1 |EnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergyeere.energy.gov[INSERTPICTURE(S)OFPRODUCT(S)][INSERTPICTURE(S)OFPRODUCT(S)]ProposedTestProcedureforRefrigerators,Refrigerator‐Freezers,andFreezers7/25/2013LucasAdinDepartmentofEnergyBuildingTechnologiesProgramEERE‐2012‐BT‐TP‐0016Res‐Refrig‐Freezer‐2012‐BT‐TP‐0016@ee.doe.gov2Welcome•Introductions(aroundtheroom)•RoleoftheFacilitator•GroundRules–Speakoneatatime.–Sayyournamefortherecord– therewillbeacompletetranscriptofthismeeting.–Beconcise– sharethe‘air‐time’.–Keepthefocushere– cellphonesonsilent;limitsidebarconversations.–Webinarparticipantsturnphoneonmute;“raiseyourhand”toberecognizedtospeak.•HousekeepingItems•AgendaReview•OpeningRemarks3Agenda1) 9:00AM Introductions2) 9:15AM StakeholderOpeningStatements3) 9:45AM RegulatoryHistory4) 10:00AM ProductsCoveredbytheTestProcedureChanges5) 10:45AM TestProcedureAmendments6) 3:15PMOtherIssuesUnderConsideration7) 3:35PM CompliancewithOtherEPCARequirements8) 3:55PM ClosingRemarks4PublicMeetingSlidesTopics1Introductions2Stakeholder Opening Statements3Regulatory History4Products Covered by the Test Procedure Changes5Proposed Test Procedure Amendments6Other Issues Under Consideration7Compliance with Other EPCA Requirements8Closing Remarks5ListeningViatheWebcast•TheDepartmentisbroadcastingthismeetingliveovertheInternet.•DOEisprovidingthewebcasttoaccommodatestakeholdersthatareunabletoattendthepublicmeetinginperson.•Thewebbroadcastallowsstakeholderstolisteninandviewtheslides.•Allstakeholdersareencouragedtosubmitwrittencommentsafterthepublicmeeting.6PurposeofthePublicMeeting•PresentDOE’sproposedstandardsforrefrigerators,refrigerator‐freezers,andfreezers.•Invitecommentonthenoticeofproposedrulemaking(NOPR)document.•Discussnextstepsintherulemaking.•Inviteparticipantstoprovidesummarycommentsorstatementsandraiseadditionalissuesfordiscussion.7StepsintheTestProceduresRulemaking•NOPR publishedbyDOEonJuly10,2013•NOPRPublicMeetingtoday,July25,2013•CommentsonNOPRfrominterestedparties•Transcriptrecordsoralcommentsfromtoday’spublicmeeting•Writtencomments(commentperiodclosesSeptember23,2013‐75daysafterpublicationintheFederalRegister)•DOEreviewsandconsidersallcomments•FinalRulePublicationFinalRuleNOPR8PublicMeetingSlidesTopics1Introductions2Stakeholder Opening Statements3Regulatory History4Products Covered by the Test Procedure Changes5Proposed Test Procedure Amendments6Other Issues Under Consideration7Compliance with Other EPCA Requirements8Closing Remarks9StakeholderComments•Workshopparticipantsareinvitedtoprovidesummarycommentsorstatements•ParticipantsarealsoinvitedtoraisetheirissuesontheTestProcedureNOPRfordiscussiontoday10IssuesforDiscussion•Issueboxnumberingcorrespondstothelistofissues publishedattheendoftheNOPRdocument,availableat:http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐2013‐07‐10/pdf/2013‐16281.pdf•ThedeadlineforsubmittingcommentsisSeptember23, 2013.Issue Box: DOE welcomes comments, data, andinformation concerning its proposed standards for[PRODUCT(S)]. Issues that correspond to thoseraised in DOE’s published material will be numberedin accordance with that material. Whether invited byan issue box or not, comments are welcome on anypart of DOE’s analysis.11OpeningRemarksMeetingparticipantsareinvitedtoprovideopeningremarksorstatementsatthistime.12PublicMeetingSlidesTopics1Introductions2Stakeholder Opening Statements3Regulatory History4Products Covered by the Test Procedure Changes5Proposed Test Procedure Amendments6Other Issues Under Consideration7Compliance with Other EPCA Requirements8Closing Remarks13RegulatoryHistory:Refrigerator/Refrigerator‐FreezerCitation Date DescriptionTestProcedureFinalRules42FR46140 9/14/1977 Test procedureestablished.47FR34517 8/10/1982 Revised TestProcedurebasedonAHAM‐HRF‐1‐197954FR36238 8/31/1989 VariableDefrostControl;DualSystemDefrost68FR10957 3/7/2003 Long‐timeDefrostTestProcedure Modification75FR78810 12/16/2010 AppendixA1 FinalRule;AppendixAInterimFinalRule77FR3559 1/25/2012 Appendix AFinalRuleWaiversRecentlyGranted*Wine Cooler‐RefrigeratorsSanyo(08/16/12)andPanasonic(Interim‐6/14/13)RefrigeratorswithMultipleDefrost CyclesGE (12/20/12and06/27/13)Samsung (12/20/12 and 6/14/13)Refrigerators withDual/MultipleCompressorsSub‐Zero (2/6/12),LG(3/26/13)Samsung (6/14/13), GE(6/27/13)*ForalistingofallwaiversgrantedbyDOEthatarecurrentlyineffect,see:https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/current_test_procedure_waivers.html14RegulatoryHistory:FreezerCitation Date DescriptionTestProcedureFinalRules42FR46140 9/14/1977 Test procedureestablished.47FR34517 8/10/1982 Revised TestProcedurebasedonAHAM‐HRF‐1‐197954FR36238 8/31/1989 VariableDefrostControl;QuickFreeze75FR78810 12/16/2010 AppendixB1 FinalRule;AppendixBInterimFinalRule77FR3559 1/25/2012 Appendix BFinalRule15PublicMeetingSlidesTopics1Introductions2Stakeholder Opening Statements3Regulatory History4Products Covered by the Test Procedure Changes5Proposed Test Procedure Amendments6Other Issues Under Consideration7Compliance with Other EPCA Requirements8Closing Remarks16ProductsCoveredResidentialrefrigerators,refrigerator‐freezers,andfreezers,asdefinedin10CFR430.2:•Electricrefrigeratormeansacabinetdesignedfortherefrigeratedstorageoffood,designedtobecapableofachievingstoragetemperaturesabove32°F(0°C)andbelow39°F(3.9°C),andhavingasourceofrefrigerationrequiringsinglephase,alternatingcurrentelectricenergyinputonly.Anelectricrefrigeratormayincludeacompartmentforthefreezingandstorageoffoodattemperaturesbelow32°F(0°C),butdoesnotprovideaseparatelowtemperaturecompartmentdesignedforthefreezingandstorageoffoodattemperaturesbelow8°F(−13.3°C).•Electricrefrigerator‐freezermeansacabinetwhichconsistsoftwoormorecompartmentswithatleastoneofthecompartmentsdesignedfortherefrigeratedstorageoffoodanddesignedtobecapableofachievingstoragetemperaturesabove32°F(0°C)andbelow39°F(3.9°C),andwithatleastoneofthecompartmentsdesignedforthefreezingandstorageoffoodattemperaturesbelow8°F(−13.3°C)whichmaybeadjustedbytheusertoatemperatureof0°F(−17.8°C)orbelow.Thesourceofrefrigerationrequiressinglephase,alternatingcurrentelectricenergyinputonly.