14686 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Notices 

submitted a report of unacceptable 

quality. 

In addition, in making a competitive 

grant award, the Secretary also requires 

various assurances including those 

applicable to Federal civil rights laws 

that prohibit discrimination in programs 

or activities receiving Federal financial 

assistance from the Department of 

Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 

108.8, and 110.23). 

3. Special Conditions: Under 34 CFR 

74.14 and 80.12, the Secretary may 

impose special conditions on a grant if 

the applicant or grantee is not 

financially stable; has a history of 

unsatisfactory performance; has a 

financial or other management system 

that does not meet the standards in 34 

CFR parts 74 or 80, as applicable; has 

not fulfilled the conditions of a prior 

grant; or is otherwise not responsible. 

VI. Award Administration Information 

1. Award Notices: If your application 

is successful, we notify your U.S. 

Representative and U.S. Senators and 

send you a Grant Award Notification 

(GAN); or we may send you an email 

containing a link to access an electronic 

version of your GAN. We may notify 

you informally, also. 

If your application is not evaluated or 

not selected for funding, we notify you. 

2. Administrative and National Policy 

Requirements: We identify 

administrative and national policy 

requirements in the application package 

and reference these and other 

requirements in the Applicable 

Regulations section in this notice. 

We reference the regulations outlining 

the terms and conditions of an award in 

the Applicable Regulations section in 

this notice and include these and other 

specific conditions in the GAN. The 

GAN also incorporates your approved 

application as part of your binding 

commitments under the grant. 

3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a 

grant under this competition, you must 

ensure that you have in place the 

necessary processes and systems to 

comply with the reporting requirements 

in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive 

funding under the competition. This 

does not apply if you have an exception 

under 2 CFR 170.110(b). 

(b) At the end of your project period, 

you must submit a final performance 

report, including financial information, 

as directed by the Secretary. If you 

receive a multi-year award, you must 

submit an annual performance report 

that provides the most current 

performance and financial expenditure 

information as directed by the Secretary 

under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary 

may also require more frequent 

performance reports under 34 CFR 

75.720(c). For specific requirements on 

reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/

fund/grant/apply/appforms/

appforms.html. 

4. Performance Measures: The 

Secretary has established the following 

Government Performance and Results 

Act of 1993 (GPRA) performance 

measure for the Training for Realtime 

Writers Program: The number and 

percentage of participants who have 

completed the program who are 

employed as realtime writers. 

This measure constitutes the 

Department’s indicator of success for 

this program. Consequently, we advise 

an applicant for a grant under this 

program to give careful consideration to 

this measure in conceptualizing the 

approach and evaluation for its 

proposed project. 

If funded, you will be required to 

collect and report data in your project’s 

annual performance report (34 CFR 

75.590). 

5. Continuation Awards: In making a 

continuation award, the Secretary may 

consider, under 34 CFR 75.253, the 

extent to which a grantee has made 

‘‘substantial progress toward meeting 

the objectives in its approved 

application.’’ This consideration 

includes the review of a grantee’s 

progress in meeting the targets and 

projected outcomes in its approved 

application, and whether the grantee 

has expended funds in a manner that is 

consistent with its approved application 

and budget. In making a continuation 

grant, the Secretary also considers 

whether the grantee is operating in 

compliance with the assurances in its 

approved application, including those 

applicable to Federal civil rights laws 

that prohibit discrimination in programs 

or activities receiving Federal financial 

assistance from the Department (34 CFR 

100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23). 

VII. Agency Contact 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah T. Beaton, Training for Realtime 

Writers Program, U.S. Department of 

Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 

6154, Washington, DC 20006–8544. 

Telephone: (202) 502–7621 or by email: 

sarah.beaton@ed.gov. 

If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the 

Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1– 

800–877–8339. 

VIII. Other Information 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document 

and a copy of the application package in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT in section VII of this notice. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site, you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at this site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: March 12, 2014. 

Lynn B. Mahaffie, 

Senior Director, Policy Coordination, 

Development, and Accreditation Service, 

delegated the authority to perform the 

functions and duties of the Assistant 

Secretary for Postsecondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2014–05825 Filed 3–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

[Case No. RF–038] 

Petition for Waiver of Felix Storch, Inc. 

(FSI) From the Department of Energy 

Residential Refrigerator and 

Refrigerator-Freezer Test Procedure 

and Grant of Interim Waiver 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of Petition for Waiver, 

Notice of Granting Application for 

Interim Waiver, and Request for Public 

Comments. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt 

of a petition for waiver from Felix 

Storch, Inc. (FSI) seeking an exemption 

from specified portions of the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) test 

procedure for determining the energy 

consumption of certain electric 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. 

FSI asks that it be permitted to use an 

alternate test procedure to account for 

the energy consumption of its specific 

models of its Keg Beer Coolers, Assisted 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Notices 14687 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was re-designated Part A. 

Living Refrigerator-freezers and UltraCompact Hotel Refrigerators in place of 

the currently applicable DOE test 

procedure. DOE solicits comments, data, 

and information concerning FSI’s 

petition and the suggested alternate test 

procedure. Today’s notice also declines 

to grant FSI with an interim waiver from 

the electric refrigerator-freezers test 

procedure, for the reasons described in 

this notice. The waiver request pertains 

to the basic models set forth in FSI’s 

petition. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information with respect to the FSI 

Petition until April 16, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by case number ‘‘RF–038,’’ by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: AS_Waiver_Requests@

ee.doe.gov. Include the case number 

[Case No. RF–038] in the subject line of 

the message. 

• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B/

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–2945. Please 

submit one signed original paper copy. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Please submit 

one signed original paper copy. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

review the background documents 

relevant to this matter, you may visit the 

U.S. Department of Energy, 950 L’Enfant 

Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024; (202) 

586–2945, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. Available documents 

include the following items: (1) This 

notice; (2) public comments received; 

(3) the petition for waiver and 

application for interim waiver; and (4) 

prior DOE rulemakings regarding 

similar refrigerator-freezers. Please call 

Ms. Brenda Edwards at the above 

telephone number for additional 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Building Technologies Office, 

Mail Stop EE–5B, Forrestal Building, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–0371. Email: 

Bryan.Berringer@ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

Mail Stop GC–71, Forrestal Building, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0103. 

Telephone: (202) 586–8145. Email: 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Authority 

Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), 

Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6309, as codified, established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles, a 

program covering most major household 

appliances, which includes the electric 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers 

that are the focus of this notice.1 Part B 

includes definitions, test procedures, 

labeling provisions, energy conservation 

standards, and the authority to require 

information and reports from 

manufacturers. Further, Part B 

authorizes the Secretary of Energy to 

prescribe test procedures that are 

reasonably designed to produce results 

that measure the energy efficiency, 

energy use, or estimated annual 

operating costs of a covered product, 

and that are not unduly burdensome to 

conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The 

currently applicable test procedure for 

electric refrigerators and electric 

refrigerator-freezers is contained in 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A1. 

The test procedure that will be required 

for certifying that products comply with 

Federal standards beginning on 

September 15, 2014 is contained in 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A. 

The regulations set forth in 10 CFR 

part 430.27 contain provisions that 

enable a person to seek a waiver from 

the test procedure requirements for 

covered products. The Assistant 

Secretary for Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy (the Assistant 

Secretary) will grant a waiver if it is 

determined that the basic model for 

which the petition for waiver was 

submitted contains one or more design 

characteristics that prevents testing of 

the basic model according to the 

prescribed test procedures, or if the 

prescribed test procedures may evaluate 

the basic model in a manner so 

unrepresentative of its true energy 

consumption characteristics as to 

provide materially inaccurate 

comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(l). 

Petitioners must include in their 

petition any alternate test procedures 

known to the petitioner to evaluate the 

basic model in a manner representative 

of its energy consumption. The 

Assistant Secretary may grant the 

waiver subject to conditions, including 

adherence to alternate test procedures. 

10 CFR 430.27(l). Waivers remain in 

effect pursuant to the provisions of 10 

CFR 430.27(m). 

The waiver process also allows the 

Assistant Secretary to grant an interim 

waiver from test procedure 

requirements to manufacturers that have 

petitioned DOE for a waiver of such 

prescribed test procedures. 10 CFR 

430.27(g). An interim waiver remains in 

effect for 180 days or until DOE issues 

its determination on the petition for 

waiver, whichever occurs earlier. DOE 

may extend an interim waiver for an 

additional 180 days. 10 CFR 430.27(h). 

II. Petition for Waiver of Test Procedure 

On December 12 and 17, 2013, FSI 

submitted a petition for waiver from the 

test procedure applicable to residential 

electric refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers set forth in 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendices A and A1. In its 

petition, FSI asserts that its products 

could not be tested and rated for energy 

consumption on a basis representative 

of their true energy consumption 

characteristics. The DOE test procedure 

for residential refrigeration (both the 

procedure that is required currently and 

the procedure that will be required 

beginning on September 15, 2014) 

require testing products at an ambient 

temperature of 90°F. DOE selected that 

temperature to simulate the effects of 

door openings and closings, which are 

not performed during the testing. See 10 

CFR § 430.23(a)(10) (The regulation 

explains, ‘‘[t]he 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.’’). FSI 

contends that the products addressed by 

its waiver petition will be sold for uses 

where door openings and closings are 

highly infrequent. As a result, in its 

view, testing these products in 

accordance with the DOE test procedure 

conditions would result in 

measurements of energy use that are 

unrepresentative of the actual energy 

use of these products under their 

conditions of expected use by 

consumers. 

As an alternative, FSI submitted to 

DOE an alternate test procedure to 

account for the energy consumption of 

its Keg Beer Coolers, Assisted Living 

Refrigerator-freezers and Ultra-Compact 

Hotel Refrigerators. That procedure 

would test these units at 70°F or 72°F 

over a 24-hour period instead of the 

required 90°F ambient temperature 

condition. FSI believes its alternate test 

procedure will allow for the accurate 

measurement of the energy use of these 

products as required by the current DOE 

test procedure. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
14688 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Notices 

FSI also requests an interim waiver 

from the existing DOE test procedure for 

the models listed in its December 12, 

2013 petition. An interim waiver may be 

granted if it is determined that the 

applicant will experience economic 

hardship if the application for interim 

waiver is denied, if it appears likely that 

the petition for waiver will be granted, 

and/or the Assistant Secretary 

determines that it would be desirable for 

public policy reasons to grant 

immediate relief pending a 

determination of the petition for waiver. 

