in section 4 of this 

appendix. For long-time automatic defrost 

models, compartment temperature shall be 

that measured in the first part of the test 

period specified in section 4.2.1 of this 

appendix. For models with variable defrost 

controls, compartment temperature shall be 

that measured in the first part of the test 

period specified in section 4.2.2 of this 

appendix. For models with automatic defrost 

that is neither long-time nor variable defrost, 

the compartment temperature shall be an 

average of the measured temperatures taken 

in a compartment during a stable period of 

compressor operation that; 

(a) Includes no defrost cycles or events 

associated with a defrost cycle, such as 

precooling or recovery, 

(b) Is no less than three hours in duration, 

and 

(c) Includes two or more whole compressor 

cycles or two or more complete temperature 

cycles. If neither the compressor nor the 

temperature cycles, the stable period used for 

the temperature average shall be three hours 

in duration. 

* * * * * 

5.2.1.3 Variable Defrost Control. The 

energy consumption in kilowatt-hours per 

day shall be calculated equivalent to: 

ET = (1440 × K × EP1/T1) + (EP2¥(EP1 × T2/ 

T1)) × K × (12/CT), 

Where: 

ET, K, and 1440 are defined in section 

5.2.1.1; 

EP1, EP2, T1, T2, and 12 are defined in 

section 5.2.1.2; 

CT = (CTL × CTM)/(F × (CTM ¥ CTL) + CTL) 

Where: 

CTL = the shortest compressor run time 

between defrosts observed for the test— 

or the shortest compressor run time 

between defrosts used in the variable 

defrost control algorithm (greater than or 

equal to 6 but less than or equal to 12 

hours)—whichever is shorter, in hours 

rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour; 

CTM = maximum compressor run time 

between defrosts in hours rounded to the 

nearest tenth of an hour (greater than 

CTL but not more than 96 hours); 

F = ratio of per day energy consumption in 

excess of the least energy and the 

maximum difference in per-day energy 

consumption and is equal to 0.20. 

For variable defrost models with no values 

for CTL and CTM in the algorithm, the default 

values of 6 and 96 shall be used, respectively. 

However, the shortest compressor run time 

between defrosts observed for the test shall 

be used for CTL, if it is less than 6. 

5.3 Volume Measurements. The unit’s 

total refrigerated volume, VT, shall be 

measured in accordance with HRF–1–2008 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), 

section 3.30 and sections 4.2 through 4.3. 

The measured volume shall include all 

spaces within the insulated volume of each 

compartment except for the volumes that 

must be deducted in accordance with section 

4.2.2 of HRF–1–2008. 

In the case of freezers with automatic 

icemakers, the volume occupied by the 

automatic icemaker, including its ice storage 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41673 

bin, is to be included in the volume 

measurement. 

Total refrigerated volume is determined by 

physical measurement of the test unit. 

Measurements and calculations used to 

determine the total refrigerated volume shall 

be retained as part of the test records 

underlying the certification of the basic 

model in accordance with 10 CFR 429.71. 

* * * * * 

6. Calculation of Derived Results From Test 

Measurements 

* * * * * 

6.2 Average Per-Cycle Energy 

Consumption. The average per-cycle energy 

consumption for a cycle type, E, is expressed 

in kilowatt-hours per cycle to the nearest one 

hundredth (0.01) kilowatt-hour, and shall be 

calculated according to the sections below. 

6.2.1 If the compartment temperature is 

always below 0.0 °F (¥17.8 °C), the average 

per-cycle energy consumption shall be 

equivalent to: 

E = ET1 + IET 

Where: 

ET is defined in 5.2.1; 

The number 1 indicates the test period 

during which the highest compartment 

temperature is measured; and 

IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle, 

equals 0 (zero) for products without an 

automatic icemaker, and for products with an 

automatic icemaker shall be equal to 0.23 

until the energy conservation standards at 10 

CFR 430.32(a) are amended. Beginning on the 

compliance date of any such amended 

standards, the icemaking energy shall be 

calculated as described in section 8.3.6 of 

this appendix. 