•Freezermeansacabinetdesignedasaunitforthefreezingandstorageoffoodattemperaturesof0°F.orbelow,andhavingasourceofrefrigerationrequiringsinglephase,alternatingcurrentelectricenergyinputonly.17PublicMeetingSlidesTopics1Introductions2Stakeholder Opening Statements3Regulatory History4Products Covered by the Test Procedure Changes5Proposed Test Procedure Amendments6Other Issues Under Consideration7Compliance with Other EPCA Requirements8Closing Remarks18ProposedTestProcedureAmendmentsNewTestProcedures1. Icemaking TestProcedure2. MultipleCompressorTestOptionalTest1. TriangulationTestProcedureClarifications1. Anti‐CircumventionLanguage2. IncompleteCycling3. MechanicalTemperatureControls4. AmbientTemperatureGradient5. DefinitionsAssociatedwithDefrostCycles6. PackageLoading7. MinimumCompressorRun‐TimeBetweenDefrostsforVariableDefrostModels8. Treatmentof“Connected”Products9. ProductClearancetotheWallDuringTesting10. RelocationofShelvingforTemperatureSensorsCorrections1. CorrectionstoTemperatureSettingLogicTables2. OtherMinorCorrectionsCCEModifications1. MeasurementofProductVolume2. EliminationofReportingofProductHeight3. ChangestoConfidentialityofCertificationData19IcemakingTestProcedureDOEproposesadoptingtheAHAMicemakingtestprocedurewithseveralmodifications.•Adddefinitionfor“icepiece”.•Clarifyanti‐sweatheatersareoffduringtesting.•Requireaminimumacquisitionrateofoneminute.•Clarifyicemaking cyclestart/endtimes.•Specifyalternativemethodsforicemaking cycleindicationforproductswithoutmoldheaters.•Modifyrequirementsforcompartmenttemperaturesandtemperaturecontrolsettingsduringbaselineandicemaking tests.•PrescribebaselinetestperiodconsistentwithAppendixA,section4.1.•Modifytheformoftheenergyequations.•Applyatemperaturestabilitycriterionfortheicemaking testperiod.•Specifyanearlierstartpointoftheicemakingtestafterdefrost.•Simplifytestingofproductswithmultipleicemakers.•Specifya1.8lb/daydailyiceproductionrate20IcemakingTestProcedureDOE’sproposaldoesnotspecificallyaddress“electricrefrigerators”orproductswithmanualdefrost.Issue 2.a: Refrigerators with Automatic IcemakersDOE requests comment on whether any refrigerators (i.e., “electric refrigerator” asdefined in 10 CFR 430.2 rather than “electric refrigerator-freezer”) are sold withautomatic icemakers. If so, DOE also seeks comment on whether test proceduresfor automatic icemakers should cover these “electric refrigerators” and to whatextent, if any, the test procedure would need to be modified to accommodate thetesting of these products. DOE is seeking comment on this issue in part toascertain whether this aspect of today’s proposal should apply to refrigerators asopposed to only refrigerator-freezers. DOE is currently unaware of anyrefrigerators that are also equipped with an automatic icemaker.Issue 2.b: Manual Defrost Products with Automatic IcemakersDOE requests comment on whether any manual defrost refrigerator-freezers orfreezers are sold with automatic icemakers and whether any modifications to theproposed test procedure are required to address such products.21IcemakingTestProcedureDOEproposesthefollowingdefinitionsrelatedtoicemaking:•“Harvest”meanstheprocessoffreeingorremovingicepiecesfromanautomaticicemaker.•“IceStorageBin”meansacontainerinwhichicecanbestored.•“IcePiece”meansapieceoficemadebyanautomaticicemakerthathasnotbeenreducedinsizebycrushingorothermechanicalaction.•“Throughthedoorice/waterdispenser”meansadeviceincorporatedwithinthecabinet,butoutsidetheboundaryoftherefrigeratedspace,thatdeliverstotheuserondemandiceorwaterfromwithintherefrigeratedspacewithoutopeninganexteriordoor.Thisdefinitionincludesdispensersthatarecapableofdispensingiceandwater,iceonly,orwateronly.Issue 2.c: Icemaking DefinitionsDOE requests comment on the proposalto establish definitions for“Harvest”, “Ice storage bin”, “Ice piece”, and “Through the doorice/water dispenser” in the test procedures.22IcemakingTestProcedureDOEproposestorequireallanti‐sweatheaterswitchestobeinthe“off”positionfortheicemaking test.•Thiswouldpreventrandomactivationofvariableanti‐sweatheatersduringtestingifhumiditylevelsinthetestroomvaryduringthetest.•Theproposalalsocallsfortestinginlowambienthumidityforproductswithvariableanti‐sweatheatercontrolwithoutananti‐sweatheaterswitch.Issue 2.d: Anti-Sweat Heater SwitchDOE requests comment on the proposed requirements that productswith anti-sweat heater switches be tested with the switches in the offposition and that products with variable anti-sweat heater controlwithout an anti-sweat heater switch be tested in an ambientenvironment with sufficiently low humidity to prevent the anti-sweatheaters from being energized. DOE also requests suggestionsregarding how the objectives of these requirements could be satisfiedwith alternative approaches.23IcemakingTestProcedureDOEproposestomodifyunitinstallationtoallowforproperoperationoficemakers.•DOEwouldrevisesections2.6(a)and2.6(g)ofAppendixAandsections2.4(a)and2.4(g)ofAppendixBtoreadasfollows:–(a)Connectionofwaterlinesandinstallationofwaterfiltersarerequiredonlywhenconductingtheicemakingtestdescribedinsection8;–(g)Icestoragebinsshallbeemptiedofice,exceptasrequiredfortheicemakingtestdescribedinsection8.Issue 2.e: Setup for IcemakingDOE requests comment on the proposed modification of the setuprequirements, specifically the requirements addressing water lines,water filters, and ice storage bins.24IcemakingTestProcedureDOEproposesa90°Fambienttemperatureconditionfortheicemaking tests.•Consistentwithcurrentenergytesttolimittestburden.Foricemakerwatersupplyconditions,DOEproposes90+/‐2°Ftemperatureand60psig± 15psig.•Noneedfortemperaturecontrolotherthanequilibrationofwatersupplytubingwithroomairtemperature.•Pressurerangewellwithinacceptablerangeformosticemakers.•ConsistentwithAHAMRevisedDraftTestProcedureIssue 2.f: Icemaking Water Temperature and Pressure ConditionsDOE seeks comment on its proposal to require 90 +/-2 ̊F water inlettemperature and 60 ± 15 psig inlet pressure conditions. DOE alsoseeks comment on its proposal to require a 90 ̊F ambient temperature.25IcemakingTestProcedureDOEproposestorequiredatacollectionat least once everyoneminuteratherthaneveryfourminutes.•Icemakeroperationinvolvesmultiplerecurringeventsthatarenotsynchronized(icemakercyclesandcompressorcycles).Increasingthedataacquisitionratehelpstoensureaccuracyofthemeasurements.