See 10 CFR 430.27(g). 

DOE has determined that FSI’s 

application for interim waiver does not 

provide sufficient market, equipment 

price, shipments and other 

manufacturer impact information to 

permit DOE to evaluate the economic 

hardship FSI might experience absent a 

favorable determination on its 

application for interim waiver. DOE 

understands, based upon FSI’s petition, 

that absent an interim waiver, FSI’s 

products could not be tested and rated 

for energy consumption on a basis 

representative of their true energy 

consumption characteristics. However, 

DOE has found that FSI’s petition 

provides insufficient information for 

DOE to determine whether the 

alternative test procedure that FSI 

proposes to use is likely to provide a 

measurement of the energy use of these 

products that is representative of their 

operation under conditions of expected 

consumer use. Since DOE has found it 

unlikely that FSI’s waiver petition will 

be granted in its current form and has 

determined that it is not desirable for 

public policy reasons to grant FSI 

immediate relief, DOE is declining to 

grant an interim waiver and is seeking 

additional information on the 

underlying basis for FSI’s proposed 

alternative. 

DOE notes that the existing test 

procedures, as well as recent test 

procedure waivers, contain a method for 

addressing certain types of products for 

which less frequent door openings 

occur. Specifically, the test procedure 

for residential freezers applies an 

adjustment factor to account for the 

relatively fewer expected door openings 

of upright and chest freezers, each of 

which has a corresponding adjustment 

factor for the overall energy use. (See 

appendix B to subpart B of 10 CFR part 

430, section 5.2.1.) Further, DOE has 

also granted a test procedure waiver for 

a combination wine cooler-refrigerator 

on the basis of the manufacturer’s claim 

that the product would be subjected to 

fewer door openings in typical use, 

which used the same adjustment factor 

as is applied to upright freezers. 78 FR 

35894 (Sept. 17, 2013). DOE also 

requests comment on whether such an 

approach would be more appropriate for 

testing these models. 

For the reasons stated above, before 

DOE will authorize the use of an 

alternative test procedure for testing of 

the specific models listed in the waiver 

petitions, DOE is seeking comment from 

interested stakeholders on whether FSI’s 

proposed test is likely to be 

representative of the energy use of the 

products that are the subjects of the 

waiver petition or whether another 

alternative may be more appropriate. 

DOE makes decisions on waivers and 

interim waivers for only those models 

specifically set out in the petition, not 

future models that may be manufactured 

by the petitioner. FSI may submit a new 

or amended petition for waiver and 

request for grant of interim waiver, as 

appropriate, for additional models of 

refrigerator-freezers for which it seeks a 

waiver from the DOE test procedure. In 

addition, DOE notes that granting of an 

interim waiver or waiver does not 

release a petitioner from the 

certification requirements set forth at 10 

CFR part 429. 

III. Summary and Request for 

Comments 

Through today’s notice, DOE 

announces receipt of FSI’s December 12, 

2013 and December 17, 2013 petitions 

for waiver from the specified portions of 

the test procedure applicable to FSI’s 

line of Keg Beer Coolers, Assisted Living 

Refrigerator-freezers and Ultra-Compact 

Hotel Refrigerators and declines to grant 

FSI an interim waiver from those same 

portions of the test procedure for the 

models specified in its December 12, 

2013 request for interim waiver. The 

petition includes a suggested alternate 

test procedure to determine the energy 

consumption of FSI’s specified 

refrigerator-freezers. DOE may consider 

including this alternate procedure in a 

subsequent Decision and Order. 

However, at this time, DOE cannot 

establish whether the alternative 

procedure proposed by FSI is an 

appropriate means for measuring the 

energy use of these products based 

solely on the information provided in 

the waiver petition. 

DOE solicits comments from 

interested parties on all aspects of the 

petition, including the suggested 

alternate test procedure and calculation 

methodology. Pursuant to 10 CFR 

430.27(d), any person submitting 

written comments to DOE must also 

send a copy of such comments to the 

petitioner. The contact information for 

the petitioner is: Paul Storch, President, 

Summit Appliance Div., Felix Storch, 

Inc., 770 Garrison Ave., Bronx, NY 

10474. All submissions received must 

include the agency name and case 

number for this proceeding. Submit 

electronic comments in WordPerfect, 

Microsoft Word, Portable Document 

Format (PDF), or text (American 

Standard Code for Information 

Interchange (ASCII)) file format and 

avoid the use of special characters or 

any form of encryption. Wherever 

possible, include the electronic 

signature of the author. DOE does not 

accept telefacsimiles (faxes). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 11, 

2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

December 12, 2013 

Building Technologies Program 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Test Procedure Waiver 

1000 Independence Ave. SW 

Mailstop EE–2J 

Washington, DC 20585–0121 

RE: Petition for Waiver of Test 

Procedures in use currently (10 CFR 

§ 430, subpart B, appendix A1) and 

proposed for September 15, 2014 (10 

CFR § 430, subpart B, appendix A) 

pursuant to 10 CFR. § 430.27(a)(1) for 

Summit brand appliances as follows: 

• Keg Beer Coolers (Models SBC590, 

SBC590OS, and SBC635M) 

• Assisted Living Refrigerator-freezers 

(Models ALBF44, ALBF68) 

• Hotel Refrigerators (Models HTL2 

and HTL3) 

Introduction 

The Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) 

provides a waiver process for 

refrigeration products when ‘‘the 

prescribed [10 CFR § 430, Subpart B, 

Appendix A1 currently and the 

proposed 10 CFR § 430, Subpart B, 

Appendix A] test procedures may 

evaluate [a product] . . . in a manner so 

unrepresentative of its true energy 

consumption characteristics . . . as to 

provide materially inaccurate 

comparative data.’’ 10 CFR § 430.27. 

This petition seeks such a waiver for the 

above-referenced products. 

Felix Storch, Inc. (‘‘FSI’’) is a small 

business engaged in importing, 

manufacturing, and distributing 

appliances to niche markets in the 

household, commercial, hospitality, 

institutional, and medical community, 

as well as distributing household 

cooking and laundry appliances. 

Located in the South Bronx, New York, 

FSI employs approximately 150 

individuals engaged in manufacturing, 

material handling, trucking, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Notices 14689 

2See 10 CFR 10 CFR § 430.23(a)(10) (identifying 

70°F as being representative of typical room 

temperature). 

3 It is important to note that the overwhelming 

majority of compact appliances sold today fall into 

the categories of dormitory type or office type 

refrigerator-freezers. FSI could not find statistics on 

door openings for these products, but since these 

types of units would be shared by multiple users, 

it is logical to assume their use would be similar 

to conventional refrigerators, as opposed to the 

special use models in this waiver petition. 

4American National Standard on Household 

Refrigerators and Household Freezers, ANSI/AHAM 

HRF–1–1979 at 51–52, available at: https://

law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/ibr/001/aham.HRF1.1979.pdf. 

5See Danny S. Parker & Ted C. Stedman, 

Measured Electricity Savings of Refrigerator 

Replacement: Case Study and Analysis, Florida 

Solar Energy Center FSEC–PF–239–92 (1992) (citing 

Chang, Y.L., and R.A. Grot. 1979. Field performance 

of residential refrigerators and combination 

refrigerator-freezers. NBSIR 79–1781). 

6 James Y. Kao & George E. Kelly, Factors 

Affecting the Energy Consumption of Two 

Refrigerator-Freezers, SA–96–7–1 at 9 available at: 

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build96/PDF/

b96070.pdf. 

7See e.g., NIST Study (citing Alan Meier and 

Richard Jansky, Field Performance of Residential 

Refrigerators: A Comparison with the Laboratory 

Test, LBL–31795 UC 150 (May 1991) available at: 

http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/6142295; 

Meier, A., et al. 1993; The New York refrigerator 

monitoring project: final report. Report No. LBL– 

33708. Berkeley, California: Lawrence Berkeley 

Laboratory; KEMA–XENERGY, Inc., Final report 

measurement and evaluation study of 2002 

statewide residential appliance recycling program, 

8–1—8z–8 (2004); Wong, M.T., W.R. Jones, B.T. 

Howell, and D.L. Long. 1995. Energy consumption 

testing of innovative refrigerator-freezer. ASHRAE 

Transactions 101(2).) 

8 Danny S. Parker & Ted C. Stedman, Measured 

Electricity Savings of Refrigerator Replacement: 

Case Study and Analysis, Florida Solar Energy 

Center FSEC–PF–239–92 (1992). 

9 David A. Yashar, Repeatability of Energy 

Consumption Test Results for Compact 

Refrigerators, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Technology 

Administration National Institute of Standards and 

Technology at 7–8, 14 (September 2002), available 

at: http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build00/PDF/

b00055.pdf. 

engineering, marketing, sales, shipping, 

clerical services, and customer service. 

FSI, under the Summit brand name, 

imports refrigeration products from a 

number of factories in Europe, Mexico 

and Asia, as well as manufactures a 

number of products in New York. A 

significant part of FSI’s business is 

value-added manufacturing conducted 

by FSI in its Bronx facility. Value-added 

manufacturing is the process of adding 

or modifying components or finishes to 

existing products in order to adapt these 

appliances for sale to special markets 

where few or no suitable products exist. 

The above-referenced models are all 

either built or modified in our Bronx 

facility. 

DOE’s test procedures are not 

appropriate for the above-referenced 

models because they fail to accurately 

reflect the actual energy consumption of 

the products during normal use. DOE 

test procedures for residential 

refrigeration (both the procedures in 

effect currently and the proposed 

procedures for 2014) require testing 

products at an ambient temperature of 

90°F. DOE selected that temperature (as 

opposed to a more normal 70°F 

ambient) to simulate the effects of door 

openings and closings; such actions are 

not performed during the testing. See 10 

CFR § 430.23(a)(10) (The regulation 

explains, ‘‘[t]he 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.’’).2

However, the above-listed FSI products 

will be sold for uses where door 

openings and closings are highly 

infrequent.3 All these products will 

consume far less energy during actual 

use than is measured by the existing and 

proposed testing procedures. 