6.2.2 If one of the compartment 

temperatures measured for a test period is 

greater than 0.0 °F (17.8 °C), the average percycle energy consumption shall be equivalent 

to: 

E = ET1 + ((ET2 ¥ ET1) × (0.0 ¥ TF1)/(TF2 

¥ TF1)) + IET 

Where: 

IET is defined in 6.2.1 and ET is defined in 

5.2.1; 

TF = freezer compartment temperature 

determined according to 5.1.3 in degrees 

F; 

The numbers 1 and 2 indicate 

measurements taken during the first and 

second test period as appropriate; and 

0.0 = standardized compartment temperature 

in degrees F. 

6.2.3 Variable Anti-Sweat Heater Models. 

The standard cycle energy consumption of an 

electric freezer with a variable anti-sweat 

heater control (Estd), expressed in kilowatthours per day, shall be calculated equivalent 

to: 

Estd = E + (Correction Factor) where E is 

determined by 6.2.1, or 6.2.2, whichever 

is appropriate, with the anti-sweat heater 

switch in the ‘‘off’’ position or, for a 

product without an anti-sweat heater 

switch, the anti-sweat heater in its 

lowest energy use state. 

Correction Factor = (Anti-sweat Heater Power 

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

(1 kW/1000 W) 

Where: 

Anti-sweat Heater Power = 0.034 * (Heater 

Watts at 5%RH) 

+ 0.211 * (Heater Watts at 15%RH) 

+ 0.204 * (Heater Watts at 25%RH) 

+ 0.166 * (Heater Watts at 35%RH) 

+ 0.126 * (Heater Watts at 45%RH) 

+ 0.119 * (Heater Watts at 55%RH) 

+ 0.069 * (Heater Watts at 65%RH) 

+ 0.047 * (Heater Watts at 75%RH) 

+ 0.008 * (Heater Watts at 85%RH) 

+ 0.015 * (Heater Watts at 95%RH) 

Heater Watts at a specific relative humidity 

= the nominal watts used by all heaters 

at that specific relative humidity, 72 °F 

ambient (22.2 °C), and DOE reference 

freezer (FZ) average temperature of 0 °F 

(¥17.8 °C). 

System-loss Factor = 1.3 

* * * * * 

8. Icemaking Test 

This section would apply to manufacturers 

seeking to demonstrate compliance with any 

new or amended energy conservation 

standard that DOE may issue in a final rule 

for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers after September 15, 2014. Absent the 

issuance of a test procedure waiver by the 

Department of Energy permitting the earlier 

use of this section, this section is not 

required unless and until such final rule is 

issued. 

8.1 Special Test Conditions. 

8.1.1 Multiple Icemakers. If one of the 

automatic icemakers in a product with 

multiple icemakers serves a through-the-door 

ice dispenser, initiate icemaking only for this 

icemaker when conducting the icemaking 

part of the test of section 8.3. 

8.1.2 Anti-sweat Heater. The anti-sweat 

heater switch shall be off for the icemaking 

test. In the case of a freezer equipped with 

variable anti-sweat heater control but without 

an anti-sweat heater switch, the test shall be 

conducted in an ambient humidity condition 

that will prevent the anti-sweat heater from 

being energized. 

8.1.3 Connection of water lines and 

installation of water filters are required. Inlet 

water temperature shall be 90 +/¥ 2 °F. The 

water supply system shall be designed to 

assure that inlet water temperature stays 

within this specified range at all times during 

the test. Inlet water pressure shall be 

60 +/¥ 15 psig. 

8.1.4 Data collection frequency for 

temperatures, power, and energy shall be no 

less than once per minute. 