•DOEbelievesmost,ifnotall,testfacilitiesalreadyrecordtime‐resolveddataonceperminute,makingitunlikelytoaddtestingburden.Issue 2.g: Icemaking Data Collection Rate for Icemaking TestDOE requests comments on the proposed at least once per minutedata collection interval for the proposed icemaking test and itsassumption that most test facilities record data for refrigeration productenergy tests at a frequency ofat least once per minute.26IcemakingTestProcedureDOEproposesthaticemaking cycleswouldendwheniceisharvestedandproposesmethodsforidentifyingicemakingcyclesforicemakerswithoutharvestheaters.•Tocorrelaterefrigerationsystemandharvestheaterenergywithiceharvestedfromthepreviouscycle,eachcyclewouldendwhentheharvestheaterturnsoff.•Foricemakerswithoutharvestheaters,oneofthreealternativemethodswouldbeusedtoidentifyicemaking cycles:–Changesinmoldtemperature–Changesinwatersupplytemperature,or–Actuationofthewatervalvesolenoid27Issue 2.i: Alternative Icemaker Cycle IndicationDOE requests comment on the follow aspects of its proposal forproducts whose icemakers have no mold heaters:•Details of the three proposed methods.•Requirement to use one of the three identified methods.•Identification of the method used in test reports.•Whether to further clarify when an alternative must be used.•Whether additional alternative methods should be allowed.•Icemaker cycle delineation based on water flow into the icemaker.IcemakingTestProcedureIssue 2.h: Icemaker CyclesDOE requests comment on its proposed delineation between icemakercycles at the end of the harvest of a batch of ice.28IcemakingTestProcedureDOEproposesthattemperaturecontrolsettingsbeadjustedforbothbaselineandicemaking portionsofthetest.•AnalysisbasedonNISTresearchshowsthepotentialforsignificantvariationofresultsifcompartmenttemperaturesdriftfarfromstandardizedtemperatures.•Compartmenttemperaturesshouldbenomorethan1 ̊Fwarmerthanstandardizedtemperaturesforbaselinetest.•Compartmenttemperatureshouldrisenomorethan1 ̊Fduringtheicemaking test.BaselineTestVariationfromTargetTemperaturesIcemaking TestTemperatureChange29Issue 2.k: Icemaking Temperature SettingDOE requests comments on its proposed variation limits oncompartment temperatures during different parts of the icemaking test,which would require that:(1)compartment temperatures be set to their warmest setting forwhich compartment temperatures are no more than 1 ̊F warmerthan their standardized temperatures for the baseline test,(2)if the compartment temperatures increase during icemaking thatthey be adjusted to their warmest setting for which compartmenttemperatures are no more than 1 ̊F warmer during the icemakingtest than they were in the baseline test,(3)for mechanical controls these settings be aligned with symbols onthe temperature dial, and(4)products that use quick-freeze control during icemaking be testedwithout disabling this feature during the test.IcemakingTestProcedure30IcemakingTestProcedureIcemakingDailyproductionrateandtypicalicemaking inthefield.•DOEproposesuseofthe1.8lb/dayiceproductionrateinitiallysuggestedbyAHAM.–AlthoughhigherthanestimatesbasedonNEEAdata,thisvalueisconsistentwiththecurrentfixedplaceholdervalueforicemakingenergyuseinAppendixA.•DOE’sproposalsfortemperaturecontrolsettingsduringtheicemaking testarebasedontheassumptionthatthereislimiteddeviationofcabinettemperaturesduringfieldicemaking operations.–Extendedconsecutive‐cycleoperationexpectedtoberare.–Thermalmassofloadedrefrigeratorlimitstemperaturedeviation.31Issue 2.r: Ice Production RateDOE seeks information on consumer daily ice production to helpdetermine the most appropriate ice production rate for the testprocedure. DOE further seeks comment on whether the proposed 1.8pounds per day ice production rateshould be retained or whether alower rate, as suggested by data provided by the Northwest EnergyEfficiency Alliance, should be considered.IcemakingTestProcedureIssue 2.j: Icemaker Field OperationDOE assumes that in the field, continuous icemaking would typicallyoccur only for initial filling of the bin and successive icemaker cycleswould occur after a portion of ice has been withdrawn from the ice bin.DOE seeks comment and data confirming DOE’s assumption or, if thatassumption is incorrect, information suggesting an alternative approachand description with respect to icemaking operation in the field.32IcemakingTestProcedureDOE’sproposalsforbaselineandicemaking testperiodsareslightadjustmentsoftheAHAMreviseddraftproposal.•BaselinetestperiodconsistentwithAppendixA,section4.1:–Atleastthreehoursinduration,consistingofatleasttwocompressorcycles(forsystemswithcyclingcompressors).•Icemaking testperiod:–Atleast24hoursoficemaking,unlessinterruptedbyfillingoftheicestoragebinoradefrost.–Initiateicemaking duringcompressoroperationshortlyafterdefrost.–Forproductswhosecompressorsdonotcycleduringicemaking,thetestperiodincludesawholenumberoficemaking cycles.–Forproductswhosecompressorscycleduringicemaking,testperiodsbasedoncompressorcyclesandonicemaking cyclesareusedfortheenergyusecalculation.–Stability:compartmenttemperaturesforanyonecompressorcycleoricemaking cyclewithin3 ̊Foftestperiodaverage.33IcemakingTestProcedureDOEproposesevaluationoftwoicemaking testperiodsforproductsthatcycletheircompressorsduringicemaking.Test Period 2 (whole number of icemaking cycles)Test Period 3 (whole number of compressor cycles,within Test Period 2)Energy per ice mass ==34IcemakingTestProcedureThedualtestperiodapproachreducesmeasurementvariation.0.000.050.100.150.200.250 10 20 30 40