FSI seeks a waiver for the abovereferences products because: 

(1) Test procedures do not provide a 

fair and accurate representation of 

actual energy use; 

(2) The market size for each of these 

products is quite small; 

(3) The economic burden of 

complying with DOE standards in effect 

today, and the proposed standards for 

2014, would place an undue economic 

burden on FSI; 

(4) There is an easily substituted 

alternate test procedure for these 

models; 

(5) Withdrawing these products from 

the marketplace would greatly limit 

consumer choice, adversely impact 

small business and, in some cases, 

result in compelling customers to turn 

to larger or less energy efficient 

products that increase overall energy 

consumption. 

For these reasons, FSI respectfully 

requests a waiver, pursuant to 10 CFR 

§ 430.27, of the test procedures for 

residential refrigerators provided in 10 

CFR § 430, Subpart B, Appendix A. 

1. Models for which a waiver is 

requested. 

This waiver request applies to the 

following models: 

• Keg Beer Coolers (Models SBC590, 

SBC590OS, and SBC635M) 

• Assisted Living Refrigerator-freezers 

(Models ALBF44, ALBF68) 

• Hotel Refrigerators (Models HTL2 

and HTL3) 

All of these models are intended for 

uses distinct from the typical household 

use whereby the doors on these 

products are seldom opened and closed. 

2. Manufacturers of other basic 

models marketed in the United States 

are known by FSI to incorporate 

similar design characteristics. 

Manufacturers of other basic models 

marketed in the United States and 

known to FSI that incorporate similar 

design characteristics are included in 

Attachment A. 

3. Alternate test procedures are 

known to FSI to evaluate accurately 

energy consumption of the listed basic 

models. 

FSI has extensive data that 

demonstrates that a single change to the 

test procedure will result in measuring 

energy consumption in a manner far 

more representative of actual use. 

Testing the basic models listed in this 

petition at an ambient temperature of 

70°F or 72°F, rather than 90°F will 

measure energy consumption in a 

manner significantly more 

representative of actual use than using 

the DOE prescribed test procedures, 

both under current standards and those 

proposed for implementation on 

September 15, 2014. 

Background 

DOE acknowledges in 10 CFR 

§ 430.23(a)(10) that ‘‘[t]he 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.’’ 

DOE uses 90°F as a surrogate for 

running tests at typical ambient 

temperature to simulate the impact of 

opening and closing refrigerator and 

freezer doors. This standard is 

incorporated into the AHAM test 

procedures used by DOE in both the 

current standards and the upcoming 

2014 standards. This temperature 

selection is at least 30 years old and is 

referenced in ANSI–AHAM HRF–1 

(1979).4

Several studies have attempted to 

validate this information. For example, 

one study showed that household 

refrigerators-freezers had a median of 48 

fresh-food door openings and 10 freezer 

door openings per 24 hours.5 A study 

based on this number of door openings 

concluded that 90°F overstated energy 

consumption by 8.3% to 15.9%.6

Several other studies corroborate these 

results.7 For example, a study by the 

Florida Solar Energy Center measured 

door openings and closings in two 

person households and found an 

average of 42 openings per day.8

A National Institute of Standards 

(‘‘NIST’’) study, commissioned by DOE, 

also demonstrated that when testing is 

performed at 90°F, as little as a 2 degree 

difference in ambient temperature can 

result in a dramatic difference in 

measured energy consumption. 9 Alan 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
14690 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Notices 

10Alan K. Meier, Field performance of residential 

refrigerators, ASHRAE Journal 36–40 (August 

1999). 

11P.K. Bansal, Studies on algorithm development 

for energy performance testing: study 2—study of 

algorithms for domestic refrigeration appliances, 

APEC#201–RE–01.11 at 19 (2001). 

12 Jim Lutz, et al. How to make appliance 

standards work: improving the energy and water 

efficiency test procedures, Ernest Orlando Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory for Assistant 

Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, Office of Building Technology, State and 

Community Programs, of the U.S. Department of 

Energy, LBNL#4961E at 1 (2010). 

13U.S. Dept. of Energy, Preliminary Technical 

Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for 

Consumer Products: Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers at 7–38 (Nov. 2009), 

available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/

ref_frz_prenopr_prelim_tsd.pdf. 

Meier, an associate American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (‘‘ASHRAE’’) 

member, conducted a more exhaustive 

study of this correlation and found that 

for two groups of refrigerators 

extensively monitored, actual energy 

use averaged 13% and 15% less than 

the results from the yellow Energy 

Guide (which is based on AHAM 

procedures).10 Mr. Meier reported that 

families typically open and close the 

doors of their refrigerators an average of 

50 times daily. The study observed, 

‘‘[r]elatively modest ambient 

temperature variations led to 50% 

changes in energy use.’’ 

Another study by P.K. Bansal, also an 

ASHRAE member, states that, 

Elevated ambient temperatures used in 

most test procedures crudely simulate the 

heat loads from door openings. . . . This 

process fails to produce satisfactory results 

that could be representative of an in-situ real 

world refrigerator performance 11

Even a 2010 study by the Energy 

Analysis Department of the Lawrence 

Berkeley Laboratory, CA, supported by 

DOE, stated, ‘‘[i]n many cases the test 

procedures do not reflect field 

usage[.]’’ 12

These studies provide clear evidence 

that when refrigerator doors are opened 

infrequently, the AHAM procedures 

using 90°F as the ambient temperature 

will overstate energy consumption. 

Most of these studies were done on 

typical household refrigerator-freezers. 

FSI found no comparable data for 

compact refrigerators or, more 

specifically, on any of the type of 

products for which a waiver is sought in 

this petition. Indeed, DOE’s own 

Technical Support Document, 

acknowledged that: 

‘‘DOE found no data on the typical field 

energy consumption of compact refrigeration 

products. It therefore assumed that the 

average field energy use of compact 

refrigerators and freezers of a given size the 

same as the maximum energy use allowed by 

the DOE standard as measured in the DOE 

test procedure. In effect, DOE assumed that 

variation in the field energy use of compact 

appliances is a function solely of volume.’’ 13

The approximation ignores the 

significantly important variable of the 

number of door openings and closings 

which greatly differs between a full size 

refrigerator used by a family and a 

specialty compact refrigerator used in a 

secondary application. 

FSI performed tests on four 

representative models of refrigerators 

and beer dispensers., running tests at 

average 72°F (room) temperature and at 

90°F. For one set of tests FSI opened 

and closed the doors of each unit six 

times per test, which exceeds the 

frequency of typical door openings and 

closings for these models. The second 

set of tests was conducted with doors 

remaining closed throughout the test. 

These tests consistently showed that all 

units at average 72°F (room 

temperature) used over 40% less energy 

than when run at 90°F. The tests with 

doors closed had a weighted average of 

48% lower energy consumption than at 

90°F, and tests with door openings had 

a weighted average of 46% lower energy 

consumption. Door openings consistent 

with actual use, or tests without door 

openings, did not change the overall 

results or the conclusions. 

A summary of this data is presented 

in the following tables. 

TABLE 1—TESTS WITH APPROPRIATE DOOR OPENINGS AND CLOSINGS

Type No. tests Energy use at 90°F 

Energy use at ambient Percent 

decrease With doors opened/closed 

Beer Dispenser ....................................................... 2 1.16 kWh/day ......................... 0.68 kWh/day ......................... 41 

Hotel Refrigerator ................................................... 4 1.04 kWh/day ......................... 0.59 kWh/day ......................... 43 

Assisted Living Unit 1 ............................................. 3 0.91 kWh/day ......................... 0.51 kWh/day ......................... 44 

Assisted Living Unit 2 ............................................. 6 1.10 kWh/day ......................... 0.55 kWh/day ......................... 50 

TABLE 2—TESTS WITH DOORS CLOSED

Type No. tests Energy use at 90°F kWh/day 

Energy use at ambient 

Percent 

(no door decrease 

openings) 

Beer Dispenser ....................................................... 6 1.16 kWh/day ......................... 0.65 kWh/day ......................... 44 

Hotel Refrigerator ................................................... 5 1.04 kWh/day ......................... 0.55 kWh/day ......................... 47 

Assisted Living Unit 1 ............................................. 6 0.91 kWh/day ......................... 0.49 kWh/day ......................... 46 

Assisted Living Unit 2 ............................................. 8 1.10 kWh/day ......................... 0.52 kWh/day ......................... 53 

Discussion of Door Openings and 

Closings for the Models in This Waiver 

Petition 

The units in this waiver application 

do not conform to the same usage as 

typical household full-size refrigerators: 

the doors on all of these basic units are 

opened and closed significantly less 

frequently than typical household 

refrigeration equipment. The units in 

this waiver petition also differ from the 

majority of compact refrigerator-freezers 

sold for dormitory or office use, which 

are typically shared by a number of 

users. 

1. Keg Beer Coolers [Models SBC590, 

SBC590OS, and SBC635M] 

Beer coolers, by their nature, have 

their doors opened and closed only 

when a keg needs to be changed. 

Depending on usage, this may be once 

weekly, once monthly, or even less 

frequently. Beer in kegs is always 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Notices 14691 

14Assisted living facilities generally include 

meals as a standard feature. See e.g. Sunrise Senior 

Living, Assisted Living available at: http://

www.sunriseseniorliving.com/care-and-services/

assisted-living.aspx (‘‘While services and amenities 

may very by location, Sunrise assisted senior living 

communities generally provide . . . [t]hree 

delicious, well-balanced meals served daily[.]’’); 

Friendship Assisted Living, Amenities available at: 

http://friendship.us/assisted-living/amenities-2/ 

(‘‘Restaurant-style dining is available for three 

meals everyday[.]’’); HelpGuide.org, Assisted Living 

Facilities, available at: http://www.helpguide.org/

elder/assisted_living_facilities.htm (showing that 

assisted living facilities typically provide three 

meals a day). 

15Full size refrigerators used in hotel suites with 

kitchenettes or extended stay hotels are not part of 

the waiver application. 