8.1.5 Icemaker Cycle Indication. The end 

of one icemaker cycle and the start of the 

following icemaker cycle is defined to occur 

when the mold heater (to release ice pieces) 

is turned off. When measuring energy use for 

an icemaker (a) without a mold heater or (b) 

for which review of test data does not allow 

easy determination of the times that a mold 

heater was turned off, the end of one 

icemaker cycle and the start of the following 

icemaker cycle is defined to occur when one 

of the methods described in this section 

indicates the initiation of water flow into the 

icemaker mold. One of the following 

measurement approaches shall be used to 

indicate the start and end of icemaker cycles 

using measurements at a data acquisition 

time interval no greater than the data 

acquisition time interval used for the test’s 

energy and temperature measurements. The 

test data record maintained in accordance 

with 10 CFR 429.71 shall indicate which of 

these three methods is used. 

8.1.5.1 Mold Temperature. Measure 

icemaker mold temperature during the test 

with a temperature sensor adhered to the 

bottom of the icemaker mold. Ensure that the 

temperature sensor is installed so that the 

icemaker operation, including operations 

such as twisting of the icemaker mold and ice 

dropping into the ice bin, will not be 

impeded by the temperature sensor and its 

connecting wire(s), and that neither the 

temperature sensor nor its connecting wire(s) 

will be dislodged or damaged by icemaker 

operation. 

8.1.5.2 Water Supply Temperature. 

Measure the temperature of the water at a 

location in the water supply line where the 

measured temperature changes (within the 90 

±2F supply temperature range) when water is 

supplied to the icemaker, thus reliably 

indicating the start of an icemaking cycle. If 

the temperature changes measurably when 

the icemaker water supply valve opens, this 

change may be used to provide an indication 

of when a new icemaker cycle has started. 

8.1.5.3 Solenoid Valve Activation. 

Measure power input, voltage, or current 

supplied to the icemaker water supply 

solenoid valve to indicate when the valve is 

energized. Make this measurement at a 

frequency sufficient to identify individual 

valve activation events, or use an event 

counter to track valve activation events. 

Alternatively, measure energy use of the 

valve with a precision sufficient to indicate 

individual activation events. 

8.2 Baseline Test. Render the icemaker 

inoperative as described in HRF–1–2008 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), 

section 5.5.2(c), and empty the ice storage bin 

before beginning the baseline test. 

8.2.1 Baseline Test Temperature Control 

Settings. Baseline test compartment 

temperatures shall be as defined in section 

5.1.3 of this appendix and measured during 

the same test period used to determine 

baseline test average power, as described in 

section 8.2.3. Temperature controls shall be 

adjusted to their warmest settings for which 

baseline test compartment temperatures are 

no more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) warmer than their 

standardized temperatures, as defined in 

section 3.2 of this appendix. For mechanical 

temperature controls, only settings 

corresponding to positions in which the 

indicator is aligned with a control symbol 

shall be used. Temperature controls shall be 

readjusted and stabilization shall be 

repeated, if necessary to meet this 

requirement. Temperature controls shall not 

be adjusted between the icemaking baseline 

test and subsequent parts of the icemaking 

test except as described in section 8.3.2.2. 

8.2.2 Stabilization. After setting the 

temperature controls as described in section 

8.2.1, wait until steady-state conditions have 

been confirmed, as described in section 2.7 

of this appendix. 

8.2.3 Baseline Test Average Power. The 

test period shall be as described in section 

4.1 of this appendix and shall not include 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41674 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

any defrost cycles or events associated with 

a defrost cycle, such as precooling or 

recovery. The stabilization period and the 

baseline test period may overlap, provided 

the baseline test period ends no earlier than 

the stabilization period. The baseline test 

average power, expressed in Watts (W), shall 

be calculated as: 

Where: 

EPI1 = Energy use measured for the baseline 

test period (Icemaking Test Period 1), 

expressed in kilowatt-hours; 

TI1 = Length of time in minutes of the 

baseline test period; 

1,000 = conversion factor to adjust kilowatthours to watt-hours; and 

60 = conversion factor to adjust minutes to 

hours. 