Icemaking Energy per Mass (kWh/kg)NumberofIcemakingCyclesSingleTestPeriodCalculationDualTestPeriodCalculation35Issue 2.m: Test Periods for Icemaking Part of TestWith respect to refrigeration products that cycle their compressors duringicemaking, DOE requests comments on its proposal to (1) establish testperiods for the icemaking part of the test based both on icemaker cycles andon compressor cycles and (2) require that energy use be calculated using bothof these test periods and applying them to the same period of icemaking inorder to provide a more accurate calculation of icemaking energy use.Likewise, DOE requests comment on its proposal to allow use of only the testperiod based on icemaker cycles for refrigeration products that do not cycletheir compressors during icemaking.IcemakingTestProcedureIssue 2.l: Test Period for Baseline Part of TestDOE requests comments on its proposal to adopt a test period for the baselinepart of the test that is equivalent toits existing test period for products withmanual defrost, i.e. consisting of a period of time at least three hours induration and, if the product’s compressor cycles, comprising at least twocomplete compressor cycles. DOE further requests comment on the proposalto allow overlap of the stabilization period and the test period for the baselinepart of the test as long as the stabilization period ends no later than the testperiod for the baseline part of the test.36Issue 2.o: Icemaking Test Period DurationDOE seeks comment on its proposal to adopt a minimum test periodduration of 24 hours for the icemakingportion of the test, if possible,prior to a defrost cycle occurrence orfilling of the ice storage bin. DOEalso seeks comment on its proposal to require icemaking to be initiatedshortly after the start of compressor operation following a defrost cycle.IcemakingTestProcedureIssue 2.n: Icemaking Test Period Stability ToleranceDOE requests comment on its proposal to include a temperaturestability requirement in the icemaking test procedure that would requirethe temperature in the freezer compartment, measured for anycompressor cycle (if the refrigeration product cycles its compressorduring icemaking) or any icemaker cycle (if the refrigeration productdoes not cycle its compressor during icemaking) within the test period,to be within 3 ̊F of the compartment’s temperature average for the fulltest period.37Issue 2.p: Ice MassDOE requests comment on its proposed method of measuring icemass.IcemakingTestProcedureTheDOEproposalprovidesinstructionstoensurecorrelationofthemeasuredicemasswiththeicemaking cyclesusedfortheenergyusemeasurement.•Measuretotalicemassproduced.•Determinetotalnumberoficemaking cycles.•Calculateicemasspercycle.•Determinenumberoficemaking cyclesinIcemaking TestPeriod2.•CalculateicemassforIcemaking TestPeriod2.38IcemakingTestProcedureForproductswithmultipleicemakers,theDOEproposalcallsformeasurementoficemaking energyfortheicemakerservingthethrough‐the‐dooricefeature.Issue 2.q: Multiple IcemakersDOE requests comment on its approach for testing these products –i.e. measuring the icemaking energyonly for the icemaker providingthrough the door service. DOE also requests comment on whetherproducts with multiple icemakers using other configurations exist, whattheir design details are, whetherDOE should consider modifying theproposed test procedure to address these products, and how theproposed test procedure should be modified to address them.39IcemakingTestProcedureDOE would notrequiremeasurementoficemaking energyuseuntilthecompliancedateoffutureefficiencystandards.•Thisallowscarefulevaluationofthetestprocedurechangesonthemeasurementofoverallenergyuseofproductswithicemakers.•ThenextenergyconservationstandardswouldmostlikelybeinitiatedbyEPCA’s6‐yearlook‐backprovision.•Thetestprocedureandtheenergyconservationstandardswouldcontinuetousethe84kWhfixedplaceholderuntilthosestandardstakeeffect.•DOE’stestingsuggeststhat84kWhisanappropriateenergyusecontributionforicemaking usingtheproposedtestprocedurebutrequestsdataforconfirmation.Issue 2.s: Measurements of Energy Use Associated with IcemakingDOE seeks icemaking energy use data for typical products sold withautomatic icemakers, using the testprocedure proposed in this notice. DOEseeks these data in order to improve confidence in the understanding oftypical icemaking energy use per pound ofice of residential refrigerationproducts.40Issue 2.t: Impact on Energy Use MeasurementDOE requests comments on the impacts on energy use measurementsof the proposed icemaking test procedure. DOE further requestscomments and data supporting any claimed change in themeasurement.DOE further requests comment onthe proposed delay of adoption ofthe laboratory measurement until a future energy conservationstandards rulemaking takes effect.IcemakingTestProcedure41MultipleCompressorTestProcedureDOEproposestoadoptamodifiedversionofthemultiplecompressortestproceduresprescribedinrecentwaivers.•Thecurrenttestprocedurerequiresthatproductswith“dualcompressors”orseparatecompressorsystemsbetestedwitheachsystemmeteredindividually.–Thisapproachcanbeburdensomeanddoesnotaddressproductswhosecompressorsystemshavesharedcomponents(e.g.controls,condenserfans).•Thetestprocedureprescribedinthewaiversaddressestheseissues,whileminimizingtruncationerrorthroughuseof24‐hourtestperiods.•TheDOEproposalwouldadoptthewaiverprocedurewithsomechangesthatarenotexpectedtoalterthemeasuredenergyuse.42MultipleCompressorTestProcedureProposalwould adopt thetestprocedurefromrecentwaiversforproductswithmultiplecompressors,withthefollowingkeydifferences:•Defining“multiplecompressor”•Allowingtemperaturecycles(asanalternativetocompressorcycles)todefinetestperiods.•Prescribingastabilizationperiodconsistentwiththeexistingtestprocedure.•Allowingasingle‐parttestforproductswithsingledefroststhatarenotlong‐timeorvariable.•Reducingtherequiredtestperioddurationformultiplecompressorproductswithasingleornocyclingcompressor.•Identifyingfreezercompartmentsastheprimarycompressorsystemthatdefinestestperiods.•Requiring24hoursofcontinuousstableoperationpendingnodefrostforthefirstpartofthetestwith18hoursallowedifdefrostinterruptsstableoperation.•Removingthe24‐hourrequirementforthesecondpartofthetest.•CriteriaforevaluationofstableoperationmoreconsistentwiththecurrentAppendixA:maximum0.042 ̊Fperhourvariation.43Issue 3.a: Multiple Compressor DefinitionDOE requests comment on its proposed definition of multiplecompressor refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators.MultipleCompressorTestProcedureDOEproposestodefinea“multiplecompressor”productasonehavingmorethanonecompressor.•Compressorcycledescribedasextendingfromeitheracompressorstarttoacompressorstart,orfromastoptoastop.•Temperaturecycledefinedasextendingfromaminimumtoalaterminimumwithin0.5 ̊Foftheinitialminimum,orsimilarlyfromamaximumtoamaximum.DOEproposestoallowtestperiodstobedefinedbytemperaturecyclesasanalternativetocompressorcycles.Issue 3.b: Temperature CyclesDOE requests comment on its proposalto allow use of temperaturecycles as alternative indicators for start and stop times for multiplecompressor test periods.44Issue 3.c: Data Collection RateDOE requests comments on the proposed one-minute maximum datacollection interval for the proposed multiple compressor test.MultipleCompressorTestProcedureDOEproposestorequiredatacollectionatleastonceperminute whentestingmultiplecompressorproductstoreducethepotentialtruncationerror.DOEproposestorequiretheexistingstabilizationrequirementinAppendixAratherthanafixed24‐hourperiod.Issue 3.d: Multiple Compressor Stabilization PeriodDOE requests comment on its proposal to apply the currentstabilization requirement of Appendix A, section 2.9 to multiplecompressor products and also on its proposal to allow evaluation oftemperatures based either on temperature cycles or compressor cycleswhen evaluating stabilization.45Issue 3.e: One-Part Multiple Compressor TestDOE requests comments on its proposal to allow a one-part test formultiple compressor products where only one compressor system hasa defrost cycle (but this system’s defrost control is neither long-time norvariable).MultipleCompressorTestProcedureDOEproposestestperiodsimplifications,whereappropriate.•Useoftheone‐parttestforproductswithasingleautomaticdefrostthatisneitherlong‐timenorvariable.46MultipleCompressorTestProcedureDOEproposestestperiodsimplifications,whereappropriate.•Forproductswithoneornocyclingcompressors,useofatestperiodthatiseatleastthreehourslongcomprisingatleasttwocyclesofthecyclingcompressorsystem.Issue 3.f: Test Periods for Products with One or No CyclingCompressorsDOE requests comment on its proposal allowing simplified test periodsfor both the first and second parts of the test (consistent with the testperiods used for products with single compressors) when testingmultiple-compressor products in which one or no compressor cyclesduring a test.47MultipleCompressorTestProcedure•Theproposalrequiresthat:–the“primary”compressordeterminesthetestperioddurationandthatthe“primary”compressorbethefreezercompressorifpossible.–thefirstpartofthetestbecomprisedofwholeprimarycompressorcycles.•Theproposalwouldnotpermitmultipleindividualsegmentsofstableoperationtobecombinedtosatisfythe24‐hourrequirement.•Alternatively,theproposalwouldalsoallowashortertestdurationof18hoursifdefrostoperationinterruptssteadystateoperation.DOEproposesa24‐hourtest(firstpart)formodelswithatleasttwocyclingcompressors.48Issue 3.g: Duration of the First Part of the TestDOE seeks comment on its proposal to require the first part of the testto be a singlecontinuous period lasting atleast 24 hours, allowingreduction to 18 hours long if it is interrupted by a defrost.DOE also seeks comment on its proposal that the test period comprisea whole number of cycles of a “primary” compressor, and that the“primary” compressor be the freezercompressor, if it cyclesduring thetest.MultipleCompressorTestProcedure49MultipleCompressorTestProcedureDOE’sproposesthatstabilizationforthefirstpartofthetestbeevaluatedbasedoncompartmenttemperaturerateofchangelessthan0.042 ̊Fperhour.Issue 3.h: Stabilization for the First Part of the TestDOE requests comment on its proposal torequire that the first part ofthe test consist of a period of stable operation.DOE also seeks comment on its proposed definition for stableoperation, which would require compartment temperature changesduring the period to not exceed 0.042 ̊F per hour.50MultipleCompressorTestProcedure•Secondpartwouldbeconductedforeachcompressorsystemthatundergoesdefrost.•Testperiodwouldextendfromoneperiodofstableoperationbeforethedefrosttoanotherperiodofstableoperationafterthedefrost.•0.5 ̊Fcompartmenttemperaturetoleranceforstartandendoftestperiod,consistentwithcurrentAppendixAprocedureforthesecondpartofthetest.•Evaluationoftestdatashowsthatextendingthetestperiodofthispartofthetestto24hoursdoesnotreducetruncationerror.DOE’sproposaldoesnotrequirea24‐hourtestperiodforthesecondpartofthetest.51Issue 3.i: Second Part of the TestDOE requests comment onits proposal to have the second part of the test includestart and end points during stable operationwhile surrounding the defrost cycle beingmeasured. Further, DOE requests comment onits proposal that any of the followingwould be allowed to indicate start and end of the test period:a)when the primary compressor on-cycle starts;b)when the primary compressor on-cycle stops;c)when the compartment temperature associated with the primary compressor is ata maximum; ord)when the compartment temperature associated with the primary compressor is ata minimum.Finally, DOE requests comment on its proposal to allow start and end times for thetest period for products with non-cycling compressors to occur when the compartmenttemperatures are within 0.5 ̊F of their averages for the first part of the test.MultipleCompressorTestProcedure52Issue 3.j: Measurement Changes for Multiple Compressor ProductsDOE requests information regarding any refrigeration products with multiplecompressors (other than those alreadycovered by test procedure waivers).DOE also requests comment on whether the proposed test procedure wouldalter the measurement of energy use ofany multiple compressor products. Ifso, DOE requests supporting information: how large is the change? whataspects of the proposed test wouldbe most responsible for that change?MultipleCompressorTestProcedureDOEexpectsnochangeinmeasuredenergyuseforitsproposalascomparedtothetestprocedureprescribedinthewaivers.53Issue 3.k: Multiple Compressor Products with Manual DefrostDOE requests comment on whether any multiple compressor refrigerationproducts with manual defrost exist and whether the test procedure proposalshould address such products.MultipleCompressorTestProcedureDOEisnotawareofanymultiplecompressorproductswithmanualdefrost.54TriangulationTestProcedure•AppendixAcurrentlyrequireslinearinterpolationofenergyusefromtwotests,basedseparatelyonthefreshfoodandfreezertemperatures,andselectingthehigherofthecalculatedenergyusevalues.DOEproposestoallowtriangularenergyinterpolationfortestingproductswithbothfreshfoodandfreezercompartments.

Energy Use (kWh)Fresh Food TemperatureFreezer Temperature

Test 1 Test 2 Test 1 Test 2

Standardized (39

 ̊ F) Standardized (0

 ̊ F or 15

 ̊ F)Test Energy55TriangulationTestProcedureTriangularinterpolationconductsasingletwo‐parameterinterpolationbasedonthreetests.

Energy (kWh)

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3EnergyMeasuredin3TestsTemperaturesMeasuredin3TestsTestResultStandardizedTemperatures56TriangulationTestProcedure•DOEproposestoallowtriangulationasanoptionalcertificationmethodinAppendixA.–IncorporationbyreferenceofAustralian/NewZealand(AS/NZS)Standard44474.1:2007–EnergyuseExwouldbecalculatedasdiscussedintheAS/NZS44474.1AppendixM,withtargettemperaturestxAandtxBrepresentingthestandardizedtemperaturesspecifiedinDOE’sAppendixA.–ThefirsttwoofthethreetestswouldcomplywiththerequirementsfortheDOEtwo‐testmethodasdescribedinAppendixA.•Proposedtriangulationcertificationrequirements:–Manufacturersmustreportiftriangulationisusedforcertification.–Allunitswithinagivenmodelmustbetestedusingthesametestmethod.•DOEproposestousetriangulationforenforcementandassessmentpurposesifeither:–Triangulationwasusedforcertification,or–Theresultsofthefirsttwotestsdifferbymorethan5%.ImplementationofTriangulation:57Issue 4: Triangulation ApproachDOEseeks comment on its proposal to include the triangulationapproach as an optional interpolation method, including the proposedapproach for implementing this method in the test procedure and theproposed requirement to indicate in certification reports thattriangulation has been used for certification. DOE also seekscommenton its proposal to use triangulation for assessment and enforcementtesting if:(a)the product was certified using this method, or(b)the measurement results calculated based on the first two testsdiffer by more than five percent using the two differentcompartment temperatures for the interpolations.TriangulationApproach58Anti‐CircumventionLanguageDOEproposestomodifytheanti‐circumventionlanguagebasedonstakeholdercommentssubmittedduringtheprevioustestprocedurerulemaking.Issue 5.a: Modification to Anti-Circumvention LanguageDOE invites stakeholder comment on its proposal to modify the anticircumvention language.•Proposalisidenticaltotheanti‐circumventionprovisionsinHRF‐1‐2008,rearrangedslightlyforclarityandconsistencywiththeCFRstructure(proposedtextisatpage41663)•Thesamerevisionswouldbeadoptedin10CFR430.23(a)(10)forrefrigeratorsandrefrigerator‐freezersand430.23(b)(7)forfreezers.59Anti‐CircumventionLanguageIssue 5.b: Components that Operate Differently During TestingDOE seeks comment on potential revisions to the anti-circumventionlanguage that would, in limited circumstances, permit the use of controlalgorithms that may cause a system to operate differently during testingfrom how it would operate in the field.•DOE’sadoptionofthemodifiedversionoftheAHAManti‐circumventionlanguageaimedtopreventmanufacturersfromsensingenergytestconditionsto obtainfavorable,butunrepresentativemeasuresofenergyuse.•Manufacturershaverequestedclarificationontheneedforwaiverpetitionsforitsmodelsthatruncondenserfansatdifferentspeedsdependingonambienttemperature.DOEmayconsideradditionalmodificationstotheanti‐circumventionlanguagetoaccountforcomponentsthatoperatedifferentlyduringtesting.60•Thecurrent24‐hourtestperiodforincompletecyclingproductscanresultinsignificanttruncationerror.•Inordertolimittestburden,DOEproposesallowingsingle‐compressor‐cycletestperiodsifcompressorcyclesaremorethan12hourslong.•DOEalsoproposestoaligntestperiodsformeasuringenergyusewiththoseusedforcompartmenttemperaturemeasurement.–Sametestperiodsfortemperatureandenergyusemeasurementformanualdefrostproducts.–Temperaturemeasurementbasedontheentiretestperiodofthefirstpartofthetestforlong‐timeorvariabledefrostproducts.–Forproductswithautomaticdefrostthatisneitherlong‐timenorvariable,temperaturemeasurementforaperiodofstableoperationthatincludesnoeventsassociatedwithdefrost,isatleastthreehourslong,andincludesatleasttwocompressorortemperaturecycles.DOEproposesuseoftestperiodsthatalignwithcompressorcyclesforincompletecyclingproducts.IncompleteCycling61Issue 6: Incomplete CyclingDOE seeks comment on its proposed amendment to the incompletecycling definition and the associated modification of the test period forsuch products from 24 hours to one whole compressor cycle.DOE also seeks comment on its proposal to alter the test periodrequirements of Appendices A and B to assure that warm-up during thedefrost cycle is not part of the temperature measurement.IncompleteCycling62Issue 7: Mechanical Control SettingsDOE invites stakeholder comment on its proposal to modify its testprocedures to clarify the setting ofmechanical controls during testing.MechanicalControlSettings•TwopotentialapplicationsofthecurrentAppendixArequirements:–Aligncontrolindicatorwiththemostextremenumeralorsymbol;or–Positionthecontrolasfarasitwillphysicallymove.•DOEproposestoclarifythatthecoldestorwarmestsettingshouldhavethecontrolindicatoralignedwiththelastorfirstnumeralorsymbolthatindicatesatemperaturesetting.DOEproposestospecifythemeaningofthe“warmest”or“coldest”temperaturecontrolsettingformechanicalcontrols.63Issue 8: Ambient Temperature ConditionsDOE requests comment on its proposed changes to ambienttemperature and ambient temperature gradient requirements and itsproposed approach to implementing these changes.AmbientTemperatureConditionsDOEproposesto clarifytherequirementsformeasuringambienttemperatureandfordemonstratingthatthetemperaturegradientismaintainedduringtests.•Shieldingisallowed,butnotrelocationofsensors.•Testprocedurelanguageaddressesheatfromadjacenttestunits.•Temperaturegradientmustbeverifiedduringtestingbasedonsensorsonbothsidesofthetestunitat2”and36”abovethefloorand12”abovetheunit.64DefinitionsAssociatedwithDefrostCyclesDOEproposestoadoptdefinitionstoclarifyterminologyassociatedwithdefrost.•“Stableoperation”definedtoexcludeanyeventsassociatedwithdefrostcyclesandotherwisetobeconsistentwiththerequirementsforevaluatingstabilitypriortotesting(e.g.AppendixAsection2.9)•“Stableperiodofcompressoroperation”meansaperiodofstableoperationofarefrigerationsystemthathasacompressor.•“Precooling”meansoperatingarefrigerationsystembeforeinitiationofadefrostcycletoreduceoneormorecompartmenttemperaturessignificantly(morethan0.5 ̊F)belowitsminimumduringstableoperationbetweendefrosts.•“Recovery”meansoperatingarefrigerationsystemaftertheconclusionofadefrostcycletoreducethetemperatureofoneormorecompartmentstothetemperaturerangethatthecompartment(s)exhibitedduringstableoperationbetweendefrosts.Issue 9: Definitions Associated with Defrost CyclesDOE welcomes comment on the proposed definitions for “precooling”,“recovery”, “stable operation”, and “stable period of compressoroperation.”65Issue 12: Package LoadingDOE requests comment on whether its proposed clarifications of themethod for achieving 75% package loading for freezers is consistentwith the sections of HRF-1-1979 and HRF-1-2008 referenced in thetest procedures.PackageLoading•Thecompartmentwouldfirstbefilledtocapacitywithpackages.•Subsequently,75%ofthepackageswouldbeusedtofillthecompartmentfortheenergytest.DOEproposestoclarifyrequirementsforloadingofpackagesinfreezercompartments.66Issue A: Minimum Compressor Run-Time Between DefrostsDOE seeks comment on the proposed use of observed compressor runtimes between defrost, if shorterthan specified for the algorithm.MinimumCompressorRun‐TimeBetweenDefrosts•CTListheshortestcompressorruntimebetweendefrosts(greaterorequalto6hoursbutlessthanorequalto12hours).•ProductsoperatingwithshorterCTLvalueswouldbeexpectedtohavemorefrequentdefrostsandthusconsumemoreenergy.DOEproposestouseobservedCTLvalueslessthan6hoursintheenergyuseequationforproductswithvariabledefrost.67Issue B: “Connected” RefrigeratorsDOE seeks comment on the proposed clarifications for testing ofconnected products.Treatmentof“Connected”RefrigerationProducts•Connectedrefrigerationproductshaveoraredesignedtoworkwithcommunicationmodulesforremotemonitoringand/orcontrolpurposes.•Thetestprocedurewouldclarifythatsuchmodulesmustbeinstalled,energized,andconnectedtoacommunicationsnetwork,butthatnoactivecommunicationswouldbeongoingduringtesting.DOEproposesclarificationsfortestingof“connected”refrigerationproducts.68Issue 13: Product Clearance to the Wall During TestingDOE requests comment on its proposed revisions to the text ofAppendices A and B to address product clearance to the wall duringtesting.ProductClearancetotheWallDuringTestingDOEproposesrefinementstorequirementsforrearwallspacing•Rearclearancebasedonlowestedgeofthe“rearplane.”•The“rearplane”definedaslargestflatsurfaceattherearofthecabinet.•Exclusionoffeaturesthatprotrudebeyondthelargestflatsurface,includingbrackets,thecompressor,orrear‐wall‐mountedcondensers.69Issue 14: Relocating of ShelvingDOE requests comments on its proposal to require that shelving and/orother components whose position isadjustable by consumers berelocated to assure that temperature sensors maintain the requiredclearance from hardware, while indicating that the shelving be installedas evenly as possible if relocation for temperature sensors is required.RelocatingofShelvingDOEproposestoprioritizetemperaturesensorplacementoverevenspacingofuser‐adjustableshelving.•DOEwouldaddlanguageindicatingthatconsumer‐adjustableshelvesshouldberelocatedtomaintaintemperaturesensorclearancerequirements.•However,shelfpositionwouldadhereascloselyaspossibletosetupinstructions,e.g.forevenshelfspacing.70CorrectionsDOEproposescorrectionstorecently‐identifiedissuesinthetestprocedure.•CorrectionstoTemperatureSettingLogicTables.•Consistentreferenceto“E”,averageper‐cycleenergyuseinsection6ofAppendicesAandB.•Clarificationthatthe7.75cu.ft.cutoffforcompactrefrigerationproductsreferstototalrefrigeratedvolume.•Revisingthedefinitionof“defrostcycletype”toclarifythatoff‐cycledefrostisaformofautomaticdefrost.71Issue 10: Elimination of Product Height ReportingDOE invites comment on its proposal to eliminate the certificationrequirement for reporting product height starting September 15, 2014.EliminationofProductHeightReporting•TheSeptember2011EnergyConservationStandardeliminatedthe36‐inchmaximumforcompactclasscategorization(compactstatuswillbeestablishedbyrefrigeratedvolumealone).DOEproposestoeliminatetherequirementtoreportproductheightincertificationreports.72Issue 11: Measurement of Product VolumeDOE seeks comment on its proposals for volume calculations:•Permitting use of CAD models to measure product volumes.•The proposed 2 percent (or 0.5/0.2 cubic foot) allowance withrespect to differences between the certified and measured volumes.•The requirements for retention of CAD-generated volumecalculations as part of certification test reports.DOE also requests informationon the documentation kept bymanufacturers of CAD modeling used for volume calculations andwhether it could be in a format allowing DOE review.MeasurementofProductVolumeDOEproposestoallowcalculationofvolumebasedoncomputeraideddesign(CAD)models.•Theproposalalsoincludesrequirementsforretentionofdocumentationtosupportthecalculationsandanapproachtoresolvediscrepanciesbetweenmeasurementsandcalculationsarisinginthirdpartytesting.73MeasurementofProductVolumeDOEhasreceivedquestionsabouttreatmentofcertainproductfeaturesforthepurposesofrefrigeratedvolumecalculations.•AHAMHRF‐1‐2008,whichisincorporatedbyreferencebytheDOEtestprocedure,indicatesthatthevolumeofairductsisdeductedfromthemeasurementoftotalrefrigeratedvolume—AHAMaskedhowDOEwouldapplythisprovision.•DOEhasalsobeenaskedwhetherthevolumeofwatertanksusedforchillingofwaterpriortodispensingshouldbedeductedfortherefrigeratedvolumemeasurement.•DOEproposesaddingthefollowingtexttosection5.3ofAppendicesAandB‐‐“Themeasuredvolumeshallincludeallspaceswithintheinsulatedvolumeofeachcompartmentexceptforthevolumesthatmustbedeductedinaccordancewithsection4.2.2ofHRF–1–2008.”•DOEhasalsoproposedadefinitionfor“through‐the‐doorice/waterdispenser.”Thisdefinitionwouldnotspecifythatwatertanksusedforchillingofwaterarepartofthedispenser.74Issue 16: Measurement of Product VolumeDOE requests comment on its interpretations of the volumemeasurement provisions of AHAMHRF-1-2008 pertaining to air ductsand water chilling tanks, and its proposed revisions to section 5.3 of thetest procedures in Appendices A and B addressing volumemeasurement.MeasurementofProductVolume75ChangestoConfidentialityofCertificationDataDOEproposeschangestoconfidentialityofcertaincertificationdata.•Dataproposedtobepublicratherthanconfidential:–Whethertheproducthasvariabledefrostcontrol.–Whethertheproducthasananti‐sweatheaterswitch.–Whetheralternativetemperaturesensorlocationswereusedduringtesting.76PublicMeetingSlidesTopics1Introductions2Stakeholder Opening Statements3Regulatory History4Products Covered by the Test Procedure Changes5Proposed Test Procedure Amendments6Other Issues Under Consideration7Compliance with Other EPCA Requirements8Closing Remarks77•Built‐inrefrigeratorsaredesignedtobeinstalledtotallyencasedbycabinetry,fastenedtotheadjoiningcabinetry,walls,orfloor.•DOEinvestigatedtheimpactsoftestingbuilt‐inproductsinanenclosurethatsimulatesinstallationintokitchencabinetry.•DOEfabricatedtheenclosuresconsistentwithinstallationinstructionsfortheproductsandtheprovisionsinULStandard250,sections8.65and11.2.Built‐inRefrigeratorsSampleNumberHeatRejectionLocationFreestandingAnnualEnergyConsumption(kWh/year)Built‐InAnnualEnergyConsumption(kWh/year)PercentDifferenceBetweenFreestandingandBuilt‐inTests1Front 679 675‐0.5%2Rear 576 607 5.1%3Front 485 487 0.4%DOEtestingshowsthattestingbuilt‐inproductsina“built‐in”conditionmayinsomecasesaffecttheenergyusemeasurement.78Issue 15: Built-in RefrigeratorsDOE requests comment on whether testing in a built-in condition wouldgenerally be more representative ofenergy consumption in averageuse and, if so, the extent to which testing in this condition would beexpected to affect the measured energy use of these products. DOE isalso interested in receiving comment on whether there would be asignificant additional test burden resulting from a requirement thatspecifies these products be tested in a built-in condition.Built‐inRefrigerators79PublicMeetingSlidesTopics1Introductions2Stakeholder Opening Statements3Regulatory History4Products Covered by the Test Procedure Changes5Proposed Test Procedure Amendments6Other Issues Under Consideration7Compliance with Other EPCA Requirements8Closing Remarks80OtherIssues1. TestBurden2. ChangesinMeasuredEnergyUse3. StandbyandOffModeEnergyUse81Issue 17: Test BurdenDOE seeks comment regarding its assessment of the test burdenimpacts of the test procedureamendments proposed in this notice.TestBurdenandRegulatoryFlexibilityReviewDOEtentativelyconcludesthat,otherthantheicemaking test,noneoftheproposedchangeshaveasignificantimpactonburden.•Manyoftheproposedtestprocedureamendmentsareminorchangesthatdonotaffecttheequipmentrequiredfortestingorthetimerequiredtoconducttheenergytest.•Thenewicemakingtestprocedurewouldincreasethetestburden,includingthe:–Installationofawatersupply(Estimateofanadditional$800pertestingfacility)–Additionalinstrumentationrequiredformeasurementofadditionalparameters(e.g.icemass)–Additionaltesttime•DOEestimatesthatmostoftheadditionalcostisassociatedwiththeadditionaltesttimeandestimatestheincreaseat$1,250pertest,or$3,750percertifiedmodel(assumingtestofthreeunits).82TestBurdenRegulatoryFlexibilityReviewDOEmustdeterminewhetherthemodificationproposedinthisrulewouldresultinasignificantimpactonasubstantialnumberofsmallentities.•Asindicatedinthetestburdensection,theicemakingtestprocedureistheonlymodificationthatmaybeasignificanttestburden.•TheSmallBusinessAdministrationsmallentitystandardintheHouseholdRefrigeratorandHomeFreezerManufacturingindustryis1,000employees.•DOEidentifiedonesmallbusinessthatmanufacturesproductswithautomaticicemakersandwouldbesubjecttotheadditionaltestingrequirementsproposedintoday’stestprocedure.83TestBurdenRegulatoryFlexibilityReviewDOEdeterminedtheproposedtestprocedurewouldnothaveasignificanteconomicimpactonasubstantialnumberofsmallentities.•DOEestimatesanaverageindustryresearchanddevelopmentexpenditureof2.4%ofrevenues.•DOEestimatesthattheproposedtestprocedureswouldhaveaone‐timecostimpactofapproximately5%oftheannualresearchanddevelopmentbudgetofanaveragesmallbusinessmanufacturerofrefrigerationproducts.•Conclusionswerebasedonavailabledata.DOEseeksadditionaldatatosupplementitsanalysis.Issue 20: Regulatory FlexibilityDOE requests comment the extent to which any small businessmanufacturers of refrigeration products that would be affected by theproposed changes in the test procedures for products with automaticicemakers.84Issue 18: Changes in Measured Energy UseDOE invites stakeholder comment regarding DOE’s assessments ofthe potential changes in measured energy use associated with theproposed test procedure changes. DOE requests comment on whetherany of the proposed amendments to the test procedures could alterenergy use measurements, and, ifso, DOE requests data showing themagnitude of the measurement changes.ChangesinMeasuredEnergyUseDOEconcludedthatchangesinenergyusemeasurementassociatedwiththeproposedtestprocedureareminimalanddonotwarrantchangeintheEnergyConservationStandard.•Otherthantheicemaking test,theproposalconsistsofavarietyofclarificationimprovementsandoffersmanufacturerswithanoptionalmethodformeasuringenergyuse.•DOEisproposingtorequireuseoftheicemaking testprocedurewhenthenextroundofenergyconservationstandardsafter2014takeeffect.85Issue 19: Standby and Off/Mode Energy UseDOE tentatively proposed thatno separate changes are needed toaccount for standby and off mode energy consumption, since thecurrent (and as proposed) procedures already address energyconsumed in standby and off modes. DOE requests comments on thisdetermination.StandbyandOff/ModeEnergyUseThetestproceduresfortheseproducts(currentandasproposed)wouldaddressstandby/offmodeenergyuse,soadditionalprovisionstoaddressenergyuseofthesemodesarenotnecessary.86PublicMeetingSlidesTopics1Introductions2Stakeholder Opening Statements3Regulatory History4Products Covered by the Test Procedure Changes5Proposed Test Procedure Amendments6Other Issues Under Consideration7Compliance with Other EPCA Requirements8Closing Remarks87HowtoSubmitComments...PublicMeeting – oralcommentswillbecapturedinthetranscriptandbecomepartofthepublicrecord.Writtencomments – NOPRcommentperiodclosesSeptember23,2013andmaybesubmittedasshownbelow:Referencedocket#:EERE–2012–BT–TP–0016and/orRIN#:1904–AC76Email:Res‐Refrig‐Freezer‐2012‐BT‐TP‐0016@ee.doe.govMail:Mrs.BrendaEdwardsU.S.DepartmentofEnergyBuildingTechnologiesProgram1000IndependenceAvenue,SW,MailstopEE‐2JWashington,DC20585‐0121Courier: Mrs.BrendaEdwardsU.S.DepartmentofEnergyBuildingTechnologiesProgram950L'EnfantPlaza,Suite600Washington,DC20024Telephone:(202)586‐294588ContactInformation•Questionsaboutproductscanbesentto:refrigerators_and_freezers@ee.doe.gov•Foradditionalinformation,usethefollowinglinks:–DOEApplianceandEquipmentStandardsProgram(mainsite):http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/index.html–TestProcedureRulemakingforRefrigerators,Refrigerator‐Freezers,andFreezers:http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/75•Thankyouforyourparticipation.