16See American Hotel & Lodging Association, 

Eco-Friendly Case Studies, available at: http://

www.ahla.com/Green.aspx?id=21756 (The Radisson 

Hotel Cleveland decided to unplug hotel room 

mini-refrigerators because ‘‘a majority of hotel 

guests did not use them during their stay.’’). 

provided in a chilled state, so in essence 

the beer cooler is not working to bring 

contents to the design temperature, but 

is only maintaining steady state 

conditions. The products in this waiver 

petition do not have shelves and are 

designed to store beer kegs only. 

Furthermore, use and care guides 

normally advise to turn off the 

electricity to the beer cooler while 

changing the keg, for both safety and 

energy conservation. 

2. Assisted Living Refrigerators [Models 

ALBF44, ALBF68] 

Refrigerators whose primary market is 

assisted living centers generally do not 

serve as a primary refrigerator.14 These 

centers typically provide residents with 

three full meals a day, along with snacks 

during morning, afternoon, and evening 

activities. As such, these units serve as 

secondary storage that is opened and 

closed less frequently than primary 

household refrigerators. A limited 

survey of residents in two of these 

facilities done by FSI employees 

showed that fresh food doors were 

opened an average of 4 times daily, and 

freezer doors less than once. The 

refrigerators sold by FSI that are used in 

these assisted living studio apartments 

also differ from typical household or 

dormitory type refrigerators in design. 

They are usually frost free or partial 

automatic defrost for the convenience of 

an elderly population (compared to 

typical ‘‘dormitory’’ refrigerators that 

are usually manual defrost). Moreover, 

they are usually only 4 to 6 cubic feet 

compared to the 15 to 25 cubic feet 

typically found in homes or apartments. 

3. Ultra-Compact Hotel Refrigerators 

[Models HTL2 and HTL3] 

FSI’s proprietary ultra-compact 

refrigerators (with compressors) for 

hotel rooms are planned for 

introduction in early 2014 and are 

designed for guest convenience.15 These 

refrigerators are priced at a premium, 

very compact, and normally would be 

marketed only to upscale hotels. FSI 

estimates that guests will open and 

close the door to these units 

infrequently, if at all, since hotel rooms 

are generally occupied primarily during 

sleeping hours and meals are ordinarily 

eaten outside the room, or delivered by 

room service.16 In addition, these units 

will not be in use when the hotel rooms 

are vacant. 

As demonstrated above, testing the 

basic models in this waiver petition 

under the current and proposed test 

procedures would produce results that 

are ‘‘unrepresentative of its true energy 

consumption characteristics . . . as to 

provide materially inaccurate 

comparative data.’’ 10 C.F.R. § 430.27. 

Based on the information presented, 

FSI proposes the following 

modifications be made to the DOE test 

procedures for the models named in this 

petition: 

1. Beer dispensers (Models SBC590, 

SBC590OS and SBC635M); be tested at 

an ambient temperature of 70°F (per 

DOE’s estimate of approximately 70°F as 

typical room-temperature) with the 

doors closed; 

2. Hotel and assisting living 

refrigerators (Models ALBF44, ALBF68, 

ALBF68, HTL2 and HTL3) be tested at 

72°F to account for the very small 

number of daily door openings (where 

2°F is 10% of the difference between 

70°F and 90°F and door openings of 

these products groups are no more than 

10% of the typical household 

refrigerators); 

3. The units be tested for 24 

continuous hours after stabilization to 

account for any timers used in the 

assisted living and hotel refrigerators; 

and 

4. All other test procedures are 

conducted in accordance with AHAM 

and DOE test procedures for residential 

refrigerators. 

Additional Reasons in Support of 

Granting This Waiver 

FSI targets niche markets with many 

models, including those referenced 

herein, where the overall sales volume 

is too limited to appeal to manufacturers 

driven by mass production and 

economies of scale. In some cases, not 

allowing products that address certain 

size or use needs to market will have the 

unintended consequences of 

substantially reducing consumer choice 

and driving energy consumption up 

through a switch to larger models. 

For example, in the case of the 

assisted living markets, withdrawing 

specialty products from this small, 

niche market may force facilities to 

purchase larger refrigerators than 

necessary, increasing overall energy 

usage. The convenience and 

accessibility of these compact products 

is often more appropriate for assisted 

living residents. If suitably sized 

products are not available, facilities 

might be forced to remodel a kitchenette 

when a refrigerator needs replacing. 

In the case of the hotel industry, 

hotels (excluding extended stay hotels 

or suite type hotels) often use 

refrigerators that are driven by an 

absorption cooling system or by a 

thermoelectric cooling system (also 

called heat pipe systems). These cooling 

systems use significantly more energy 

than compressor systems, but are 

chosen by hotels for their low noise 

levels. It is important to note that these 

basic units may not be covered products 

for DOE because their design does not 

always allow them to reach the 39°F 

threshold and, therefore, may not be 

considered a refrigerator per the 

statutory definition. [See 10 C.F.C. 

§ 430.2 (defining an electric refrigerator 

as ‘‘a cabinet designed for the 

refrigerated storage of food, designed to 

be capable of achieving storage 

temperatures above 32°F (0°C) and 

below 39°F (3.9°C), and having a source 

of refrigeration requiring single phase, 

alternating current electric energy input 

only.’’)]. Consequently, by excluding 

FSI compressor models from competing 

in this market, hotels will use models 

with absorption or thermoelectric 

systems which use substantially more 

energy than the excluded products. 

Economic Burden of the Regulations on 

Small Business in General and FSI in 

Particular 

Failure to grant these basic models 

waivers from test procedures would 

have severe economic consequences for 

FSI. 

Very large, multi-national 

corporations dominate the appliance 

market, led by Whirlpool and General 

Electric, whose sales are in the billions 

of dollars. Foreign companies with 

appliance sales in the billions of dollars 

and with a large U.S. presence include 

Electrolux (Frigidaire), LG, Samsung, 

Daiwoo, Bosch, Liebherr, Miele, AGAMarvel, Bertazoni, Smeg, Haier, and 

Midea. FSI cannot compete with these 

companies’ mass markets, with huge 

economies of scale on production, and 

distribution and insignificant 

compliance testing costs. FSI 

predominantly markets specialty 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
14692 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Notices 

17See Federal Register Vol. 62 No. 81, Page 

23111, April 28, 1997. 

18 Id. 

appliances that respond to niche market 

demands and customer choice. 

In response to DOE 2014 test 

procedures, FSI is working very hard to 

modify the vast majority of its 

residential refrigerator and freezer 

product line to comply with the new 

procedures. But in a number of niche 

markets with very small sales, the 

feasibility and costs of compliance are 

highly disproportionate for FSI to make 

a business case and will not result in 

energy savings. This results in an undue 

burden on FSI, for which these niche 

products form the nucleus of FSI’s 

manufacturing operations and are the 

driver of job creation in disadvantaged 

economic development areas. Unlike 

the large companies mentioned above 

who can spread the cost of meeting 

current DOE and upcoming DOE 2014 

standards and, in particular, test 

procedures over a base of millions, 

hundreds of thousands, or tens of 

thousands of units, a small business like 

FSI does not have this option. 

DOE has acknowledged the 

difficulties faced by both small 

manufacturers and the compact 

refrigeration industry dealing with 

standards. FSI falls into both categories 

and 90% of FSI’s refrigeration business 

is restricted to compact classes. DOE 

reports that compact appliances only 

account for 2.5% of total energy 

consumed by all refrigeration 

products.17 FSI’s assumption is that at 

least 75% of that small number is 

consumed by college dormitory/office 

type products, meaning that less than 

1% of total refrigeration energy use is 

consumed by ‘‘specialty’’ compact 

appliances, such as those listed in this 

petition. FSI’s market share even in 

these small niche markets is quite 

limited. The appliances in this waiver 

application are a negligible part of that 

tiny subset and any energy consumption 

impacts from this waiver are highly de 

minimis at most. DOE recognizes the 

limited options available to compact 

appliance manufacturers, ‘‘[b]ecause of 

small production volumes, the impact of 

new standards on these manufacturers 

is relatively severe.’’ 18 This is especially 

true ahead of DOE 2014 requirements, 

which mandate a 20% reduction of 

usage and few affordable alternatives for 

reducing energy consumption in niche 

appliances that meet consumer demand. 

Conclusions 

The waiver process clearly is 

intended for situations where test 

procedures do not provide an accurate 

representation of actual energy 

consumption. FSI has demonstrated that 

the test procedures specified by DOE do 

not provide representative measure of 

the basic models in this waiver 

application, whose doors are opened 

and closed significantly less than 

typical household use. 

FSI has demonstrated that: 

• The use of 90°F is designed to 

simulate an average of 40 to 50 door 

openings per day and, even at that level, 

may overstate energy usage; 

• The models listed in this waiver 

application have their doors opened and 

closed infrequently, and certainly 

significantly less than the simulation 

average; 

• An alternate test procedure is 

readily available consisting of testing 

the products at 70°F or 72°F, over a 24 

hour period, and holding all other test 

procedures in accordance with AHAM 

Procedures and 10 CFR § 430, Subpart 

B, Appendix A and Appendix A1. 

• Failure to grant this waiver will 

cause severe economic hardship to FSI, 

a small business, and likely will cause 

switch to higher energy consuming 

replacement products. 

FSI respectfully requests DOE waive the 

test procedures for the products listed in 

the petition as these ‘‘test procedures 

may evaluate [these product] . . . in a 

manner so unrepresentative of [their] 

true energy consumption characteristics 

. . . as to provide materially inaccurate 

comparative data.’’ 10 C.F.R. § 430.27. 

All of these basic units have materially 

different uses than the average products 

subject to the test procedures. The 

proposed alternative procedures will 

provide an accurate representation of 

actual energy use. For these reasons, FSI 

respectfully requests that DOE 

substitute our proposed test procedures 

and waive the test procedures at 10 CFR 

§ 430, Subpart B, Appendix A for FSI’s 

beer coolers, assisted living refrigeratorfreezers and hotel refrigerators. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Paul Storch, President 

Summit Appliance Div. Felix Storch, 

Inc. 