8.3 Icemaking Test 

8.3.1 Initiation and Duration of Icemaking 

Operation 

8.3.1.1 For units that can complete 24 

hours of icemaking or can fill their ice 

storage bin without encountering a defrost or 

the precooling preceding the defrost, or for 

units for which the defrost can be disabled 

or bypassed by the tester, verify that the ice 

storage bin is empty and initiate icemaking 

during a compressor on cycle. Continue the 

icemaking operation until either: 

(a) The ice storage bin becomes full and 

stops the icemaker, or 

(b) An icemaker harvest occurs at least 24 

hours after the initial icemaker harvest. 

8.3.1.2 For units that cannot complete 24 

hours of icemaking without encountering a 

defrost or the precooling preceding the 

defrost, verify that the ice storage bin is 

empty and initiate icemaking shortly after the 

start of the compressor after a defrost. 

Continue the icemaking operation until 

either: 

(a) The ice storage bin becomes full and 

stops the icemaker, or 

(b) The next defrost cycle occurs. 

8.3.2 Compartment Temperature. 

8.3.2.1 Compartment Temperature 

Measurement. For products with cycling 

compressors during icemaking, the 

compartment temperature shall be as 

measured for Icemaking Test Period 3, which 

is defined in section 8.3.5.2 and comprises a 

whole number of compressor cycles. For 

products with non-cycling compressors 

during icemaking, compartment temperatures 

shall be as measured for Icemaking Test 

Period 2 (defined in section 8.3.4.1) and 

comprises a whole number of icemaking 

cycles. 

8.3.2.2 Temperature Control Settings. If 

the compartment temperature is warmer 

during the icemaking test than it was during 

the baseline test without making temperature 

control setting adjustments, the compartment 

temperature control shall be adjusted to its 

warmest setting for which compartment 

temperature is no more than 1 °F warmer 

than its temperature measured for the 

baseline test. For mechanical temperature 

controls, only settings corresponding to 

positions in which the indicator is aligned 

with a control symbol shall be used. For 

products with controls that automatically 

reduce compartment temperature settings or 

automatically increase compressor duty cycle 

or compressor speed to enhance cooling for 

icemaking, this enhanced cooling feature 

shall not be disabled during icemaking, and 

temperature control settings shall not be 

adjusted. 

8.3.3 Ice Mass per Icemaker Cycle 

8.3.3.1 Total Ice Mass. After completion 

of icemaking, determine the total mass of ice 

produced, MICE, expressed in pounds, by 

weighing the ice storage bin when it contains 

the ice made during the test and subtracting 

the weight of the empty ice storage bin. 

8.3.3.2 Total Number of Icemaker Cycles. 

Count the total number of icemaker cycles 

(i.e., number of harvests), TNCYC, that have 

occurred between initiation of icemaking and 

ice weight measurement based on 

examination of the recorded power input 

data or the measurements described in 

section 8.1.5. 

8.3.3.3 The Ice Mass per Icemaker Cycle, 

expressed in pounds, shall be calculated as: 

MICE_CYC = MICE/TNCYC

Where: 

MICE is defined in section 8.3.2.1; and 

TNCYC is defined in section 8.3.2.2. 

8.3.4 Energy Use per Ice Mass for NonCycling Compressor During Icemaking. This 

section describes the calculation of energy 

use per mass of ice produced if the 

compressor does not cycle during the 

icemaking test. Icemaking Test Period 2 can 

be used to measure both energy use per 

icemaker cycle and icemaking test average 

power. 

8.3.4.1 Icemaking Test Period 2. The test 

period shall include a whole number of 

icemaker cycles (defined in section 8.1.5). 

The following stability requirement shall 

apply for the chosen test period: the average 

temperature of the freezer compartment for 

each complete icemaker cycle included in 

the test period shall be within 3 °F (1.7 °C) 

of its temperature average for the full test 

period. The number of icemaker cycles 

within the test period is designated NCYC, 

which can be less than or equal to TNCYC. 