770 Garrison Ave. Bronx, NY 10474 

USA 

PH. 718–893–3900 

FAX: 718–842–3093 

Attachment A 

COMPANIES WITH PRODUCTS SIMILAR TO FSI 

Automatic defrost or frost free beer coolers (excluding beer coolers that convert into refrigerators) 

Refrigerators designed specifically for hotels 4 to 6 c.f. frost-free refrigerators 

Nostalgia Products Group LLC Minibar North America Avanti Products 

1471 Partnership Dr 7340 Westmore Road 10880 NW 30th Street 

Green Bay, WI 54304–5685 Rockville, MD 20850 Miami, FL 33172 

Sears Dometic Corporation Absocold Corporation. 

5333 Beverly Road 13128 State Rt 226 1122 NW T Street 

Hoffman Estates, IL 60192 Big Prairie, OH 44611 Richmond, IN 47374 

Avanti Products 

10880 NW 30th Street 

Miami, FL 33172 

Fisher & Paykel Appliance USA 

Holdings Inc. 

5900 Skylab Rd 

Huntington Beach, CA 92647 USA 

December 12, 2013 

Dr. David Danielson 

Assistant Secretary 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Ave., SW 

Washington, DC 20585 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Notices 14693 

19 It is important to note that the overwhelming 

majority of compact appliances sold today fall into 

the categories of dormitory type or office type 

refrigerator-freezers. Dorm and office refrigerators 

are not the subject of this petition. 

Re: Application for Interim Waiver 

pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 431.401 for basic 

Summit models: 

• Keg Beer Coolers (Models SBC590, 

SBC590OS, and SBC635M) 

• Assisted Living Refrigerator-freezers 

(Models ALBF44, ALBF68) 

• Hotel Refrigerators (Models HTL2 

and HTL3) 

Felix Storch, Inc. (FSI) through this 

Application for Interim Waiver will 

demonstrate likely success of the 

petition for waiver and address what 

economic hardship and/or competitive 

disadvantage is likely to result, absent a 

favorable determination on the 

Application for Interim Waiver. 

This application for interim waiver 

applies to the following models: 

• Keg Beer Coolers (Models SBC590, 

SBC590OS, and SBC635M) 

• Assisted Living Refrigerator-freezers 

(Models ALBF44, ALBF68) 

• Hotel Refrigerators (Models HTL2 

and HTL3) 

Jointly, these models are referred to 

throughout as ‘refrigerators’. Further 

information to support this application 

is contained in the Petition for Waiver 

filed simultaneously to this application. 

Confidential Business information: 

Felix Storch, Inc. is not asking for any 

part of this interim waiver request to be 

redacted. 

Likelihood of Success on the Merits 

FSI markets a wide range of 

refrigeration equipment for sale into 

specialty and niche markets. These 

refrigerators need to comply with energy 

efficiency standards issued and 

enforced by the Department of Energy 

(DOE). DOE relies on a single test 

procedure for all residential refrigerators 

and freezers. While the test procedure 

will change slightly on Sept. 15, 2014, 

the basic method of conducting the test 

will remain unchanged. FSI can 

conclusively demonstrate that for the 

specific products in this waiver petition, 

both test procedures are ‘‘so 

unrepresentative of its true energy 

consumption characteristics . . . as to 

provide materially inaccurate 

comparative data.’’ See 10 CFR § 430, 

subpart B, appendix A1, and 10 CFR 

§ 430, subpart B, appendix A. 

These test procedures will result in 

reported energy usage that is 

substantially higher than actual energy 

consumption and fail to represent real 

world operating conditions. As such, we 

believe that it is highly likely that we 

will succeed on the merits of the waiver 

petition. The products listed above meet 

DOE’s intent in creating the waiver 

petition process and the criteria for 

establishing test procedures that enable 

DOE to evaluate products in a manner 

representative of true energy 

consumption and provide for accurate 

comparative data. FSI’s approach to 

developing more representative test 

procedures is supported throughout the 

studies cited in the waiver petition and 

FSI in-situ testing. 

Need for an interim waiver 

The residential appliance business is 

a highly competitive business. 

Companies that specialize in niche 

products with low annual sales, 

cumulative and for any given product, 

inherently have higher unit costs for a 

number of reasons, including: 

• The cost of manufacturing the 

product is high, and there is less 

efficiency of scale; 

• The cost of marketing and 

distributing niche products is higher 

than mass market products; 

• Small companies have to divide 

fixed overhead by relatively low unit 

sales. 

This is exacerbated by the costs to 

register and comply with energy 

efficiency standards. When divided over 

only dozens or hundreds of units sold 

annually, testing costs can add 5% to 

25% or more to a product’s selling 

price, and could be the determinative 

factor between profit and loss. As a 

consequence, it is vitally important that 

energy testing be done in a manner that 

is representative of actual energy 

consumption and does not unduly drive 

up the costs to comply with standards 

that provide inaccurate test 

measurements. 

All of the products in this interim 

waiver application are compact 

refrigeration equipment. Compact 

refrigerators are primarily designed for 

situations where there are space 

limitations (either height or width or 

depth or a combination). As such, 

compact appliances do not have the 

options to decrease energy consumption 

by increasing the dimensions and 

adding additional insulating material. 

Compact appliances also have far more 

design limitations on the size and 

placement of components such as 

evaporators, condensers, compressors 

and fans because there are much smaller 

areas to work in. 

Failure to obtain an interim waiver in 

a timely manner will create severe 

economic hardship to FSI. Products in 

this waiver request will all serve 

markets that have fewer choices than 

mainstream markets, which all offer 

increased consumer choice. None of the 

subject products are the most common 

‘dormitory’ or office type compact 

refrigerators sold through mass market 

retailers.19 Some of the products in this 

waiver petition will serve markets 

where competitive products either use 

technology that uses much more energy 

(yet are not considered ‘‘covered’’ 

products by DOE), or force customers to 

use larger refrigerators than needed, 

which also may use more energy than 

needed. 

FSI is developing new products that 

will have many benefits and offer 

consumers more energy efficient 

choices, which will comply with DOE 

standard in accordance with appropriate 

test procedures. Yet, these products, 

when measured by the current and 

proposed DOE test procedures, will not 

reflect their true energy consumption. 

There are valid reasons why these 

specialty refrigerators will be used in a 

completely different manner than the 

‘‘typical’’ residential refrigerator. When 

energy consumption is measured in a 

representative manner, all are energy 

efficient and will comply with 

applicable DOE standards. All will 

contribute to the value added 

manufacturing done in our South Bronx 

facility. And all are intended to meet 

market demand in very small markets, 

and offer consumers a more suitable 

alternative to general purpose 

refrigerators. FSI has demonstrated that 

a single change to the test procedure 

will produce representative data, and 

allow FSI to market niche products that 

are the most suitable for some consumer 

applications. 

The new DOE residential standards 

that take effect Sept. 15, 2014 will force 

significant industry wide changes. 

Smaller companies such as FSI will be 

the most adversely impacted as many 

products that cannot meet the new 

standards will be withdrawn from the 

market. With many FSI products only 

selling a few hundred units annually or 

even fewer, the R&D and design changes 

needed to reduce energy consumption 

are cost prohibitive. Without a stream of 

new products to hold revenue steady, 

companies such as FSI will suffer severe 

revenue loss, employment loss and are 

threatened. 

The failure to issue this interim 

waiver will not only deprive FSI of the 

revenue and gross profit from this group 

of products, but it will weaken our 

competitive position in the marketplace. 

In the waiver application, FSI identifies 

about a dozen major players in the 

appliance marketplace we compete 

with, all of whom have over a billion 

dollars in annual revenue. All but two 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
14694 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Notices 

20See 10 CFR 10 CFR § 430.23(a)(10) (identifying 

70°F as being representative of typical room 

temperature). 21 It is important to note that the overwhelming 

majority of compact appliances sold today fall into 

the categories of dormitory type or office type 

refrigerator-freezers. FSI could not find statistics on 

door openings for these products, but since these 

types of units would be shared by multiple users, 

it is logical to assume their use would be similar 

to conventional refrigerators, as opposed to the 

special use models in this waiver petition. 

are foreign companies with large 

manufacturing operations. All, in 

varying degrees, compete with FSI. On 

common products, FSI is at a huge 

competitive disadvantage given all their 

economies of scale. FSI competes 

successfully because our niche products 

allow us to be more valuable to our 

resellers, and a certain amount of 

‘‘common’’ products are sold alongside. 

Absent the niche products, our 

commodity products will suffer greatly 

as well. 

As a consequence of these 

circumstances, FSI would suffer serious 

economic hardship, and would be at a 

competitive disadvantage unless an 

interim waiver is granted for the 

products in this petition. 

Conclusion 

FSI initiated a petition for waiver for 

the list of specialty refrigerators that are 

designed to provide consumer choice in 

niche markets. These products differ 

substantially in their use from typical 

household or dormitory type 

refrigerators. The current test 

procedures measure energy use in a 

manner that is so unrepresentative of 

these products’ true energy 

consumption that they provide 

materially inaccurate comparative data. 

FSI respectfully requests that you grant 

an interim waiver of the test procedures 

of 10 CFR § 430, subpart B, appendix A1 

and the proposed 10 CFR § 430, subpart 

B, appendix A to the procedure outlined 

in our waiver request, so that it may 

avoid severe economic hardship while 

DOE processes the petition. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Paul Storch 

Summit Appliance Div. Felix Storch, 

Inc. 

70 Garrison Ave. Bronx, NY 10474 USA 

PH. 718–893–3900 

FAX: 718–842–3093 

Email: paul@summitappliance.com 

December 17, 2013 

Building Technologies Program 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Test Procedure Waiver 

1000 Independence Ave., SW 

Mailstop EE–2J 

Washington, DC 20585–0121 

RE: Petition for Waiver of Test 

Procedures proposed for September 

15, 2014 (10 CFR § 430, Subpart B, 

Appendix A) pursuant to 10 CFR. 

§ 430.27(a)(1) for Summit brand 

appliances as follows: 

• Keg Beer Coolers (Models SBC490B 

and SBC570R); 

• Assisted Living Refrigerators 

(Models FF71TB, FF73, FF74, 

AL650R, ALB651BR, AL652BR, 

ALB653BR, CT66RADA, 

CT67RADA, AL750R, ALB751R, 

AL752BR, and ALB753LBR); and 

• Ultra-Compact, Hotel Refrigerators 

(Models FF28LH, FF29BKH, 

FFAR21H, and FFAR2H). 

Introduction 

The Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) 

provides a waiver process for 

refrigeration products when ‘‘the 

prescribed [10 CFR § 430, Subpart B, 

Appendix A1 currently and the 

proposed 10 CFR § 430, Subpart B, 

Appendix A] test procedures may 

evaluate [a product] . . . in a manner so 

unrepresentative of its true energy 

consumption characteristics . . . as to 

provide materially inaccurate 

comparative data.’’ 10 CFR § 430.27. 

This petition seeks such a waiver for the 

above-referenced products from 2014 

and forward test procedures for 

residential refrigerators provided in 10 

CFR § 430, Subpart B, Appendix A. 

Felix Storch, Inc. (‘‘FSI’’) is a small 

business engaged in importing, 

manufacturing, and distributing 

appliances to niche markets in the 

household, commercial, hospitality, 

institutional and medical community, as 

well as distributing household cooking 

and laundry appliances. Located in the 

South Bronx, New York, FSI employs 

approximately 150 individuals engaged 

in manufacturing, material handling, 

trucking, engineering, marketing, sales, 

shipping, clerical services and customer 

service. FSI, under the Summit brand 

name, imports refrigeration products 

from a number of factories in Europe, 

Mexico and Asia, as well as 

manufactures a number of products in 

New York. A significant part of FSI’s 

business is value-added manufacturing 

conducted by FSI in its Bronx facility. 

Value-added manufacturing is the 

process of adding or modifying 

components or finishes to existing 

products in order to adapt these 

appliances for sale to special markets 

where few or no suitable products exist. 

The above-referenced models are all 

either built or modified in our Bronx 

facility. 

DOE’s test procedures are not 

appropriate for the above-referenced 

models because they fail to accurately 

reflect the actual energy consumption of 

the products during normal use. DOE 

test procedures for residential 

refrigeration (both the procedures in 

effect currently and the proposed 

procedures for 2014) require testing 

products at an ambient temperature of 

90°F. DOE selected that temperature (as 

opposed to a more normal 70°F 

ambient) to simulate the effects of door 

openings and closings; such actions are 

not performed during the testing. See 10 

CFR § 430.23(a)(10) (The regulation 

explains, ‘‘[t]he 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.’’).20

However, the above-listed FSI products 

will be sold for uses where door 

openings and closings are highly 

infrequent.21 All these products will 

consume far less energy during actual 

use than is measured by the existing and 

proposed testing procedures. 

FSI seeks a waiver for the abovereferences products because: 

(1) Test procedures do not provide a 

fair and accurate representation of 

actual energy use; 

(2) The market size for each of these 

products is quite small; 

(3) The economic burden of 

complying with DOE standards in effect 

today, and the proposed standards for 

2014, would place an undue economic 

burden on FSI; 

(4) There is an easily substituted 

alternate test procedure for these 

models; 

(5) Withdrawing these products from 

the marketplace would greatly limit 

consumer choice, adversely impact 

small business and, in some cases, 

result in compelling customers to turn 

to larger or less energy efficient 

products that increase overall energy 

consumption. 

For these reasons, FSI respectfully 

requests a waiver, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 

§ 430.27, of the test procedures for 

residential refrigerators provided in 10 

CFR § 430, Subpart B, Appendix A. 

1. Models for which a waiver is 

requested. 

This waiver request applies to the 

following models: 

• Keg Beer Coolers (Models SBC490B; 

SBC570R); 

• Assisted Living Refrigerators: 

(Models FF71TB, FF73, FF74, AL650R, 

ALB651BR, AL652BR, ALB653BR, 

CT66RADA, CT67RADA, AL750R, 

ALB751R, AL752BR, and ALB753LBR); 

• Ultra-Compact, Hotel Refrigerators 

(Models FF28LH, FF29BKH, FFAR21H, 

and FFAR2H). 

All of these models are intended for 

uses distinct from the typical household 

use whereby the doors on these 

products are seldom opened and closed. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Notices 14695 

22American National Standard on Household 

Refrigerators and Household Freezers, ANSI/AHAM 

HRF–1–1979 at 51–52, available at: https://

law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/ibr/001/aham.HRF1.1979.pdf. 

23See Danny S. Parker & Ted C. Stedman, 

Measured Electricity Savings of Refrigerator 

Replacement: Case Study and Analysis, Florida 

Solar Energy Center FSEC–PF–239–92 (1992) (citing 

Chang, Y.L., and R.A. Grot. 1979. Field performance 

of residential refrigerators and combination 

refrigerator-freezers. NBSIR 79–1781). 

24 James Y. Kao & George E. Kelly, Factors 

Affecting the Energy Consumption of Two 

Refrigerator-Freezers, SA–96–7–1 at 9 available at: 

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build96/PDF/

b96070.pdf. 

25See e.g., NIST Study (citing Alan Meier and 

Richard Jansky, Field Performance of Residential 

Refrigerators: A Comparison with the Laboratory 

Test, LBL–31795 UC 150 (May 1991) available at: 

http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/6142295; 

Meier, A., et al. 1993; The New York refrigerator 

monitoring project: final report. Report No. LBL– 

33708. Berkeley, California: Lawrence Berkeley 

Laboratory; KEMA-XENERGY, Inc., Final report 

measurement and evaluation study of 2002 

statewide residential appliance recycling program, 

8–1—8–8 (2004); Wong, M.T., W.R. Jones, B.T. 

Howell, and D.L. Long. 1995. Energy consumption 

testing of innovative refrigerator-freezer. ASHRAE 

Transactions 101(2).) 

26 Danny S. Parker & Ted C. Stedman, Measured 

Electricity Savings of Refrigerator Replacement: 

Case Study and Analysis, Florida Solar Energy 

Center FSEC–PF–239–92 (1992). 

27 David A. Yashar, Repeatability of Energy 

Consumption Test Results for Compact 

Refrigerators, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Technology 

Administration National Institute of Standards and 

Technology at 7–8, 14 (September 2002), available 

at: http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build00/PDF/

b00055.pdf. 

28Alan K. Meier, Field performance of residential 

refrigerators, ASHRAE Journal 36–40 (August 

1999). 

29P.K. Bansal, Studies on algorithm development 

for energy performance testing: study 2—study of 

algorithms for domestic refrigeration appliances, 

APEC#201–RE–01.11 at 19 (2001). 

30 Jim Lutz, et al. How to make appliance 

standards work: improving the energy and water 

efficiency test procedures, Ernest Orlando Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory for Assistant 

Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, Office of Building Technology, State and 

Community Programs, of the U.S. Department of 

Energy, LBNL#4961E at 1 (2010). 

31U.S. Dept. of Energy, Preliminary Technical 

Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for 

Consumer Products: Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers at 7–38 (Nov. 2009), 

available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/ 

ref_frz_prenopr_prelim_tsd.pdf . 

2. Manufacturers of other basic 

models marketed in the United States 

are known by FSI to incorporate similar 

design characteristics. 

Manufacturers of other basic models 

marketed in the United States and 

known to FSI that incorporate similar 

design characteristics are included in 

Attachment A. 

3. Alternate test procedures are 

known to FSI to evaluate accurately 

energy consumption of the listed basic 

models. 

FSI has extensive data that 

demonstrates that a single change to the 

test procedure will result in measuring 

energy consumption in a manner far 

more representative of actual use. 

Testing the basic models listed in this 

petition at an ambient temperature of 

70°F or 72°F, rather than 90°F will 

measure energy consumption in a 

manner significantly more 

representative of actual use than using 

the DOE prescribed test procedures, 

both under current standards and those 

proposed for implementation on 

September 15, 2014. 

Background 

DOE acknowledges in 10 CFR 

§ 430.23(a)(10) that ‘‘[t]he 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.’’ 

DOE uses 90°F as a surrogate for 

running tests at typical ambient 

temperature to simulate the impact of 

opening and closing refrigerator and 

freezer doors. This standard is 

incorporated into the AHAM test 

procedures used by DOE in both the 

current standards and the upcoming 

2014 standards. This temperature 

selection is at least 30 years old and is 

referenced in ANSI–AHAM HRF–1 

(1979).22

Several studies have attempted to 

validate this information. For example, 

one study showed that household 

refrigerators-freezers had a median of 48 

fresh-food door openings and 10 freezer 

door openings per 24 hours.23 A study 

based on this number of door openings 

concluded that 90°F overstated energy 

consumption by 8.3% to 15.9%.24

Several other studies corroborate these 

results.25 For example, a study by the 

Florida Solar Energy Center measured 

door openings and closings in two 

person households and found an 

average of 42 openings per day. 26

A National Institute of Standards 

(‘‘NIST’’) study, commissioned by DOE, 

also demonstrated that when testing is 

performed at 90°F, as little as a 2 degree 

difference in ambient temperature can 

result in a dramatic difference in 

measured energy consumption.27 Alan 

Meier, an associate American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (‘‘ASHRAE’’) 

member, conducted a more exhaustive 

study of this correlation and found that 

for two groups of refrigerators 

extensively monitored, actual energy 

use averaged 13% and 15% less than 

the results from the yellow Energy 

Guide (which is based on AHAM 

procedures).28 Mr. Meier reported that 

families typically open and close the 

doors of their refrigerators an average of 

50 times daily. The study observed, 

‘‘[r]elatively modest ambient 

temperature variations led to 50% 

changes in energy use.’’ 

Another study by P.K. Bansal, also an 

ASHRAE member, states that, 

Elevated ambient temperatures used in most 

test procedures crudely simulate the heat 

loads from door openings. . . . This process 

fails to produce satisfactory results that could 

be representative of an in-situ real world 

refrigerator performance 29

Even a 2010 study by the Energy 

Analysis Department of the Lawrence 

Berkeley Laboratory, CA, supported by 

DOE, stated, ‘‘[i]n many cases the test 

procedures do not reflect field 

usage[.]’’ 30

These studies provide clear evidence 

that when refrigerator doors are opened 

infrequently, the AHAM procedures 

using 90°F as the ambient temperature 

will overstate energy consumption. 