8.3.4.2 Icemaking Test Average Power. 

The test period shall be as described in 

section 8.3.4.1. The icemaking test average 

power, expressed in Watts (W), shall be 

calculated as: 

Where: 

EPI2 = Energy use measured for the 

icemaking test period (Icemaking Test 

Period 2), expressed in kilowatt-hours; 

TI2 = Length of time in minutes of the 

icemaking test period; 

1,000 = conversion factor to adjust kilowatthours to watt-hours; and 

60 = conversion factor to adjust minutes to 

hours. 

8.3.4.3 Energy Use per Ice Mass. The 

energy use per mass of ice produced, EIM, 

expressed in kilowatt-hours per pound, shall 

be calculated as: 

Where: 

PI2 and TI2 are defined in section 8.3.4.2; 

PI1 is defined in section 8.2.3; 

MICE_CYC is defined in section 8.3.3.4; 

NCYC is defined in section 8.3.4.1; 

1,000 = conversion factor to adjust watthours to kilowatt-hours; and 

60 = conversion factor to adjust minutes to 

hours. 

8.3.5 Energy Use per Ice Mass for Cycling 

Compressor During Icemaking. This section 

describes the calculation of energy use per 

mass of ice produced if the compressor 

cycles during the icemaking test. Icemaking 

Test Period 2 shall be used to measure energy 

use per icemaker cycle and Icemaking Test 

Period 3 shall be used to measure icemaking 

test average power. 

8.3.5.1 Icemaking Test Period 2. The 

icemaking test period for measuring energy 

use per icemaker cycle shall be as described 

in section 8.3.4.1, except that the stability 

requirement shall be evaluated for Icemaking 

Test Period 3 rather than for Icemaking Test 

Period 2 as follows: the average temperature 

of the freezer compartment for each 

compressor cycle within Test Period 3 must 

be within 3 °F (1.7 °C) of the average 

temperature of the freezer compartment 

during Icemaking Test Period 3. 

8.3.5.2 Icemaking Test Period 3. The test 

period for measuring icemaking average 

power shall be the longest period that can be 

selected from the test data that includes a 

whole number of compressor cycles starting 

after the start of Icemaking Test Period 2 and 

ending before the end of Icemaking Test 

Period 2. 

8.3.5.3 Icemaking Test Average Power. 

The test period for measuring average power 

shall be as described in section 8.3.5.2. The 

icemaking test average power, expressed in 

Watts (W), shall be calculated as: 

Where: 

EPI3 = Energy use measured for Icemaking 

Test Period 3, expressed in kilowatthours; 

TI3 = Length of time in minutes of Icemaking 

Test Period 3; 

1,000 = conversion factor to adjust kilowatthours to watt-hours; and 

60 = conversion factor to adjust minutes to 

hours. 

8.3.5.4 Energy Use per Ice Mass. The 

energy use per mass of ice produced, EIM, 

expressed in kilowatt-hours per pound, shall 

be calculated as: 

Where: 

PI3 is defined in section 8.3.5.3; 

PI1 is defined in section 8.2.3; 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP10JY13.037</GPH> EP10JY13.038</GPH> EP10JY13.039</GPH> EP10JY13.040</GPH> EP10JY13.041</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 41675 

EPI2 = Energy use, expressed in kilowatthours, measured during Icemaking Test 

Period 2, defined in section 8.3.4.1; 

MICE_CYC is defined in section 8.3.3.4; and 

NCYC is defined in section 8.3.4.1; 

8.3.6 The icemaking energy use per cycle, 

IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle, 

shall be calculated as: 

IET = 1.8 × EIM 

Where: 

EIM = Energy use per ice mass, defined in 

section 8.3.4.3 or 8.3.5.4; and 

1.8 = Daily ice production in pounds. 

[FR Doc. 2013–16281 Filed 7–9–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4