All of these studies were done on 

typical household refrigerator-freezers. 

FSI found no comparable data for 

compact refrigerators or, more 

specifically, on any of the type of 

products for which a waiver is sought in 

this petition. Indeed, DOE’s own 

Technical Support Document, 

acknowledged that: 

‘‘DOE found no data on the typical field 

energy consumption of compact refrigeration 

products. It therefore assumed that the 

average field energy use of compact 

refrigerators and freezers of a given size is the 

same as the maximum energy use allowed by 

the DOE standard as measured in the DOE 

test procedure. In effect, DOE assumed that 

variation in the field energy use of compact 

appliances is a function solely of volume’’.31

The approximation ignores the 

significantly important variable of the 

number of door openings and closings 

which greatly differs between a full size 

refrigerator used by a family and a 

specialty compact refrigerator used in a 

secondary application. 

FSI performed tests on four 

representative models of refrigerators 

and beer dispensers, running tests at 

average 72°F (room) temperature and at 

90°F. For one set of tests FSI opened 

and closed the doors of each unit six 

times per test, which exceeds the 

frequency of typical door openings and 

closings for these models. The second 

set of tests was conducted with doors 

remaining closed throughout the test. 

These tests consistently showed that all 

units at average 72°F (room 

temperature) used over 40% less energy 

than when run at 90°F. The tests with 

doors closed had a weighted average of 

48% lower energy consumption than at 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
14696 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Notices 

32Assisted living facilities generally include 

meals as a standard feature. See e.g. Sunrise Senior 

Living, Assisted Living available at: http://

www.sunriseseniorliving.com/care-and-services/

assisted-living.aspx (‘‘While services and amenities 

may vary by location, Sunrise assisted senior living 

communities generally provide . . . [t]hree 

delicious, well-balanced meals served daily[.]’’); 

Friendship Assisted Living, Amenities available at: 

http://friendship.us/assisted-living/amenities-2/ 

(‘‘Restaurant-style dining is available for three 

meals every day[.]’’); HelpGuide.org, Assisted 

Living Facilities, available at: http://

www.helpguide.org/elder/assisted_living_

facilities.htm (showing that assisted living facilities 

typically provide three meals a day). 

33Full size refrigerators used in hotel suites with 

kitchenettes or extended stay hotels are not part of 

the waiver application. 34See American Hotel & Lodging Association, 

Eco-Friendly Case Studies, available at: http://

www.ahla.com/Green.aspx?id=21756 (The Radisson 

Hotel Cleveland decided to unplug hotel room 

mini-refrigerators because ‘‘a majority of hotel 

guests did not use them during their stay.’’). 

90°F, and tests with door openings had 

a weighted average of 46% lower energy 

consumption. Door openings consistent 

with actual use, or tests without door 

openings, did not change the overall 

results or the conclusions. 

A summary of this data is presented 

in the following tables. 

TABLE 1—TESTS WITH APPROPRIATE DOOR OPENINGS AND CLOSINGS

Type No. tests Energy use at 90°F 

Energy use at ambient Percent 

decrease With doors opened/closed 

Beer Dispenser ............................................. 2 1.16 kWh/day .............................. 0.68 kWh/day .............................. 41 

Hotel Refrigerator .......................................... 4 1.04 kWh/day .............................. 0.59 kWh/day .............................. 43 

Assisted Living Unit 1 .................................... 3 0.91 kWh/day .............................. 0.51 kWh/day .............................. 44 

Assisted Living Unit 2 .................................... 6 1.10 kWh/day .............................. 0.55 kWh/day .............................. 50 

TABLE 2—TESTS WITH DOORS CLOSED

Type No. tests Energy use at 90°F 

kWh/day 

Energy use at ambient Percent 

decrease (no door openings) 

Beer Dispenser ............................................. 6 1.16 kWh/day .............................. 0.65 kWh/day .............................. 44 

Hotel Refrigerator .......................................... 5 1.04 kWh/day .............................. 0.55 kWh/day .............................. 47 

Assisted Living Unit 1 .................................... 6 0.91 kWh/day .............................. 0.49 kWh/day .............................. 46 

Assisted Living Unit 2 .................................... 8 1.10 kWh/day .............................. 0.52 kWh/day .............................. 53 

Discussion of Door Openings and 

Closings for the Models in This Waiver 

Petition 

The units in this waiver application 

do not conform to the same usage as 

typical household full-size refrigerators: 

The doors on all of these basic units are 

opened and closed significantly less 

frequently than typical household 

refrigeration equipment. The units in 

this waiver petition also differ from the 

majority of compact refrigerator-freezers 

sold for dormitory or office use, which 

are typically shared by a number of 

users. 

1. Keg Beer Coolers [Models SBC490B 

and SBC570R] 

Beer coolers, by their nature, have 

their doors opened and closed only 

when a keg needs to be changed. 

Depending on usage, this may be once 

weekly, once monthly, or even less 

frequently. Beer in kegs is always 

provided in a chilled state, so in essence 

the beer cooler is not working to bring 

contents to the design temperature, but 

is only maintaining steady state 

conditions. The products in this waiver 

petition do not have shelves and are 

designed to store beer kegs only. 

Furthermore, use and care guides 

normally advise to turn off the 

electricity to the beer cooler while 

changing the keg, for both safety and 

energy conservation. 

2. Assisted Living Refrigerators [Models 

FF71TB, FF73, FF74, AL650R, 

ALB651BR, AL652BR, ALB653BR, 

CT66RADA, CT67RADA, AL750R, 

ALB751R, AL752BR, and ALB753LBR)] 

Refrigerators whose primary market is 

assisted living centers generally do not 

serve as a primary refrigerator.32 These 

centers typically provide residents with 

three full meals a day, along with snacks 

during morning, afternoon, and evening 

activities. As such, these units serve as 

secondary storage that is opened and 

closed less frequently than primary 

household refrigerators. A limited 

survey of residents in two of these 

facilities done by FSI employees 

showed that fresh food doors were 

opened an average of 4 times daily, and 

freezer doors less than once. The 

refrigerators sold by FSI that are used in 

these assisted living studio apartments 

also differ from typical household or 

dormitory type refrigerators in design. 

They are usually frost free or partial 

automatic defrost for the convenience of 

an elderly population (compared to 

typical ‘‘dormitory’’ refrigerators that 

are usually manual defrost). Moreover, 

they are usually only 4 to 6 cubic feet 

compared to the 15 to 25 cubic feet 

typically found in homes or apartments. 

3. Ultra-Compact Hotel Refrigerators 

[Models FF28LH, FF29BKH, FFAR21H, 

and FFAR2H] 

FSI’s proprietary ultra-compact 

refrigerators (with compressors) for 

hotel rooms are planned for 

introduction in early 2014 and are 

designed for guest convenience.33 These 

refrigerators are priced at a premium, 

very compact, and normally would be 

marketed only to upscale hotels. FSI 

estimates that guests will open and 

close the door to these units 

infrequently, if at all, since hotel rooms 

are generally occupied primarily during 

sleeping hours and meals are ordinarily 

eaten outside the room, or delivered by 

room service.34 In addition, these units 

will not be in use when the hotel rooms 

are vacant. 

As demonstrated above, testing the 

basic models in this waiver petition 

under the current and proposed test 

procedures would produce results that 

are ‘‘unrepresentative of its true energy 

consumption characteristics . . . as to 

provide materially inaccurate 

comparative data.’’ 10 CFR § 430.27. 

Based on the information presented, 

FSI proposes the following 

modifications be made to the DOE test 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Notices 14697 

35See Federal Register Vol. 62 No. 81, Page 

23111, April 28, 1997. 

36 Id. 

37 GC Enforcement Guidance on the Application 

of Waivers and on the Waiver Process Issued: 

December 23, 2010, see http://energy.gov/sites/

prod/files/gcprod/documents/LargeCapacityRCW_

guidance_122210.pdf 

procedures for the models named in this 

petition: 

1. Beer dispensers (Models SBC490B 

and SBC570R); be tested at an ambient 

temperature of 70°F (per DOE’s estimate 

of approximately 70°F as typical roomtemperature) with the doors closed; 

2. Hotel and assisting living 

refrigerators (Models FF71TB, FF73, 

FF74, AL650R, ALB651BR, AL652BR, 

ALB653BR, CT66RADA, CT67RADA, 

AL750R, ALB751R, AL752BR, 

ALB753LBR. FF28LH, FF29BKH, 

FFAR21H, and FFAR2H) be tested at 

72°F to account for the very small 

number of daily door openings (where 

2°F is 10% of the difference between 

70°F and 90°F and door openings of 

these products groups are no more than 

10% of the typical household 

refrigerators); 

3. The units be tested for 24 

continuous hours after stabilization to 

account for any timers used in the 

assisted living and hotel refrigerators; 

and 

4. All other test procedures be 

conducted in accordance with AHAM 

and DOE test procedures for residential 

refrigerators. 

Additional Arguments for Granting 

This Waiver 

FSI targets niche markets with many 

models, including those referenced 

herein, where the overall sales volume 

is too limited to appeal to manufacturers 

driven by mass production and 

economies of scale. In some cases, not 

allowing products that address certain 

size or use needs to market will have the 

unintended consequences of 

substantially reducing consumer choice 

and driving energy consumption up 

through a switch to larger models. 

For example, in the case of the 

assisted living markets, withdrawing 

specialty products from this small, 

niche market may force facilities to 

purchase larger refrigerators than 

necessary, increasing overall energy 

usage. The convenience and 

accessibility of these compact products 

is often more appropriate for assisted 

living residents. If suitably sized 

products are not available, facilities 

might be forced to remodel a kitchenette 

when a refrigerator needs replacing. 

In the case of the hotel industry, 

hotels (excluding extended stay hotels 

or suite type hotels) often use 

refrigerators that are driven by an 

absorption cooling system or by a 

thermoelectric cooling system (also 

called heat pipe systems). These cooling 

systems use significantly more energy 

than compressor systems, but are 

chosen by hotels for their low noise 

levels. It is important to note that these 

basic units may not be covered products 

for DOE because their design does not 

always allow them to reach the 39°F 

threshold and, therefore, may not be 

considered a refrigerator per the 

statutory definition. [See 10 CFC § 430.2 

(defining an electric refrigerator as ‘‘a 

cabinet designed for the refrigerated 

storage of food, designed to be capable 

of achieving storage temperatures above 

32°F (0°C) and below 39°F (3.9°C), and 

having a source of refrigeration 

requiring single phase, alternating 

current electric energy input only.’’)]. 

Consequently, by excluding FSI 

compressor models from competing in 

this market, hotels will use models with 

absorption or thermoelectric systems 

which use substantially more energy 

than the excluded products. 

Economic Burden of the Regulations on 

Small Business in General and FSI in 

Particular 

Failure to grant these basic models 

waivers from test procedures would 

have severe economic consequences for 

FSI. 

Very large, multi-national 

corporations dominate the appliance 

market, led by Whirlpool and General 

Electric, whose sales are in the billions 

of dollars. Foreign companies with 

appliance sales in the billions of dollars 

and with a large U.S. presence include 

Electrolux (Frigidaire), LG, Samsung, 

Daiwoo, Bosch, Liebherr, Miele, AGAMarvel, Bertazoni, Smeg, Haier, and 

Midea. FSI cannot compete with these 

companies’ mass markets, with huge 

economies of scale on production, and 

distribution and insignificant 

compliance testing costs. FSI 

predominantly markets specialty 

appliances that respond to niche market 

demands and customer choice. 

In response to DOE 2014 test 

procedures, FSI is working very hard to 

modify the vast majority of its 

residential refrigerator and freezer 

product line to comply with the new 

procedures. But in a number of niche 

markets with very small sales, the 

feasibility and costs of compliance are 

highly disproportionate for FSI to make 

a business case and will not result in 

energy savings. This results in an undue 

burden on FSI, for which these niche 

products form the nucleus of FSI’s 

manufacturing operations and are the 

driver of job creation in disadvantaged 

economic development areas. Unlike 

the large companies mentioned above 

who can spread the cost of meeting 

current DOE and upcoming DOE 2014 

standards and, in particular, test 

procedures over a base of millions, 

hundreds of thousands, or tens of 

thousands of units, a small business like 

FSI does not have this option. 

DOE has acknowledged the 

difficulties faced by both small 

manufacturers and the compact 

refrigeration industry dealing with 

standards. FSI falls into both categories 

and 90% of FSI’s refrigeration business 

is restricted to compact classes. DOE 

reports that compact appliances only 

account for 2.5% of total energy 

consumed by all refrigeration 

products.35 FSI’s assumption is that at 

least 75% of that small number is 

consumed by college dormitory/office 

type products, meaning that less than 

1% of total refrigeration energy use is 

consumed by ‘‘specialty’’ compact 

appliances, such as those listed in this 

petition. FSI’s market share even in 

these small niche markets is quite 

limited. The appliances in this waiver 

application are a negligible part of that 

tiny subset and any energy consumption 

impacts from this waiver are highly de 

minimis at most. DOE recognizes the 

limited options available to compact 

appliance manufacturers, ‘‘[b]ecause of 

small production volumes, the impact of 

new standards on these manufacturers 

is relatively severe.’’36 This is especially 

true ahead of DOE 2014 requirements, 

which mandate a 20% reduction of 

usage and few affordable alternatives for 

reducing energy consumption in niche 

appliances that meet consumer demand. 

FSI greatly appreciates DOE’s prompt 

attention to this petition for waiver, to 

allow for proper planning and avoiding 

additional, unnecessary economic 

hardship and financial burdens on FSI. 

Design changes to existing models and 

new product introductions routinely 

take 8 to 12 months for appliances. 

Without a prompt response to this 

petition for waiver, FSI cannot 

effectively plan its product line in a 

manner compliant with the new 

procedures and standards that take 

effect on September 15, 2014. For a 

small business manufacturer such as 

FSI, who specializes in niche product 

markets, uncertainty over test 

procedures will cause unnecessary costs 

without delivering any energy benefits 

or savings. 

DOE in its guidance on waivers 

commits to act promptly on waiver 

requests37. ‘‘First, the Department commits to act 

promptly on waiver requests and to update 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
14698 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Notices 

its test procedures to address granted waivers 

going forward. Second, to prevent the 

administrative waiver process from delaying 

or deterring the introduction of novel, 

innovative products into the marketplace, the 

Department, as a matter of enforcement 

policy, will refrain from enforcement actions 

related to pending waiver requests’’. 

FSI appreciates DOE’s recognition of 

the need to act promptly on these 

waiver requests and hopes DOE will 

take such an approach in responding to 

this petition in a manner that does not 

impose additional economic burdens on 

FSI. The objective is to assure that all 

test procedures result in representative 

indication of a product’s true energy 

consumption, without imposing 

unnecessary costs on small business 

appliance manufacturers such as FSI. 

Conclusions 

The waiver process clearly is 

intended for situations where test 

procedures do not provide an accurate 

representation of actual energy 

consumption. FSI has demonstrated that 

the test procedures specified by DOE do 

not provide representative measure of 

the basic models in this waiver 

application, whose doors are opened 

and closed significantly less than 

typical household use. 

FSI has demonstrated that: 

• The use of 90°F is designed to 

simulate an average of 40 to 50 door 

openings per day and, even at that level, 

may overstate energy usage; 

• The models listed in this waiver 

application have their doors opened and 

closed infrequently, and certainly 

significantly less than the simulation 

average; 

• An alternate test procedure is 

readily available consisting of testing 

the products at 70°F or 72°F, over a 24 

hour period, and holding all other test 

procedures in accordance with AHAM 

Procedures and 10 CFR § 430, Subpart 

B, Appendix A; 

• Failure to grant this waiver will 

cause severe economic hardship to FSI, 

and in some cases, will cause energy 

consumption to be higher than if the 

waiver were granted. 

FSI respectfully requests DOE waive the 

test procedures for the products listed in 

the petition as these ‘‘test procedures 

may evaluate [these product] . . . in a 

manner so unrepresentative of [their] 

true energy consumption characteristics 

. . . as to provide materially inaccurate 

comparative data.’’ 10 C.F.R. § 430.27. 

All of these basic units have materially 

different uses than the average products 

subject to the test procedures. The 

proposed alternative procedures will 

provide an accurate representation of 

actual energy use. For these reasons, FSI 

respectfully requests that DOE 

substitute our proposed test procedures 

and waive the test procedures at 10 CFR 

§ 430, Subpart B, Appendix A for FSI’s 

beer coolers, assisted living refrigeratorfreezers and hotel refrigerators. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Paul Storch, President 

Summit Appliance Div. Felix Storch, 

Inc. 

770 Garrison Ave. Bronx, NY 10474 

USA 

PH. 718–893–3900 

FAX: 718–842–3093 

[FR Doc. 2014–05778 Filed 3–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Project No. 1025–084] 

Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation; 

Notice of Application Accepted for 

Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions 

To Intervene, and Protests 

Take notice that the following 

hydroelectric application has been filed 

with the Commission and is available 

for public inspection: 

a. Application Type: Amendment of 

License. 

b. Project No.: 1025–084. 

c. Date Filed: January 31, 2014. 

d. Applicant: Safe Harbor Water 

Power Corporation. 

e. Name of Project: Safe Harbor 

Hydroelectric Project. 

f. Location: Susquehanna River in 

Lancaster and York Counties, 

Pennsylvania. 

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power 

Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r. 

h. Applicant Contact: Ted Rineer, 

Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation, 1 

Powerhouse Road, Conestoga, PA, (717) 

872–0273. 

i. FERC Contact: Rebecca Martin, 

(202) 502–6012, 

Rebecca.Martin@ferc.gov. 

j. Deadline for filing comments, 

motions to intervene, and protests: April 

9, 2014. 

All documents may be filed 

electronically via the Internet. See, 18 

CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 

instructions on the Commission’s Web 

site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

efiling.asp. Commenters can submit 

brief comments up to 6,000 characters, 

without prior registration, using the 

eComment system at http:// 

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

ecomment.asp. You must include your 

name and contact information at the end 

of your comments. For assistance, 

please contact FERC Online Support at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or toll 

free at 1–866–208–3676, or for TTY, 

(202) 502–8659. In lieu of electronic 

filing please send a paper copy to: 

Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20426. Please include 

the project number (P–1025–084) on any 

comments or motions filed. 

The Commission’s Rules of Practice 

and Procedure require all intervenors 

filing documents with the Commission 

to serve a copy of that document on 

each person whose name appears on the 

official service list for the project. 

Further, if an intervenor files comments 

or documents with the Commission 

relating to the merits of an issue that 

may affect the responsibilities of a 

particular resource agency, they must 

also serve a copy of the document on 

that resource agency. 

k. Description of Application: The 

licensee requests Commission approval 

to permanently raise the normal 

maximum water surface elevation of 

Lake Clarke from 227.2 feet to 227.6 feet 

during April 15 to October 15. In 

addition the licensee requests 

authorization to temporarily adjust the 

April 15 to October 15 normal 

maximum water surface elevation 

higher (up to elevation 228.0 feet), if the 

results of the Safe Harbor annual spring 

mudflat surveys demonstrate that the 

minimum area of shorebird habitat can 

be maintained, pursuant to Article 49, 

and if a fish stranding survey pursuant 

to Article 47 shows that the higher 

normal maximum level would not result 

in a substantial increase in fish 

stranding in Lake Clarke. 

l. Locations of the Application: A 

copy of the application is available for 

inspection and reproduction at the 

Commission’s Public Reference Room, 

located at 888 First Street NE., Room 

2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling 

(202) 502–8371. This filing may also be 

viewed on the Commission’s Web site at 

http://www.ferc.gov using the 

‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket 

number excluding the last three digits in 

the docket number field (P–1025) to 

access the document. You may also 

register online at http://www.ferc.gov/ 

docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be 

notified via email of new filings and 

issuances related to this or other 

pending projects. A copy is also 

available for inspection and 

reproduction at the address in item (h) 

above. 

m. Individuals desiring to be included 

on the Commission’s mailing list should 

so indicate by writing to the Secretary 

of the Commission. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES