39164 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 

[EERE–2017–BT–TP–0008] 

RIN 1904–AD83 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedure for Commercial 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, 

and Freezers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and announcement of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’) proposes to amend the 

test procedures for commercial 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers to reference the latest versions 

of the applicable industry standards. 

DOE also proposes to establish 

definitions and test procedures for new 

equipment categories, adopt test 

procedures consistent with recently 

published waivers and interim waivers, 

establish product-specific enforcement 

provisions, allow for volume 

determinations based on computer 

aided designs, specify a sampling plan 

for volume and total display area, and 

adopt additional clarifying 

amendments. DOE is seeking comment 

from interested parties on the proposal. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding this proposal 

no later than August 29, 2022. See 

section [V], ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for 

details. DOE will hold a webinar on 

Monday, August 1, 2022, from 1:00 p.m. 

to 4:00 p.m. See section V, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for webinar registration 

information, participant instructions, 

and information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov under docket 

number EERE–2017–BT–TP–0008. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. Alternatively, interested 

persons may submit comments, 

identified by docket number EERE– 

2017–BT–TP–0008, by any of the 

following methods: 

(1) Email: CRE2017TP0008@

ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 

EERE–2017–BT–TP–0008 in the subject 

line of the message. 

(2) Postal Mail: Appliance and 

Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible, 

please submit all items on a compact 

disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is not 

necessary to include printed copies. 

(3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance 

and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza 

SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible, 

please submit all items on a CD, in 

which case it is not necessary to include 

printed copies. 

No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

V of this document. 

Docket: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts (if a public 

meeting is held), comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at 

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

The docket web page can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2017-BT-TP-0008. The docket web page 

contains instructions on how to access 

all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. See section V 

for information on how to submit 

comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dr. Stephanie Johnson, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Building Technologies Office, EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1943. Email 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9496. Email: 

Peter.Cochran@Hq.Doe.Gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in a public meeting (if one is held), 

contact the Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 

1445 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

DOE proposes to maintain previously 

approved incorporations by reference 

and to incorporate by reference the 

following industry standards into 10 

CFR part 431: 

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute (‘‘AHRI’’) 

Standard 1200, ‘‘Performance Rating of 

Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets,’’ 

draft version submitted to DOE with 

expected publication in 2022 (‘‘AHRI 

1200–202X’’). 

American National Standards 

Institute (‘‘ANSI’’)/AHRI Standard 1320, 

‘‘Performance Rating of Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 

Storage Cabinets for Use With 

Secondary Refrigerants,’’ approved 2011 

(‘‘AHRI 1320–2011’’). 

ANSI/American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (‘‘ASHRAE’’) Standard 72, 

‘‘Method of Testing Open and Closed 

Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers,’’ 

second public review version with 

expected publication in 2022 

(‘‘ASHRAE 72–2018R’’). 

ASTM, International (‘‘ASTM’’) 

F2143–16, ‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Performance of Refrigerated Buffet and 

Preparation Tables,’’ approved 2016 

(‘‘ASTM F2143–16’’). 

Copies of the draft version of AHRI 

1200–202X can be obtained by going to 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2017-BT-TP-0008. Copies of AHRI 

1320–2011 can be obtained by going to 

ahri.net.org/search-standards. Copies of 

the second public review version of 

ASHRAE 72–2018R can be obtained by 

going to www.regulations.gov/docket/ 

EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008. Copies of 

ASTM F2143–16 can be purchased at 

www.astm.org/f2143-16.html. 

For a further discussion of these 

standards, see section IV.M of this 

document. 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

C. Deviation From Appendix A 

II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

III. Discussion 

A. Scope and Definitions 

1. Ice-Cream Freezers 

2. High-Temperature CRE 

3. Convertible Equipment 

B. Updates to Industry Test Standards 

1. AHRI 1200 

2. ASHRAE 72 

3. Secondary Coolants 

4. International Standards Development 

C. Test Conditions for Specific CRE 

Categories 

1. Salad Bars, Buffet Tables and 

Refrigerated Preparation Tables 

2. Pull-Down Temperature Applications 

3. Blast Chillers and Blast Freezers 

4. Chef Bases and Griddle Stands 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39165 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 

of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which 

reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 

Parts A and A–1 of EPCA. 

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1. 

3 In 2005, ASHRAE combined Standard 72–1998, 

‘‘Method of Testing Open Refrigerators,’’ and 

Continued 

5. Mobile Refrigerated Cabinets 

6. Additional Covered Equipment 

D. Harmonization of Efficiency Standards 

and Testing With NSF 7–2019 Food 

Safety 

E. Dedicated Remote Condensing Units 

F. Test Procedure Clarifications and 

Modifications 

1. Defrost Cycles 

2. Total Display Area 

G. Alternative Refrigerants 

H. Certification of Compartment Volume 

I. Test Procedure Waivers 

J. Enforcement Provisions 

K. Lowest Application Product 

Temperature 

L. Removal of Obsolete Provisions 

M. Additional Topics Raised in Comments 

From Interested Parties 

1. Refrigerant Leakages and Life Cycle 

Performance 

2. Refrigerant Collection for Remote 

Testing 

3. Energy Conservation Standards 

N. Sampling Plan 

O. Test Procedure Costs and 

Harmonization 

1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact 

2. Harmonization With Industry Standards 

P. Compliance Date and Waivers 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is 

Being Considered 

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule 

3. Description and Estimate of Small 

Entities Regulated 

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance 

Requirements 

5. Identification of Duplication, Overlap, 

and Conflict With Other Rules and 

Regulations 

6. A Description of Significant Alternatives 

to the Rule 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

M. Description of Materials Incorporated 

by Reference 

V. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

Commercial refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers (collectively, 

commercial refrigeration equipment, or 

‘‘CRE’’) are included in the list of 

‘‘covered equipment’’ for which DOE is 

authorized to establish and amend 

energy conservation standards and test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311)(1)(E)) 

DOE’s energy conservation standards 

and test procedures for CRE are 

currently prescribed at subpart C of part 

431 of title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (‘‘CFR’’). The following 

sections discuss DOE’s authority to 

establish test procedures for CRE and 

relevant background information 

regarding DOE’s consideration of test 

procedures for this equipment. 

A. Authority 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes 

DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of 

a number of consumer products and 

certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6317) Title III, Part C 2 of EPCA, 

added by Public Law 95–619, Title IV, 

section 441(a), established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Certain 

Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. This 

equipment includes CRE, the subject of 

this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311 (1)(E)) 

The energy conservation program 

under EPCA consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal 

energy conservation standards, and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. Relevant provisions of 

EPCA specifically include definitions 

(42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 

U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 

U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation 

standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the 

authority to require information and 

reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 

6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296). 

The Federal testing requirements 

consist of test procedures that 

manufacturers of covered equipment 

must use as the basis for: (1) certifying 

to DOE that their equipment complies 

with the applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and 

(2) making representations about the 

efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 

6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these 

test procedures to determine whether 

the equipment complies with relevant 

standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered equipment 

established under EPCA generally 

supersede State laws and regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 

labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 

6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers 

of Federal preemption for particular 

State laws or regulations, in accordance 

with the procedures and other 

provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(b)(2)(D)) 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth 

the criteria and procedures DOE must 

follow when prescribing or amending 

test procedures for covered equipment. 

EPCA requires that any test procedures 

prescribed or amended under this 

section must be reasonably designed to 

produce test results which reflect energy 

efficiency, energy use or estimated 

annual operating cost of a given type of 

covered equipment during a 

representative average use cycle and 

requires that test procedures not be 

unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) 

With respect to CRE, EPCA requires 

DOE to use the test procedures 

determined by the Secretary to be 

generally accepted industry standards, 

or industry standards developed or 

recognized by the American Society of 

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

American National Standards Institute 

(‘‘ANSI’’). (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(A)(i)) 

With regard to self-contained CRE to 

which statutory standards are 

applicable, the required initial test 

procedure is the ASHRAE 117 test 

procedure in effect on January 1, 2005. 

(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(A)(ii)) 

Additionally, EPCA requires that if 

ANSI 117 is amended, the Secretary 

shall, by rule, amend the test procedure 

for the product as necessary to ensure 

that the test procedure is consistent 

with the amended ASHRAE 117 test 

procedure, unless the Secretary makes a 

determination, by rule, and supported 

by clear and convincing evidence, that 

to do so would not meet the statutory 

requirements regarding 

representativeness and burden. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(E)) Finally, EPCA 

states if a test procedure other than the 

ASHRAE 117 test procedure is approved 

by ANSI, DOE must review the relative 

strengths and weaknesses of the new 

test procedure relative to the ASHRAE 

117 test procedure and adopt one new 

test procedure for use in the standards 

program. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(F)(i)) 3


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39166 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Standard 117–2002 and published the test method 

as ASHRAE Standard 72–2005, ‘‘Method of Testing 

Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers,’’ which was 

approved by ANSI on July 29, 2005. 

4The parenthetical reference provides a reference 

for information located in the docket of DOE’s 

rulemaking to develop test procedures for CRE. 

(Docket No. EERE–2017–BT–TP–0008, which is 

maintained at www.regulations.gov). The references 

are arranged as follows: (commenter name, 

comment docket ID number, page of that 

document). 

EPCA also requires that, at least once 

every 7 years, DOE evaluate test 

procedures for each type of covered 

equipment, including CRE, to determine 

whether amended test procedures 

would more accurately or fully comply 

with the requirements for the test 

procedures to not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct and be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results that reflect energy efficiency, 

energy use, and estimated operating 

costs during a representative average 

use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)) 

In addition, if the Secretary 

determines that a test procedure 

amendment is warranted, the Secretary 

must publish proposed test procedures 

in the Federal Register, and afford 

interested persons an opportunity (of 

not less than 45 days’ duration) to 

present oral and written data, views, 

and arguments on the proposed test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)) If DOE 

determines that test procedure revisions 

are not appropriate, DOE must publish 

its determination not to amend the test 

procedures. DOE is publishing this 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

(‘‘NOPR’’) in satisfaction of the 7-year 

review requirement specified in EPCA. 

(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii)) 

B. Background 

DOE’s current test procedure for CRE 

appears at 10 CFR part 431, subpart C, 

appendix B (‘‘Amended Uniform Test 

Method for the Measurement of Energy 

Consumption of Commercial 

Refrigerators, Freezers, and RefrigeratorFreezers’’). 

DOE last amended the test procedure 

for CRE in a final rule published on 

April 24, 2014. (‘‘April 2014 Final 

Rule’’). 79 FR 22277. Specifically, DOE 

clarified certain terms, procedures, and 

compliance dates to improve 

repeatability and provide additional 

detail compared to the prior version of 

the test procedure. DOE noted that the 

amendments in the April 2014 Final 

Rule would not affect the measured 

energy use of CRE as measured under 

the prior version of the test procedure. 

79 FR 22277, 22280–22281. 

The test procedure incorporates by 

reference the following industry 

standards: (1) AHRI Standard 1200 (I– 

P)–2010, ‘‘Performance Rating of 

Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets’’ 

(‘‘AHRI 1200–2010’’); (2) ASHRAE 

Standard 72–2005, ‘‘Method of Testing 

Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers’’, 

which was approved by ANSI on July 

29, 2005 (‘‘ASHRAE 72–2005’’); and (3) 

ANSI/Association of Home Appliances 

(‘‘AHAM’’) Standard HRF–1–2008, 

‘‘Energy, Performance, and Capacity of 

Household Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers’’ (‘‘AHAM HRF– 

1–2008’’) for determining refrigerated 

volumes for CRE. 

On June 11, 2021, DOE published in 

the Federal Register an early assessment 

request for information (‘‘June 2021 

RFI’’) seeking comments on the existing 

DOE test procedure for CRE. 86 FR 

31182. In the June 2021 RFI, DOE 

requested comments, information, and 

data regarding a number of issues, 

including (1) scope and definitions, (2) 

updates to industry standards, (3) test 

conditions for specific CRE categories, 

(4) harmonization with food safety 

standards, (5) remote condensing units, 

(6) test procedure clarifications, (7) 

alternative refrigerants, (8) compartment 

volume certification, and (9) test 

procedure waivers. 

DOE received comments in response 

to the June 2021 RFI from the interested 

parties listed in Table I.1. 

TABLE I.1—LIST OF COMMENTERS WITH WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO JUNE 2021 RFI 

Commenter(s) Reference in this 

NOPR Commenter type 

ITW-Food Equipment Group, LLC ................................................................................................ ITW ............................. Manufacturer. 

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute .................................................................. AHRI ........................... Trade Association. 

True Manufacturing Company, Inc ............................................................................................... True ............................ Manufacturer. 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ........................................................................................... NEEA .......................... Efficiency Organization. 

Continental Refrigerator ................................................................................................................ Continental .................. Manufacturer. 

Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development .................................................................. IGSD ........................... Efficiency Organization. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric; collectively, the California Investor-Owned Utilities.CA IOUs ..................... Energy Utilities. 

Arneg USA .................................................................................................................................... Arneg .......................... Manufacturer. 

Hoshizaki America, Inc ................................................................................................................. Hoshizaki .................... Manufacturer. 

Hussmann Corporation ................................................................................................................. Hussmann ................... Manufacturer. 

Appliance Standards Awareness Program, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, and Natural Resource Defense Council.Joint Commenters ...... Efficiency Organizations. 

Aarin King ...................................................................................................................................... King ............................. Individual. 

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.4

C. Deviation From Appendix A 

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 

CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A 

(‘‘appendix A’’), applicable to CRE 

under 10 CFR 431.4, DOE notes that it 

is deviating from the provision in 

appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR 

stages for a test procedure rulemaking. 

Section 8(b) of appendix A states that if 

DOE determines that it is appropriate to 

continue the test procedure rulemaking 

after the early assessment process, it 

will provide further opportunities for 

early public input through Federal 

Register documents, including notices 

of data availability and/or requests for 

information. DOE is opting to deviate 

from this provision due to the 

substantial feedback and information 

supplied by commenters in response to 

the June 2021 RFI. 

As discussed in section I.B of this 

NOPR, the June 2021 RFI requested 

submission of comments, data, and 

information pertinent to test procedures 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39167 

for CRE. In response to the June 2021 

RFI, stakeholders provided substantial 

comments and information, which DOE 

has found sufficient to identify the need 

to modify the test procedures for CRE. 

Additionally, DOE does not expect that 

further opportunities for early public 

input would result in additional 

substantive comments from interested 

parties. This NOPR discusses the 

comments received in response to the 

June 2021 RFI and considered in 

forming DOE’s proposals to amend the 

CRE test procedure. 

II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to 

update subpart C of 10 CFR part 431 as 

follows: 

(1) Establish new definitions for hightemperature refrigerator, mediumtemperature refrigerator, lowtemperature freezer, mobile refrigerated 

cabinet, and amend the definition for 

ice-cream freezer; 

(2) Incorporate by reference the most 

current versions of industry standards 

AHRI 1200, ASHRAE 72, and AHRI 

1320; 

(3) Establish definitions and a new 

appendix C including test procedures 

for buffet tables and preparation tables; 

(4) Establish definitions and a new 

appendix D including test procedures 

for blast chillers and blast freezers; 

(5) Amend the definition for chef base 

or griddle stand; 

(6) Specify refrigerant conditions for 

CRE that use carbon dioxide (‘‘CO2’’) 

refrigerant; 

(7) Allow for certification of 

compartment volumes based on 

computer aided design (‘‘CAD’’) models; 

(8) Incorporate provisions for defrosts 

and customer order storage cabinets 

currently specified in waivers and 

interim waivers; 

(9) Adopt product-specific 

enforcement provisions; 

(10) Clarify use of the lowest 

application product temperature 

(‘‘LAPT’’) provisions; 

(11) Remove the obsolete test 

procedure in appendix A; and 

(12) Specify a sampling plan for 

volume and total display area (‘‘TDA’’). 

DOE’s proposed actions are 

summarized in Table II.1 compared to 

the current test procedure as well as the 

reason for the proposed change. 

TABLE II.A—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN PROPOSED TEST PROCEDURE RELATIVE TO CURRENT TEST PROCEDURE

Current DOE test procedure Proposed test procedure Attribution 

Defines commercial refrigerator without delineating between units that operate at medium and high temperatures.Defines high-temperature refrigerator and medium-temperature refrigerator to account for new high-temperature rating point.Improves representativeness. 

Defines ice-cream freezer as a type of commercial 

freezer.

Defines low-temperature freezer to delineate between 

ice-cream freezers and other commercial freezers.

Improves representativeness. 

Ice-cream freezer definition refers only to ‘‘ice cream’’ .... Ice-cream definition refers more broadly to ‘‘frozen desserts’’.Improves representativeness. 

References AHRI 1200–2010 for rating requirements ..... References AHRI 1200–202X for rating requirements ... Harmonizes with most recent industry standard. 

References ASHRAE 72–2005 for test requirements ...... References ASHRAE 72–2018R for test requirements .. Harmonizes with most recent industry standard. 

References AHAM HRF–1–2008 for volume measurement.References AHRI 1200–202X for volume requirements Harmonizes with most recent industry standard. 

Includes a single 38 °F rating point for commercial refrigerators.Specifies 38 °F rating point for medium-temperature refrigerators and 55 °F rating point for high-temperature 

refrigerators.

Improves representativeness; harmonizes with industry standard. 

Does not specify a method for testing CRE with secondary coolants.References AHRI 1320–2011 for CRE used with secondary coolants.Improves representativeness; harmonizes with industry standard. 

Does not specify definitions or test procedures for buffet 

tables and preparation tables.

Defines buffet table and preparation table and establishes test procedures based on ASTM F2143–16.Improves representativeness; harmonizes with industry standard. 

Does not specify definitions or test procedures for blast 

chillers and blast freezers.

Defines blast chiller and blast freezer and establishes 

test procedures based on expected industry test 

method.

Improves representativeness; harmonizes with industry standard. 

Chef bases and griddle stands definition does not refer 

to a maximum height.

Clarifies chef base and griddle stand definition by 

specifying a maximum height of 32 inches for this 

equipment.

Improves representativeness. 

Does not provide procedures for CRE with no automatic 

defrost or with long duration defrost cycles.

References ASHRAE 72–2018R for test instructions for 

units with no automatic defrost and adopts optional 

two-part test for CRE with defrost cycles longer than 

24 hours.

Addresses existing waiver; 

harmonizes with industry 

standard. 

Includes conflicting instructions regarding TDA calculation.Corrects errors in current test procedure by reference 

to AHRI 1200–202X.

Improves representativeness, repeatability, and 

reproducibility; harmonizes with industry 

standard. 

Provides refrigerant conditions that applicable to common refrigerants.Specifies refrigerant conditions to allow for testing with 

carbon dioxide refrigerant.

Improves representativeness; harmonizes with 

existing waiver. 

Requires determining volume based on testing ............... Allows the use of computer-aided design (‘‘CAD’’) models to certify volume.Reduces test burden. 

Specifies a single door opening sequence ...................... Defines customer order storage cabinet equipment category and specifies an alternate door opening sequence for this equipment.Improves representativeness; harmonizes with 

existing waiver. 

Does not specify product-enforcement provisions ........... Includes product-enforcement provisions for determining volume and TDA.Improves clarity. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39168 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

5 Integrated average temperature means the 

average temperature of all test package 

measurements taken during the test. 10 CFR 431.62. 

TABLE II.A—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN PROPOSED TEST PROCEDURE RELATIVE TO CURRENT TEST PROCEDURE— 

Continued 

Current DOE test procedure Proposed test procedure Attribution 

Specifies LAPT instructions for temperatures above target test temperature.Clarifies use of LAPT provisions for operating temperatures below the target test temperature.Improves clarity. 

Includes obsolete appendix A and current appendix B 

test procedures.

Removes obsolete appendix A; adds new appendix C 

for testing buffet tables and preparation tables, and 

new appendix D for testing blast chillers and blast 

freezers.

Improves readability. 

Does not specify a sampling plan for volume and TDA ... Specifies that volume and TDA be determined based 

on the mean of the test sample.

Improves representativeness, repeatability, and 

reproducibility. 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

the proposed amendments described in 

section III of this NOPR would not alter 

the measured efficiency of CRE 

currently subject to energy conservation 

standards and would not require 

retesting or recertification solely as a 

result of DOE’s adoption of the 

proposed amendments to the test 

procedures, if made final. Additionally, 

DOE has tentatively determined that the 

proposed amendments, if made final, 

would not increase the cost of such 

testing. Additionally, for buffet tables 

and preparation tables, and blast 

chillers and blast freezers, testing 

according to the proposed test 

procedure would not be required until 

the compliance date of any energy 

conservation standards for that 

equipment. To the extent manufacturers 

of these CRE are making voluntary 

representations regarding energy use, 

they would experience costs associated 

with retesting. DOE provides a 

discussion of these testing costs in 

section III.O.1 of this NOPR. Discussion 

of DOE’s proposed actions are addressed 

in detail in section III of this NOPR. 

III. Discussion 

A. Scope and Definitions 

‘‘Commercial refrigerator, freezer, and 

refrigerator-freezer’’ means refrigeration 

equipment that is not a consumer 

product (as defined in 10 CFR 430.2); is 

not designed and marketed exclusively 

for medical, scientific, or research 

purposes; operates at a chilled, frozen, 

combination chilled and frozen, or 

variable temperature; displays or stores 

merchandise and other perishable 

materials horizontally, semi-vertically, 

or vertically; has transparent or solid 

doors, sliding or hinged doors, a 

combination of hinged, sliding, 

transparent, or solid doors, or no doors; 

is designed for pull-down temperature 

applications or holding temperature 

applications; and is connected to a selfcontained condensing unit or to a 

remote condensing unit. 10 CFR 431.62. 

For the purpose of determining 

applicability of certain test procedure 

provisions, DOE is proposing to amend 

certain existing definitions and to 

establish certain new definitions, as 

discussed in the following paragraphs. 

DOE discusses additional equipment 

definitions and test procedures for 

specific equipment categories in section 

III.C of this NOPR. 

1. Ice-Cream Freezers 

DOE defines certain categories of CRE, 

including ‘‘ice-cream freezer.’’ DOE 

defines an ‘‘ice-cream freezer’’ as a 

commercial freezer that is designed to 

operate at or below ¥5 °F (±2 °F) (¥21 

°C ± 1.1 °C) and that the manufacturer 

designs, markets, or intends for the 

storing, displaying, or dispensing of ice 

cream. 10 CFR 431.62. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on the technical features that 

characterize ice-cream freezers and 

distinguish them from other categories 

of commercial freezers capable of 

operating at or below ¥5 °F. 86 FR 

31182, 31184. 

ITW commented that in general, icecream freezers are standard 

‘‘commercial freezers’’ operating at a 

modified storage temperature. (ITW, No. 

2, p. 1) True commented that when 

considering vertical freezers, there are 

no features that would distinguish a 

freezer storing ice cream from a 

standard commercial freezer, since both 

are designed to maintain the same 

integrated average temperature 

(‘‘IAT’’).5 (True, No. 4, p. 2) However, 

True commented that there are 

significant differences between a CRE 

able to maintain an IAT of ¥15 °F and 

one that is only designed to maintain an 

IAT of 0 °F. (True, No. 4, p. 2) 

ITW commented that dipping cabinets 

(i.e., cabinets intended for ice cream 

service) are the obvious model type that 

can be easily distinguished from other 

freezers and are generally characterized 

by product visibility and accessories 

sold with the unit. (ITW, No. 2, p. 1) 

Hussmann, AHRI, and Continental 

commented that ice-cream freezers often 

have a manual defrost to maintain 

frozen products, which may be a 

distinguishing feature for most icecream freezers. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 2; 

Hussmann, No. 14, p. 2; Continental, 

No. 6, p. 1) Hussmann, AHRI, and 

Continental commented that many of 

these models are of a cold wall design 

rather than forced air evaporation. 

(AHRI, No. 3, p. 2; Hussmann, No. 14, 

p. 2; Continental, No. 6, p. 1) Hussmann 

and AHRI stated that in ice cream 

applications it is imperative to avoid 

formation of ice crystals by maintaining 

temperature, particularly surrounding 

defrost cycles. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 2; 

Hussmann, No. 14, p. 2) Continental 

commented that features such as 

manual defrost and cold wall 

evaporators minimize temperature 

fluctuations. (Continental, No. 6, p.1) 

Dipping cabinets are one 

configuration of CRE that likely is 

readily understood to be an ice-cream 

freezer; however, not all ice-cream 

freezers are dipping cabinets. As such 

DOE is not proposing to limit the 

definition of ‘‘ice-cream freezer’’ to 

those units. Additionally, while icecream freezers may implement manual 

defrosts or cold wall evaporators, DOE 

is aware of these equipment designs in 

other commercial freezers, such that 

they do not uniquely distinguish icecream freezers. DOE has not identified 

any technical features that would allow 

for distinguishing ice-cream freezers 

from other commercial freezers capable 

of operating at low temperatures and is 

therefore not proposing to include any 

additional equipment characteristics in 

the ice-cream freezer definition. 

DOE notes that the equipment term 

and definition reference ‘‘ice cream,’’ 

but ‘‘ice cream’’ is not defined. DOE 

understands that other frozen products 

may be similarly stored and displayed. 

For example, gelato, frozen yogurt, 

sorbet, and other ice-cream-like 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39169 

products are typically displayed, stored, 

and dispensed in the same manner as 

ice-cream. The CRE used for these food 

products is likely similar, if not 

identical, to equipment used to store, 

display, or dispense ice cream. In the 

June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment 

on whether further specificity is needed 

for the term ‘‘ice-cream.’’ 86 FR 31182, 

31184. 

ITW commented that ice-cream and 

ice-cream like products can be divided 

into 3 temperature classes: (1) ¥5 °F to 

5 °F, equipment designed to hold ice 

cream for immediate consumption; (2) 

¥10 °F to ¥15 °F, equipment designed 

to hold ice cream for short term storage 

or retail sale; (3) ¥20 °F to ¥40 °F, 

equipment designed to hold ice cream 

for long term storage. (ITW, No. 2, p. 1) 

Hussmann and AHRI agreed that the 

term ‘‘ice cream’’ does not exclusively 

apply to products that are designed to 

and tested at ¥15 °F, and that simply 

including or excluding the term ‘‘ice 

cream’’ does not accurately distinguish 

the appropriate product category. 

(Hussmann, No. 14, p. 2–3; AHRI, No. 

3, p. 2) AHRI and Hussmann stated that 

they do not support the removal of the 

term ‘‘ice cream,’’ but support 

differentiating temperature categories 

for the various uses of ice-cream 

applications. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 2– 

3; AHRI, No. 3, p. 2) 

Hussmann and AHRI commented that 

the product category should be based on 

the designed, marketed, and intended 

use of the equipment. (Hussmann, No. 

14, p. 2–3; AHRI, No. 3, p. 2) Hussmann 

and AHRI commented that there is an 

important distinction between many 

products that operate in the 0 °F to 

¥5 °F range that are not designed to 

operate at ¥15 °F. (Hussmann, No. 14, 

p. 2–3; AHRI, No. 3, p. 2) 

True commented that the use of the 

term ‘‘ice-cream’’ to distinguish a 

different equipment category does not 

make sense given the range of operating 

temperatures for different types of icecream and ice-cream like products, and 

that more generic terms should be used 

such as ‘‘commercial low temperature 

freezer’’ (IAT of 0 °F) and ‘‘commercial 

lower temperature freezer’’ (IAT of 

¥15 °F). (True, No. 4, p. 2–3) 

DOE recognizes that the reference to 

‘‘ice cream’’ in the ice-cream freezer 

definition does not itself distinguish 

this equipment from other commercial 

freezers, and that the additional 

descriptors specified in the definition 

(i.e., designed to operate at or below 

¥5 °F) together classify a unit as an icecream freezer. However, to clarify the 

equipment classification and to avoid a 

potential understanding that the term is 

limited to equipment associated with 

ice cream and not other similar 

products, DOE is proposing to amend 

the ice-cream freezer definition to refer 

to equipment designed, marketed, or 

intended for the storing, displaying, or 

dispensing of ‘‘frozen desserts,’’ rather 

than ice cream specifically. DOE does 

not expect this proposal to affect testing 

or certifications for existing CRE 

because equipment designed for frozen 

desserts other than ice cream that 

otherwise meets the ice-cream freezer 

definition are likely already tested and 

certified as an ice-cream freezer. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed amended definition of icecream freezer, and on whether any 

additional characteristics may better 

differentiate this equipment from other 

commercial freezers. 

Appendix B requires testing all icecream freezers to an IAT of ¥15 °F. 

However, the term ‘‘ice-cream freezer’’ 

includes a variety of equipment with a 

range of typical operating temperatures 

during normal use. For example, certain 

ice-cream freezers are designed to 

operate considerably below ¥5 °F 

(sometimes referred to as ‘‘hardening’’ 

cabinets and specifically designed for 

ice cream storage), while other icecream freezers are designed to operate 

closer to 0 °F during typical use (e.g., 

‘‘dipping cabinets’’ and other equipment 

used to hold ice cream intended for 

immediate consumption). Ice-cream 

freezers intended for higher-temperature 

operation are often not capable of 

achieving an IAT of ¥15 °F. In such an 

instance, appendix B requires testing 

the units to the LAPT. 

If certain ice-cream freezers not 

capable of reaching an IAT of ¥15 °F 

should instead be tested at an IAT of 

0 °F, there may be an opportunity to 

better distinguish between ice-cream 

freezers and other freezers, as discussed 

earlier in this section. For example, the 

ice-cream freezer definition could be 

revised to refer to any freezer capable of 

operating at an IAT of ¥15 °F, 

regardless of the intended end use of the 

equipment. Any other equipment 

currently meeting the ice-cream freezer 

definition but not capable of reaching an 

IAT of ¥15 °F could instead be 

classified and tested as freezers, rather 

than ice-cream freezers. Such an 

approach would use the measured IAT 

of the equipment as the basis for this 

equipment definition, thus eliminating 

the reliance on manufacturer intent or 

the end use of the equipment. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on whether equipment that 

meets the current ice-cream freezer 

definition but cannot operate at an IAT 

of ¥15 °F ± 2 °F should be tested at an 

IAT of 0 °F ± 2 °F instead of the LAPT. 

86 FR 31182, 31184. DOE additionally 

requested comment on whether the icecream freezer definition should refer 

only to equipment that is capable of 

achieving an IAT of ¥15 °F ± 2 °F 

without reference to the manufacturer’s 

designed, marketed, or intended use. Id. 

The Joint Commenters, True, and 

NEEA supported changing the 

definition of ‘‘ice-cream freezer’’ to refer 

to operating capabilities instead of 

design intent, or replacing ‘‘ice-cream’’ 

with a more generic term, to remove 

ambiguity of equipment classes and 

ensure a standardized temperature 

(¥15 °F or 0 °F). (Joint Commenters, No. 

8, p. 1; True, No. 4, p. 3; NEEA, No. 5, 

p. 4) ITW, NEEA, and CA IOUs further 

supported testing at standard IATs 

instead of LAPT to create a more direct 

comparison of daily energy 

consumption. (ITW, No. 2, p. 1; NEEA, 

No. 5, p. 4–5) True commented that the 

test procedure, in specifying IATs of 

0 °F and ¥15 °F, is acceptable. True also 

commented that CRE capable of 

maintaining an IAT of ¥15 °F should 

have a greater energy allowance than 

CRE only capable of maintaining an IAT 

of 0 °F. (True, No. 4, p. 3) 

Hussmann, AHRI, Hoshizaki, and 

True agreed that ‘‘ice-cream’’ freezers 

that are not designed, marketed, and 

intended to operate at ¥15 °F could be 

tested at an IAT of 0 °F ± 2 °F instead of 

the LAPT. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 2–3; 

AHRI, No. 3, p. 2; Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 

1; True, No. 4, p. 3) Hussmann, AHRI, 

Hoshizaki, and Continental disagreed 

that the ice-cream freezer definition 

should only refer to equipment that can 

achieve an IAT of ¥15 °F ± 2 °F without 

reference to the manufacturer’s 

designed, marketed, or intended use, 

asserting that the product category and 

definition should be based on these 

factors. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 2–3; 

AHRI, No. 3, p. 2, Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 

1; Continental, No. 6, p. 1) Continental 

added that this terminology is 

commonly used by manufacturers and 

dealers to identify the appropriate 

equipment for these applications. 

(Continental, No. 6, p. 1) 

NEEA commented that as of July 16, 

2021, there were 434 commercial icecream freezers listed in DOE’s 

compliance certification database, with 

410 rated for operation at either ¥10 °F 

or ¥15 °F, and the remaining 24 units 

with an LAPT of ¥5 °F. (NEEA, No. 5, 

p. 4) NEEA added that the 24 units rated 

at ¥5 °F were all service over counter 

(‘‘SOC’’) units, demonstrating that their 

intended use is for immediate 

consumption, whereas the other 410 

units’ primary function was for 

hardening. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 4) The CA 

IOUs commented on this same dataset; 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39170 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

6Based on review of DOE’s Compliance 

Certification Database, available at 

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data 

(accessed February 1, 2022). 

however, they noted that 88 percent 

(382 units) of models were tested at 

¥15 °F, with the remaining 12 percent 

(52 units) tested at ¥5 °F or ¥10 °F. (CA 

IOUs, No. 10, p. 5) 

NEEA commented that DOE should 

define ice-cream freezers as those able 

to operate at ¥10 °F, and that ¥10 °F is 

appropriate for both testing and the 

definition, since it is more 

representative of field usage and is low 

enough to achieve ice cream hardening. 

(NEEA, No. 5, p. 4–5) NEEA commented 

that the definitions in both 10 CFR 

431.62 and ENERGY STAR define icecream freezers as designed to operate at 

or below ¥5 °F, further supporting a 

temperature higher than ¥15 °F for 

testing, and that this higher temperature 

(i.e., ¥10 °F) would capture a greater 

number of units under one definition 

and test. (Id.) 

The CA IOUs commented that there 

are two distinct uses for ice-cream 

freezers: ice cream storage cabinets 

(with a cold holding temperature of 

¥15 °F) and ice cream dipping cabinets 

(which provide malleable ice cream 

serving at ¥5 °F). (CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 

5) The CA IOUs commented that in their 

investigation they found that models 

tested at non-standard temperatures 

(i.e., above ¥15 °F) occurred primarily 

in horizontal closed solid (‘‘HCS’’) 

equipment, of which 30 percent of 

products were tested at ¥10 °F; and 

service over counter equipment, of 

which 51 percent of products were 

tested at ¥5 °F. (CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 5– 

6). The CA IOUs commented that the 

DOE should consider renaming the HCS 

ice-cream freezers to ‘‘solid door ice 

cream dipping cabinet’’ and SOC icecream freezer to ‘‘glass door ice cream 

dipping cabinet’’ to better align with 

industry terms and differentiate 

between products tested at ¥15 °F. (Id.) 

The CA IOUs suggested testing these 

two equipment classes for ice cream 

dipping applications at ¥5 °F. (Id.) 

DOE participated in the committee 

meetings to consider updates to AHRI 

1200–2013, eventually leading to the 

development of AHRI 1200–202X. 

During these meetings, the committee 

discussed ice-cream freezer rating 

temperatures and considered additional 

or alternate rating temperatures for icecream freezer applications. The 

committee determined that the existing 

rating points for commercial freezers 

(i.e., ¥15 °F for ice-cream freezers and 

0 °F for freezers) are appropriate rating 

points for the range of typical 

commercial freezer operation and 

maintained these rating points in 

section 3.15 ‘‘Product Temperature’’ of 

AHRI 1200–202X. Consistent with the 

latest industry rating standard, DOE is 

not proposing to amend the commercial 

freezer target IATs for testing. 

Of the 418 ice-cream freezer models 

certified to DOE,6 50 are rated based on 

LAPTs higher than ¥15 °F, including 24 

models with a rating temperature of 

¥5 °F. Many of these models have a 

horizontal or service over counter 

configuration and are intended to hold 

ice cream for immediate consumption. 

DOE recognizes that testing and rating 

certain commercial freezers to 0 °F may 

be more appropriate than testing and 

rating to ¥15 °F. DOE already requires 

a 0 °F rating temperature for commercial 

freezers. Based on comments from 

interested parties and a review of the 

commercial freezer market, DOE has 

tentatively determined that ice-cream 

freezers that meet the current ice-cream 

freezer definition but cannot operate as 

low as an IAT of ¥15 °F ± 2 °F can be 

tested at an IAT of 0 °F ± 2 °F. Therefore, 

DOE is proposing to amend the icecream freezer definition in this NOPR to 

specify that the designed operating 

temperature is required to be at or below 

¥15.0 °F (±2.0 °F), upon the compliance 

date(s) of any amended energy 

conservation standard(s) for ice-cream 

freezers. 

To clarify which commercial freezers 

are required to test at an IAT of 0 °F 

according to appendix B, DOE is 

proposing to define the term ‘‘lowtemperature freezer’’ to mean a 

commercial freezer that is not an icecream freezer. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed amended definition for icecream freezer and the proposed 

definition for low-temperature freezer. 

2. High-Temperature CRE 

DOE defines ‘‘commercial refrigerator 

as’’ a unit of commercial refrigeration 

equipment in which all refrigerated 

compartments in the unit are capable of 

operating at or above 32 °F (±2 °F). 10 

CFR 431.62. 

Section 2.1 of appendix B requires 

testing commercial refrigerators to an 

IAT of 38 °F ± 2 °F. DOE is aware of 

equipment that meets the definition of 

a commercial refrigerator but is capable 

of operating only at temperatures above 

the 38 °F ± 2 °F IAT required for testing. 

Examples of these types of equipment 

include CRE designed for storing or 

displaying chocolate and/or wine, with 

typical recommended storage 

temperatures around 55 °F. Consistent 

with the current test procedure, 

manufacturers certify such equipment 

using the LAPT setting. LAPT can vary 

by model, so this approach which does 

not rely on a uniform operating 

temperature can result in measured 

energy consumptions that are not 

necessarily comparable between 

models. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE stated that 

it was considering adding a definition 

for ‘‘high-temperature refrigerator’’ to 

better delineate commercial refrigerators 

not capable of operating at the IAT 

required for testing a commercial 

refrigerator. 86 FR 31182, 31184. 

The Joint Commenters, NEEA, CA 

IOUs, AHRI, and Hussmann supported 

DOE establishing a new definition for 

‘‘high-temperature refrigerator’’ and 

separate test requirements for this 

equipment. (Joint Commenters, No. 8, p. 

1–2; NEEA, No. 5, p. 6; CA IOUs, No. 

10, p. 5; AHRI, No. 3, p. 3; Hussmann, 

No. 14, p. 4) 

AHRI and Hussmann commented that 

they support a higher temperature 

category and requested that it be 

representative of the higher temperature 

ranges used in the marketplace (e.g., 

floral, wine, cigars, meat aging, etc.). 

(AHRI, No. 3, p. 3; Hussmann, No. 14, 

p. 4) 

ITW commented that it is desirable to 

maintain consistent testing criteria 

between DOE equipment families to 

eliminate errors and misunderstandings 

between nationally recognized testing 

laboratories (‘‘NRTLs’’), DOE, 

manufacturers, and consumers. (ITW, 

No. 2, p. 2) ITW commented that 

changes to the test procedure for hightemperature refrigerators would account 

for only nominal differences in the 

measured energy consumption rate, 

while adding complexity. (Id.) 

NEEA commented that DOE should 

develop a definition and test procedure 

for high temperature commercial 

cabinets as a parallel to DOE’s definition 

of residential high temperature 

refrigerators, and stated that there is a 

the potential for energy savings in this 

equipment category. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 6– 

7) 

DOE is aware of certain commercial 

refrigerators that are intended for use 

only at IATs higher than the 38 °F ± 2 °F 

required by the existing DOE test 

procedure. For example, 133 models of 

single-compartment commercial 

refrigerators are rated at LAPTs at or 

above 40 °F. By definition, these models 

are not capable of operating at the 

required test integrated average 

temperature. 10 CFR 431.62. As 

indicated in comments from interested 

parties, categorizing these commercial 

refrigerators in a separate hightemperature category would allow DOE 

to consider test procedures for this 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39171 

equipment that may better represent 

actual use. 

To allow for differentiating typical 

commercial refrigerators from 

commercial refrigerators that operate 

only at higher temperature, DOE 

proposes to define ‘‘high-temperature 

refrigerator’’ as a commercial 

refrigerator that is not capable of 

operating with an integrated average 

temperature as low as 38.0 °F (±2.0 °F). 

DOE recognizes that certain commercial 

refrigerators may be capable of operating 

with IAT of 38.0 °F (±2.0 °F) but are 

intended for use at higher storage 

temperatures. However, DOE is 

proposing to define ‘‘high-temperature 

refrigerator’’ based on operating 

capability rather than intended use to 

ensure consistent application of DOE’s 

definitions and to ensure that CRE 

currently tested and rated with IATs of 

38.0 °F (±2.0 °F) would continue to be 

categorized, tested, and rated at that 

operating condition. 

To clarify the classification of 

commercial refrigerators overall, DOE is 

also proposing to define the term 

‘‘medium-temperature refrigerator’’ to 

refer to commercial refrigerators capable 

of operating with IATs of 38.0 °F 

(±2.0 °F) or lower. As discussed further 

in section III.B.1.b of this document, 

DOE is proposing to require testing 

high-temperature refrigerators according 

to AHRI 1200–202X, which requires an 

IAT of 55 °F ± 2.0 °F. Under the 

proposed approach, a commercial 

refrigerator would be tested and rated as 

either a medium-temperature 

refrigerator (if capable of operating with 

an IAT of 38.0 °F (±2.0 °F)) or as a hightemperature refrigerator (if not capable 

of operating with an IAT as low as 

38.0 °F (±2.0 °F)). 

DOE recognizes that certain 

commercial refrigerators may be capable 

of operating at both IATs of 38 °F 

(±2.0 °F) and 55 °F (±2.0 °F). In the April 

2014 Final Rule, DOE stated that CRE 

capable of operating at IATs that span 

multiple equipment categories must be 

certified and comply with DOE’s 

regulations for each applicable 

equipment category. 79 FR 22277, 

22291. The proposed definition of hightemperature refrigerator would exclude 

CRE capable of operating at medium 

temperatures (i.e., an IAT of 38 °F), and 

therefore would exclude models capable 

of operating at both IATs. Thus, as 

proposed, a unit of CRE capable of 

operating at both IATs of 38 °F and 55 °F 

would meet the definition of only a 

medium-temperature refrigerator. 

As an alternative to the proposed 

definition, DOE could instead define 

high-temperature refrigerator based only 

on the capability of a commercial 

refrigerator to operate at IATs of 55 °F 

(±2.0 °F). Under such an alternate 

approach, a unit of CRE capable of 

operating at both IATs of 38 °F and 55 °F 

would meet the definition of both a 

medium-temperature refrigerator and a 

high-temperature refrigerator. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definitions for hightemperature refrigerator and mediumtemperature refrigerator, including 

whether the terms should be mutually 

exclusive or constructed such that 

equipment could be considered to meet 

both definitions. 

DOE discusses proposed test 

requirements for this equipment in 

section III.B.1.b of this NOPR. 

3. Convertible Equipment 

In the April 2014 Final Rule, DOE 

noted that some basic models of CRE 

may have operating characteristics that 

include an operating temperature range 

that spans multiple equipment classes 

and subsequently required that selfcontained equipment or remote 

condensing equipment with thermostats 

capable of operating at IATs that span 

multiple equipment categories be 

certified and comply with DOE’s 

regulations for each applicable 

equipment category. 79 FR 22277, 

22291. Similarly, DOE adopted 

requirements for remote condensing 

equipment without a thermostat that 

specify that if a given basic model of 

CRE is marketed, designed, or intended 

to operate at IATs spanning multiple 

equipment categories, the CRE basic 

model must be certified and comply 

with the relevant energy conservation 

standards for all applicable equipment 

categories. Id. 

DOE is proposing to specify in 10 CFR 

429.42 the requirements from the April 

2014 Final Rule that require basic 

models of CRE that operate in multiple 

equipment classes to certify and comply 

with the energy conservation standards 

for each applicable equipment class. 

This proposal is consistent with the 

notice of petition for a test procedure 

waiver that DOE published on May 26, 

2017, for AHT Cooling Systems GmbH 

and AHT Cooling Systems USA Inc. 

(‘‘AHT’’) in which DOE declined to 

grant AHT an interim waiver that would 

allow for testing only in the ice-cream 

freezer equipment class for AHT’s 

specified multi-mode CRE basic models. 

82 FR 24330. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to specify the requirements 

from the April 2014 Final Rule 

regarding basic models of CRE that 

operate in multiple equipment classes. 

B. Updates to Industry Test Standards 

DOE’s test procedure for CRE 

currently adopts through reference 

certain provisions of AHRI 1200–2010, 

ASHRAE 72–2005, and AHAM HRF–1– 

2008. 10 CFR 431.63. With regard to the 

provisions relevant to the DOE test 

procedure, AHRI 1200–2010 references 

certain provisions of ASHRAE 72–2005 

and AHAM HRF–1–2008. 

Since establishing the DOE test 

procedure in appendix B, AHRI, 

ASHRAE, and AHAM have published 

updated versions of the referenced test 

standards. On October 1, 2013, ANSI 

approved an updated version of AHRI 

1200, ANSI/AHRI Standard 1200 (I–P), 

‘‘2013 Standard for Performance Rating 

of Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandizers and Storage Cabinets,’’ 

(‘‘AHRI 1200–2013’’). On August 1, 

2018, ANSI approved an updated 

version of ASHRAE 72, ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 72–2018, ‘‘Method of Testing 

Open and Closed Commercial 

Refrigerators and Freezers,’’ (‘‘ASHRAE 

72–2018’’). AHAM more recently 

approved and published an updated 

version of its industry test standard, 

AHAM HRF–1–2019, ‘‘Energy and 

Internal Volume of Refrigerating 

Appliances,’’ (‘‘AHAM HRF–1–2019’’). 

For each of these industry test 

standards, DOE has initially determined 

that the changes within these updated 

industry test standards are either 

editorial, improve clarity, better 

harmonize with the DOE test procedure, 

or not relevant to CRE (e.g., relevant to 

products such as consumer 

refrigerators). Based on DOE’s initial 

assessment, the changes in the updated 

versions of the industry test standards 

would not impact the measured energy 

consumption, volume, or TDA of CRE, 

as applicable. 

DOE is also aware of updates being 

considered for AHRI 1200–2013 and 

ASHRAE 72–2018. DOE has 

participated in the industry committee 

meetings in which updates to these 

industry standards are being developed. 

Based on these meetings, the changes 

being considered by the industry 

committee appear intended largely to 

improve the clarity, consistency, and 

representativeness of the industry test 

methods. DOE discusses these changes 

further in sections III.B.1 and III.B.2 of 

this NOPR. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on whether it should reference 

the most recent versions of AHRI 1200 

or ASHRAE 72 and whether any of the 

updates to these standards would have 

an impact on the measured energy 

consumption of CRE, and if so, how. 86 

FR 31182, 31185. DOE additionally 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39172 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

7 ITW and other commenters did not reference a 

specific ANSI approved version of AHRI 1200, 

ASHRAE 72, and AHAM HRF–1. DOE assumed 

commenters referenced the most recent ANSI 

approved versions of these standards—AHRI 1200– 

2013 and ASHRAE 72–2018—unless otherwise 

specified by the commenter. DOE assumed 

commenters referenced the ANSI approved version 

of AHAM HRF–1 (i.e., HRF–1–2008) referenced by 

ASHRAE 72–2018 and AHRI 1200–2013, unless 

otherwise specified by the commenter. 

8On August 17, 2021, AHRI shared with DOE a 

draft version of AHRI 1200 for the purposes of 

referencing. AHRI indicated an expected 

publication date by the end of 2021. The updated 

AHRI 1200 has not yet published, so DOE is 

referencing the draft standard in this NOPR. As 

indicated in the AHRI correspondence, AHRI 

Standard 1200–202X is in draft form and its text 

was provided to the Department for the purposes 

of review only during the drafting of this NOPR. 

Free copies of published AHRI Standards and a 

listing of documents open for Public Comment are 

available on the AHRI website. The draft of AHRI 

1200 is available in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking on regulations.gov. 

requested comment on whether the CRE 

test procedure should reference the 

most current version of AHAM HRF–1 

and whether any of the updates to that 

standard would have an impact on 

measured volume, and if so, how. Id. 

Hoshizaki and Continental 

commented in support of referencing 

AHRI 1200–2013 and ASHRAE 72– 

2018. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 1; 

Continental, No. 6, p. 1) The CA IOUs 

commented in support of referencing 

ASHRAE 72–2018. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, 

p. 1; Continental, No. 6, p. 1CA IOUs, 

No. 10, p. 2) ITW commented that the 

DOE should only consider the ANSI 

approved versions of AHRI 1200–2013, 

ASHRAE 72–2018, and AHAM HRF–1– 

2008 7 standards, stating that any 

reference to standards not yet approved 

would be premature and would not 

consider the final impact. (ITW, No. 2, 

p. 2) AHRI and Hussmann commented 

that DOE should incorporate by 

reference the upcoming versions of 

AHRI 1200 and ASHRAE 72. (AHRI, No. 

3, p. 3–4; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 5) AHRI 

and Hussmann commented that both 

draft standards are in the review phase 

and that draft copies were available to 

DOE upon request. (Id.) 

AHRI and Hussmann commented that 

the AHAM HRF–1–2008 volume 

calculations have been incorporated 

into the latest version of AHRI 1200 and 

ASHRAE 72 and that the appropriate 

volume requirements are covered in 

appendix C of AHRI Standard 1200 to 

avoid referencing a standard that does 

not specifically apply to industry 

equipment. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 3–4; 

Hussmann, No. 14, p. 5) AHRI and 

Hussmann also commented that 

appendix C of AHRI 1200 encourages 

the use of computer models to 

determine measured volumes. (Id.) 

Hoshizaki and Continental 

commented that DOE should not require 

retesting and recertification of already 

certified products, as doing so would 

create additional burden on 

manufacturers. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 1; 

Continental, No. 6, p. 1) AHRI and 

Hussmann commented that DOE would 

need to evaluate if the updated 

standards would require retesting of 

already certified equipment or 

reevaluation of energy efficiency metrics 

and levels. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 3–4; 

Hussmann, No. 14, p. 5) 

DOE is aware that revisions to AHRI 

1200–2013 and ASHRAE 72–2018 are 

underway. Specifically, DOE expects 

the ongoing revision to AHRI 1200–2013 

to be near complete and has considered 

a draft version 8 of the updated standard 

for the purposes of the proposals in this 

NOPR (referred to as ‘‘AHRI 1200– 

202X’’ to distinguish this from existing 

versions of the standard). Similarly, 

DOE expects that the ongoing revision 

to ASHRAE 72 is also nearly complete. 

On April 22, 2022, ASHRAE published 

a second public review draft of the 

revision to ASHRAE 72–2018 (referred 

to as ‘‘ASHRAE 72–2018R’’). 

DOE is proposing to incorporate by 

reference the most current versions of 

AHRI 1200 and ASHRAE 72, as 

discussed in the following sections. For 

the purposes of this NOPR, DOE 

references AHRI 1200–202X and 

ASHRAE 72–2018R to indicate the 

language in the available draft updates. 

DOE has participated in the committee 

processes to develop the revised 

standards for both AHRI 1200 and 

ASHRAE 72. Based on this 

participation, DOE does not expect that 

substantive revisions will be made to 

AHRI 1200–202X and ASHRAE 72– 

2018R in the final published versions of 

the standards. DOE’s intent is to adopt 

the final versions of these industry 

standards (with deviations as proposed 

in this NOPR) when they are available, 

to the extent that they are consistent 

with the review drafts discussed in this 

document. DOE will review and 

consider the final published versions of 

each standard when available. 

DOE acknowledges that the versions 

of the industry test standards proposed 

for incorporation by reference in this 

NOPR are not yet ANSI approved. 

However, DOE has tentatively 

determined that these standards provide 

an appropriate basis for testing that 

would produce test results which reflect 

energy use of CRE during a 

representative average use cycle and 

would not be unduly burdensome to 

conduct as required by 42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(2). 

The following sections discuss the 

revisions made in each of these industry 

test standards and DOE’s proposed 

adoption of certain provisions of the 

industry standards into the DOE test 

procedure. 

1. AHRI 1200 

As stated in the June 2021 RFI, the 

2013 revision to AHRI 1200 provides 

editorial, clarifying, or harmonizing 

updates that would not impact the 

measured energy consumption, volume, 

or TDA of CRE as compared to the 

current test procedure. 86 FR 31182, 

31184. As compared to AHRI 1200– 

2013, DOE has tentatively determined 

that the revisions in AHRI 1200–202X 

are largely to improve clarity of the test 

standard. These draft updates address 

application of the standard and its use 

in relation to other industry standards 

(i.e., ASHRAE 72–2018). Specifically, 

AHRI 1200–202X includes the following 

updates: harmonized definitions for 

consistency with ASHRAE 72–2018 and 

DOE’s existing regulations; updated 

definitions for consistency with the use 

of the rating standard; removal of test 

requirements that were duplicative with 

ASHRAE 72–2018; clarified 

measurement requirements and the use 

of calculations; inclusion of direct 

refrigerated volume measurement 

instructions (rather than referencing the 

AHAM test standard); and detailed total 

display area requirements and 

examples. 

DOE is proposing to incorporate by 

reference AHRI 1200–202X for use in 

the DOE test procedure because DOE 

has tentatively determined that the 

updates compared to AHRI 1200–2013 

would improve the clarity of the test 

standard, ensure consistent testing, and 

as a result would improve 

reproducibility of the test procedure. As 

stated, AHRI 1200–202X includes 

procedures for measuring refrigerated 

volume rather than referring to the 

AHAM standard (although the 

procedures are consistent between these 

standards). Therefore, DOE is proposing 

to remove the incorporation by 

reference of AHAM HRF–1–2008 and 

instead refer to AHRI 1200–202X 

directly for refrigerated volume 

measurement. Based on DOE’s review of 

AHRI 1200–202X, the updates included 

in the standard are primarily editorial 

and are not expected to change test 

results as compared to the existing test 

procedure, except for the specific 

updates as discussed in the following 

paragraphs. Therefore, DOE has 

tentatively determined that any existing 

test data for CRE currently available on 

the market are expected to be consistent 

with the proposed test procedure. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39173 

9See ASHRAE’s glossary of defined terms at 

xp20.ashrae.org/terminology/. 10See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to incorporate by reference 

AHRI 1200–202X and on whether the 

use of the updated test method would 

impact CRE ratings based on the current 

DOE test procedure. 

In addition to the clarifying revisions 

that would not substantively change 

testing as compared to the current 

approach using the DOE test procedure 

and AHRI 1200–2013, AHRI 1200–202X 

also includes two substantive additions: 

addressing the use of high glide 

refrigerants and providing an additional 

temperature rating point for ‘‘high 

temperature’’ applications. DOE is 

proposing to adopt these provisions in 

its test procedure, as discussed in the 

following sections. 

a. High Glide Refrigerants 

For remote condensing CRE, AHRI 

1200 provides calculations to estimate 

the compressor energy consumption 

necessary to provide the cooling to the 

refrigerator or freezer. These 

calculations are based on the dew point 

of the refrigerant during testing, which 

is intended to be representative of the 

evaporator temperature. See Table 1 and 

Section 5.2.1 of AHRI 1200–2013 and 

AHRI 1200–202X. 

For certain refrigerants, the saturated 

vapor temperature (i.e., the dew point) 

can be different from the saturated 

liquid temperature at a given pressure, 

in which case the refrigerant is 

considered to have ‘‘glide.’’ AHRI 1200– 

202X includes a definition for ‘‘high 

glide refrigerant’’ as a zeotropic 

refrigerant blend whose temperature 

glide is greater than 2 °F. ASHRAE 

defines ‘‘glide’’ as the absolute value of 

the difference between the starting and 

ending temperatures of a phase-change 

process by a refrigerant within a 

component of a refrigerating system, 

exclusive of any subcooling or 

superheating. This term usually 

describes condensation or evaporation 

of a zeotrope.9

For high glide refrigerants, the 

refrigerant dew point is not necessarily 

representative of the overall evaporator 

temperature. AHRI 1200–202X specifies 

that for high glide refrigerants, the 

temperature used to calculate 

compressor energy consumption is 

based on an adjusted mid-point 

evaporator temperature rather than an 

adjusted dew point temperature. 

Because the evaporator provides 

cooling to the CRE over the entire heat 

exchanger surface, using the evaporator 

mid-point temperature would ensure 

that the temperature used to calculate 

compressor energy consumption is more 

representative of the overall evaporator 

temperature. DOE has initially 

determined that the AHRI 1200–202X 

approach of using the evaporator midpoint temperature rather than refrigerant 

dew point is more representative of 

actual remote condensing CRE use for 

which the equipment uses high glide 

refrigerants and would improve 

consistency of remote testing using 

different refrigerants. Additionally, this 

approach would improve consistency 

when testing a given remote condensing 

CRE model with either high glide or low 

glide refrigerants by ensuring that the 

evaporator mid-point temperature for a 

high glide refrigerant is similar to the 

refrigerant dew point for a low glide 

refrigerant. 

DOE is proposing to adopt through 

reference the high glide refrigerant 

provisions of AHRI 1200–202X. Because 

the existing DOE test procedure, by 

reference to AHRI 1200–2013, only 

references adjusted dew point for 

calculating compressor energy 

consumption, this proposed amendment 

would result in different test results for 

remote condensing CRE models tested 

with a high glide refrigerant. However, 

DOE expects that current remote 

condensing CRE models are typically 

tested and rated using low glide 

refrigerants (most commonly R–404A); 

therefore, DOE has tentatively 

determined that this proposed test 

procedure amendment is not expected 

to result in changes to rated energy 

consumption for any currently available 

remote CRE models. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to incorporate by reference 

AHRI 1200–202X, including the new 

provisions regarding high glide 

refrigerants. DOE also requests 

information on whether any remote 

condensing CRE are currently tested and 

rated using high glide refrigerants and 

whether the proposed test procedure 

would impact the rated energy 

consumption for such models. 

b. High Temperature Applications 

As discussed in section III.A.2 of this 

NOPR, DOE is proposing a definition for 

‘‘high-temperature refrigerator.’’ In the 

context of consumer refrigeration 

products, DOE established the 

miscellaneous refrigeration product 

category to capture similar consumer 

products, with ‘‘coolers’’ tested at a 

standardized cabinet temperature of 

55 °F.10

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on whether an IAT of 55 °F ± 

2 °F is an appropriate test condition for 

high-temperature CRE and data on the 

typical operating temperatures for this 

equipment. 86 FR 31182, 31184. DOE 

also requested comment on whether any 

additional clarifications to the test 

procedure are needed (i.e., appropriate 

loading and door-opening requirements 

for high-temperature CRE). Id. 

AHRI, Hussmann, NEEA, and CA 

IOUs commented that an IAT of 55 °F ± 

2 °F is an appropriate test condition for 

commercial high-temperature 

refrigerators. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 4; 

Hussmann, No. 14, p. 3; NEEA, No. 5, 

p. 7; CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 5) AHRI and 

Hussmann commented that this test 

condition was incorporated into the 

latest draft version of AHRI Standard 

1200. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 4; Hussmann, No. 

14, p. 4) 

NEEA also commented that highertemperature CRE are sometimes 

designed to have a highly specific end 

use such as the following: high 

humidity floral cabinets (∼35 °F), wine 

chillers (∼55 °F), low humidity 

chocolate cabinets (∼65 °F), higher 

humidity (∼70 percent relative 

humidity) cigar cabinets (∼70 °F). 

(NEEA, No. 5, p. 7) NEEA commented 

in support of the 55 °F IAT, but 

encouraged DOE to identify whether 

more than one IAT is needed to 

effectively represent higher-temperature 

CRE. (Id.) The CA IOUs also commented 

in support of the DOE testing high 

temperature CRE products at a 

consistent operating temperature rather 

than at an LAPT. (CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 

5) 

AHRI and Hussmann commented that 

the door openings and loadings outlined 

in the ASHRAE 72–2018 are an 

adequate representation of high 

temperature CRE systems. (AHRI, No. 3, 

p. 3; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 4) 

NEEA recommended that DOE 

evaluate if the International 

Electrotechnical Commission (‘‘IEC’’) 

standard 62552:2015, ‘‘Household 

refrigerating appliances—Characteristics 

and test methods’’ (‘‘IEC 62552:2015’’) 

can be used with high temperature CRE. 

(NEEA, No. 5, p. 6–7) 

Section 3.15.1 of AHRI 1200–202X 

specifies that CRE intended for high 

temperature applications shall have an 

integrated average temperature of 55 °F 

± 2.0 °F. As stated, DOE requires testing 

high-temperature consumer refrigeration 

products (i.e., ‘‘coolers’’) at a 

standardized cabinet temperature of 

55 °F. 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendix A. 

Based on consideration of comments 

from interested parties, the industry 

rating method, and the analogous 

existing test procedure for consumer 

refrigeration products, DOE is proposing 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39174 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

to require testing high-temperature 

refrigerators according to AHRI 1200– 

202X, which requires an integrated 

average temperature of 55 °F ± 2.0 °F. 

As noted by commenters, hightemperature refrigerators may serve 

many distinct applications, each with 

specific intended storage conditions. 

However, DOE has initially determined 

that the IAT specified in AHRI 1200– 

202X is most representative of hightemperature refrigerator operating 

conditions overall because the hightemperature refrigerators that DOE 

identified have operating temperature 

ranges which include 55 °F and allows 

for consistent measurements of energy 

use for equipment in this category. 

In referencing AHRI 1200–202X, the 

DOE test procedure would also require 

that high-temperature refrigerators be 

tested according to the same procedure 

as other CRE, other than the IAT. 

Supported by comments from AHRI and 

Hussmann, DOE has tentatively 

determined that the door opening and 

loading procedures in ASHRAE 72– 

2018R are appropriate for hightemperature refrigerators. Following the 

proposed test approach would also 

ensure consistent test methods across 

CRE categories, albeit at different IATs. 

In response to NEEA’s comment 

regarding the use of IEC 62552:2015 for 

high-temperature refrigerators, DOE 

notes that IEC 62552:2015 is intended 

for testing household refrigerating 

appliances. Additionally, DOE’s test 

procedures for consumer refrigeration 

products do not follow the approach in 

IEC 62552:2015 and instead reference 

AHAM HRF–1–2019. See 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, appendix A and 

appendix B. Based on available industry 

standards and for consistency with 

existing DOE test procedures, DOE has 

tentatively determined that testing 

according to AHRI 1200–202X would be 

more appropriate for high-temperature 

CRE than IEC 62552:2015. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to adopt a rating point of 55 °F 

± 2.0 °F for high-temperature 

refrigerators by adopting through 

reference certain provisions of AHRI 

1200–202X. 

Because the proposed test procedure 

for high-temperature refrigerators would 

amend the current test approach for 

certain commercial refrigerators (i.e., 

those currently rated using the LAPT), 

DOE is proposing that the hightemperature refrigerator provisions in 

AHRI 1200–202X would not be required 

for use until the compliance date of any 

energy conservation standards 

established for high-temperature 

refrigerators based on the proposed test 

procedure. Under this approach, CRE 

that would be defined as hightemperature refrigerators would 

continue to be tested and rated at the 

LAPT and subject to the current DOE 

energy conservation standards for CRE. 

2. ASHRAE 72 

As stated in the June 2021 RFI, the 

2014 and 2018 revisions to ASHRAE 72 

provide editorial, clarifying, or 

harmonizing revisions that would not 

impact the measured energy 

consumption, volume, or TDA of CRE as 

compared to the existing DOE test 

procedure. 86 FR 31182, 31184. 

The revisions in ASHRAE 72–2018R 

as compared to the most recent 2018 

version are largely to improve clarity of 

the test standard and include substantial 

re-organization of the test standard. 

Specifically, the foreword to ASHRAE 

72–2018R states that the revision 

reorganizes the standard to make it 

easier to read and use; includes updates 

in the loading of test simulators and 

filler material; revises the sequence of 

operations during the test; provides 

instructions for certain measurements; 

and adds provisions for roll-in racks. 

The following paragraphs describe these 

revisions in more detail. 

The reorganization of the test 

standard in ASHRAE 72–2018R is not 

expected to substantively change any 

test requirements as compared to the 

current test procedure. DOE 

understands that the intent of the 

reordering was to more closely align the 

test standard with the order of 

operations that a test facility would 

follow when conducting testing. 

The updates to the loading of test 

simulators (a small package with 

temperature measuring device) and 

filler material (material loaded between 

test simulators for additional product 

mass, intended to approximate food 

product loading) in ASHRAE 72–2018R 

revise certain requirements included in 

ASHRAE 72–2005. These updates 

change certain instructions regarding 

loading, but DOE has tentatively 

determined that these updates are either 

clarifying in nature or more closely 

align ASHRAE 72 with the capability of 

test facilities to conduct testing. 

Specifically, ASHRAE 72–2018R would 

improve the clarity of the simulator 

loading location instructions, more 

clearly define net usable volume to 

determine the loaded volume, and 

adjust the fill volumes from 70 to 90 

percent of the net usable volume to 60 

to 80 percent. See Section 5.4 of 

ASHRAE 72–2018R. 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

in principle the update to the fill 

volume requirement would be a 

substantive change to the current DOE 

test procedure. However, DOE 

understands that ASHRAE implemented 

this revision because test facilities 

currently may have difficulty loading to 

more than 80 percent of the net usable 

volume. Based on this difficulty, DOE 

expects that most tests are currently 

conducted with loads between 70 to 80 

percent of the net usable volume. 

Additionally, the revision to allow 

loading as low as 60 percent of net 

usable volume would allow additional 

flexibility for test facilities when 

loading equipment for testing and any 

impact on measured energy use is 

expected to be minimal. DOE also 

expects that to the extent that testing 

with a lower load percentage would 

have any impact on measured energy 

use, it would likely increase measured 

energy use as CRE with doors would 

have more internal compartment 

volume occupied by air rather than the 

test load, allowing for more internal air 

to exchange with warm ambient air 

during the test procedure’s door 

opening period. Therefore, DOE has 

tentatively determined that this 

proposed amendment to the test 

procedure would not allow any CRE not 

currently complying with DOE’s energy 

conservation standards to become 

compliant. 

Section 7.1 of ASHRAE 72–2018R 

specifies the sequence of operations for 

conducting a test. The overall sequence 

requires conducting two tests, Test A 

and Test B, to verify stability of the unit 

under test. Both Test A and Test B 

would be conducted in the same way— 

starting with a defrost and with door or 

drawer openings, night curtains, and 

lighting occupancy sensors and 

controls, as applicable—as specified in 

Section 7.3 of ASHRAE 72–2018R. The 

test is determined to be stable if the 

average temperature of simulators 

during Test B is within 0.4 °F of the 

average measured temperature during 

Test A. See Section 7.5 of ASHRAE 72– 

2018R. As compared to the current DOE 

test procedure and ASHRAE 72–2005, 

the 2018R version provides specificity 

for how to determine that a test is stable. 

ASHRAE 72–2005 currently requires 

steady-state conditions for the test 

(section 7.1.1) and a stabilization period 

during which the CRE operates with no 

adjustment to controls for at least 12 

hours (section 7.4). Section 3 of 

ASHRAE 72–2005 defines steady-state 

as the condition in which the average 

temperature of all test simulators 

changes less than 0.4 °F from one 24- 

hour period or refrigeration cycle to the 

next. ASHRAE 72–2005 does not specify 

whether the 24-hour periods used to 

determine steady-state conditions 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39175 

include door openings, which are 

required to be performed during the 24- 

hour performance test. Additionally, the 

temperatures maintained over a 24-hour 

period with door openings may differ 

from a 24-hour period with no door 

openings. If steady-state is determined 

without door openings, the door 

openings during a test may increase 

simulator temperatures outside of the 

desired range for a test, requiring a 

change to the temperature setting and 

re-starting the steady-state 

determination prior to another test 

period. 

Whereas, the approach included in 

ASHRAE 72–2018R specifies that Test A 

and Test B are conducted in the same 

way, and therefore the temperatures 

used to determine stability would also 

be at the target temperatures for the test. 

DOE has determined that this approach 

provides clarity to the existing test 

procedure while limiting burden by 

reducing the need for re-tests (i.e., by 

maintaining target temperatures during 

the stability determination). Because the 

sequence of operations in ASHRAE 72– 

2018R is generally consistent with 

ASHRAE 72–2005 but with added 

specificity, DOE does not expect that the 

updated sequence of operations would 

impact current CRE ratings based on the 

current DOE test procedure. 

Additionally, ASHRAE 72–2018R 

more explicitly specifies test conditions 

and data collection requirements in a 

new appendix A: ‘‘Measurement 

Locations, Tolerances, Accuracies, and 

Other Characteristics.’’ This appendix 

includes a table that presents the 

measurements required during testing, 

the measurement location (if 

applicable), the period of time the 

measurement is taken (e.g., once per 

minute throughout Test A and Test B, 

once before Test B, and once after Test 

B, etc.), the required measurement 

accuracy, and the required value (i.e., 

the test condition, if applicable). The 

measurement instructions and 

requirements in appendix A to ASHRAE 

72–2018R are generally consistent with 

those required by the current DOE test 

procedure, by reference to ASHRAE 72– 

2005, but with added specificity to 

clarify the applicable requirements. 

Because the measurement instructions 

in ASHRAE 72–2018R are generally 

consistent with ASHRAE 72–2005 but 

with added specificity, DOE does not 

expect that the updated requirements in 

appendix A would impact current CRE 

ratings based on the current DOE test 

procedure. 

ASHRAE 72–2018R also adds 

provisions for testing CRE used with 

roll-in racks. Sections 5.4.1 and 5.4.5 of 

ASHRAE 72–2018R provide loading 

instructions for CRE used with roll-in 

racks. These sections are generally 

consistent with the existing test 

requirements for CRE, but with 

additional clarification specific to rollin racks to describe the determination of 

net usable volume and loading of test 

simulators. Whereas, ASHRAE 72–2005 

includes roll-in racks within the scope 

of the test standard (see section 9.1) but 

does not provide additional test 

instructions for these models. Because 

the instructions for testing CRE used 

with roll-in racks in ASHRAE 72–2018R 

are generally consistent with ASHRAE 

72–2005 but with added specificity, 

DOE does not expect that the updated 

requirements in appendix A would 

impact current CRE ratings based on the 

current DOE test procedure. 

As discussed, the test procedure in 

ASHRAE 72–2018R is generally 

consistent with the existing DOE test 

procedure, which references ASHRAE 

72–2005. The updates included in 

ASHRAE 72–2018R are generally 

editorial, clarifying, or harmonizing 

revisions. Additionally, the substantive 

revisions in ASHRAE 72–2018R provide 

additional specificity to the existing test 

procedure requirements and would 

improve repeatability, reproducibility, 

and representativeness of the test 

procedure while limiting test burden. 

For these reasons, DOE is proposing to 

incorporate by reference ASHRAE 72– 

2018R into the DOE test procedure. For 

these same reasons, DOE has tentatively 

determined that any test data for CRE 

currently available on the market are 

expected to be consistent with the 

proposed test procedure. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to incorporate by reference 

ASHRAE 72–2018R, including on 

whether the updates included in the 

industry test standard would impact the 

measured energy consumption of any 

CRE currently available. 

In response to the June 2021 RFI, 

Hoshizaki recommended that the 

ASHRAE 72 committee review the 

testing with drawers and determine the 

requirements for loading of drawers, 

opening of drawers, and sequence of 

such actions. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 3) 

DOE understands that the ASHRAE 72 

committee is reviewing test procedures 

for CRE with drawers to consider 

whether additional direction is needed. 

Section 1.3.16 of appendix B of the 

DOE test procedure specifies that 

drawers are to be treated as identical to 

doors when conducting the DOE test 

procedure, and that drawers should be 

configured with the drawer pans that 

allow for the maximum packing of test 

simulators and filler packages without 

the filler packages and test simulators 

exceeding 90 percent of the refrigerated 

volume. Packing of test simulators and 

filler packages must be in accordance 

with the requirements for commercial 

refrigerators without shelves, as 

specified in Section 6.2.3 of ASHRAE 

72–2005. Section 1.3.16 of appendix B. 

CRE with drawers are typically 

configured to hold standardized food 

pans for food storage. Pans loaded into 

the drawers are not typically filled with 

food above the top edge of the pan to 

prevent spilling or interfering with other 

drawers. Additionally, these CRE may 

require the space above the pans to be 

unloaded to allow for air circulation 

within the cabinet. 

The current DOE test procedure 

instructions do not specify any test 

simulator or filler package load limits 

for the pans, other than not exceeding 

90 percent of the refrigerated volume. 

For other CRE tests, ASHRAE 72–2005 

and ASHRAE 72–2018R specify test 

simulator and filler package loading 

based on net usable volume (i.e., the 

volume of interior usable space 

intended for refrigerated storage or 

display, specifically consisting of the 

usable interior volume within the 

claimed load limit boundaries; see 

Section 3 of ASHRAE 72–2005) rather 

than refrigerated volume. See Section 

5.4.2 of ASHRAE 72–2018R and Section 

6.2.5 of ASHRAE 72–2005. Loading 

based on the net usable volume 

accounts for load limits within the CRE 

and would prevent overloading a CRE to 

the extent that could impact airflow 

circulation within the cabinet. 

To ensure consistent testing for CRE 

with drawers, and to allow for testing 

that is most representative of typical 

use, DOE is proposing to specify in 

appendix B that CRE with drawers be 

tested according to the existing 

requirements with the additional 

instruction that, for the purposes of 

loading pans in drawers, the net usable 

volume is the storage volume of the 

pans up to the top edge of the pan. 

The drawer loading instructions in 

appendix B reference Section 6.2.3 of 

ASHRAE 72–2005, which specifies 

instructions for loading compartments 

without shelves. Specifically, section 

6.2.3 requires situating test simulators at 

the left and right ends (i.e., sides), at the 

front and back, and top and bottom 

locations of the compartment. To make 

explicit the application of this 

instruction to standardized food pans, 

DOE is proposing to require that test 

simulators be placed at the corner 

locations of each pan. For any pans not 

wide or deep enough to allow for test 

simulators at each corner (i.e., less than 

7.5 inches wide or deep, based on the 

3.75 inch test simulator width), DOE is 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39176 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

11Available at united4efficiency.org/resources/ 

model-regulation-guidelines-for-energy-efficientand-climate-friendly-commercial-refrigerationequipment/. 

proposing that the test simulators would 

be centered along the width or depth 

accordingly. Similarly, for any pans not 

tall enough to allow for test simulators 

at the specified top and bottom 

locations (i.e., pans less than 4 inches 

tall, based on the 2 inch test simulator 

height), DOE is proposing that a test 

simulator only be loaded at the 

specified top location within the 

standardized food pan. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed additional instructions 

regarding loading drawers. DOE 

requests information on whether the 

proposed approach is consistent with 

any future industry standard revisions 

to address this issue. DOE requests 

comment on whether other instructions 

for CRE with drawers should be revised 

(e.g., fully open definition for drawers) 

or if additional instructions are needed. 

3. Secondary Coolants 

Certain CRE are installed for use with 

a secondary coolant. In this 

configuration, a remotely cooled fluid 

(e.g., a propylene glycol solution) is 

supplied to the cabinet and absorbs heat 

from the cabinet without the secondary 

coolant undergoing a phase change. 

AHRI publishes a rating standard that 

is applicable to CRE that use a 

secondary coolant or refrigerant, AHRI 

Standard 1320 (I–P), ‘‘2011 Standard for 

Performance Rating of Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 

Storage Cabinets for Use With 

Secondary Refrigerants,’’ (‘‘AHRI 1320– 

2011’’), approved by ANSI on April 17, 

2012. AHRI 1320–2011 is applicable to 

CRE that are equipped and designed to 

work with electrically driven, mediumtemperature, single-phase secondary 

coolant systems, but excludes 

equipment used for low-temperature 

applications, secondary coolants 

involving a phase change (e.g., ice 

slurries or carbon dioxide), and selfcontained CRE. AHRI 1320–2011 

includes similar rating temperature 

conditions as those in AHRI 1200–2013 

and references ASHRAE 72–2005 and 

AHAM HRF–1–2008 for the 

measurement of energy consumption 

and calculation of refrigerated volume, 

respectively. The only substantive 

differences between AHRI 1200–2013 

and AHRI 1320–2011 are the inclusion 

of secondary refrigerant circulation 

pump energy consumption in the 

calculation of total daily energy 

consumption and revised coefficients of 

performance to determine compressor 

energy consumption. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on whether AHRI 1320–2011 

would be an appropriate test method to 

measure the total daily energy 

consumption of CRE that use a 

secondary refrigerant circuit, and 

whether it would provide representative 

measurements of energy use. 86 FR 

31182, 31185. DOE also sought 

information and data on CRE designed 

to work with electrically driven, 

medium-temperature, single-phase 

secondary coolant systems, including 

the typical field installations and 

operating conditions. Id. 

AHRI and Hussmann commented that 

AHRI 1320–2011 is due to begin 

revisions as soon as the updated AHRI 

1200–202X completes the review cycle, 

and that the updated AHRI 1320 

standard will then cover the applicable 

secondary coolant systems and would 

be an appropriate test method to 

measure the total daily energy 

consumption of CRE that use a 

secondary refrigerant circuit. (AHRI, No. 

3, p. 4; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 5) 

DOE also requested comment on 

whether manufacturers sell or plan to 

sell CRE with secondary coolant that 

would be outside the stated 

applicability of AHRI 1320–2011, 

including low-temperature equipment 

or CRE using secondary coolants with a 

phase change (e.g., ice slurries or carbon 

dioxide), and on whether any other 

existing test standards are appropriate 

for rating such equipment. Id. 

Hussmann commented that they are 

not aware of any equipment with 

secondary coolant that would be outside 

the stated applicability of AHRI 1320– 

2011. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 6) 

IGSD commented in support of DOE 

considering AHRI 1320–2011 for 

secondary coolant systems, stating that 

studies have found that these systems 

can consume just as much or less energy 

than systems that do not, with the 

added benefit of using low-global 

warming potential (‘‘GWP’’) refrigerants. 

(IGSD, No. 7, p. 1) 

AHRI and Arneg commented that the 

use of secondary coolants is requested 

by few end users and diminishing in 

number sold on the market, including 

for phase change systems using CO2. 

(AHRI, No. 3, p. 4; Arneg, No. 12, p. 1) 

Arneg commented that regulatory 

emphasis should be placed on other 

types of equipment. AHRI commented 

that it is not aware of any standards that 

measure the energy use of CO2 with 

pumped overfeed phase change systems. 

(Id.) 

AHRI commented that regardless of 

the cooling medium, the display case 

will generally require the same amount 

of cooling. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 4) 

While CRE cooled by secondary 

coolants are less common than selfcontained or remote CRE, DOE is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

AHRI 1320–2011 to provide a method 

for testing and rating the energy use of 

such CRE. As stated, the only 

substantive difference between AHRI 

1200–2013 and AHRI 1320–2011 is the 

inclusion of secondary refrigerant 

circulation pump energy consumption 

in the calculation of total daily energy 

consumption. 

DOE is proposing to incorporate by 

reference AHRI 1320–2011 for testing 

CRE used with secondary coolants and 

to reference only the specific sections 

within the standard that apply to CRE 

tested with secondary coolants (i.e., 

those referring to pump energy and 

coolant flow) and to otherwise reference 

the applicable requirements in AHRI 

1200–202X. DOE understands that AHRI 

1320–2011 may be updated consistent 

with the updates in AHRI 1200–202X. 

DOE would consider the updated 

version of AHRI 1320–2011 if it is 

available at the time of any subsequent 

final rule to establish amended DOE test 

procedures for CRE. 

Because CRE cooled by secondary 

coolants are not currently subject to 

DOE’s test procedure, DOE is proposing 

that the test procedure referencing AHRI 

1320–2011 would not be required for 

use until the compliance date of any 

amended energy conservation standards 

for CRE that consider such testing. DOE 

is aware that direct-expansion remote 

CRE may also be capable of being 

installed with a secondary coolant. 

Under this proposal, such equipment 

would continue to be tested and rated 

using the approach currently required 

for remote condensing CRE. The test 

procedure for secondary coolants 

proposed in this NOPR would be 

applicable to equipment only capable of 

being installed with secondary coolants, 

should any such models become 

available. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to incorporate by reference 

AHRI 1320–2011 for CRE used with 

secondary coolants, including the 

proposal to only reference the industry 

standard for provisions specific to 

secondary coolants and to otherwise 

reference AHRI 1200–202X, as proposed 

for other CRE. 

4. International Standards Development 

IGSD commented that the United for 

Efficiency public private partnership, 

under the leadership of the United 

Nations Environment Program, 

developed model regulation guidelines 

for CRE,11 which IGSD suggested may 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39177 

12 Information and materials for ENERGY STAR’s 

Specification Version 5.0 process are available at 

www.energystar.gov/products/spec/commercial_

refrigerators_and_freezers_specification_version_5_

0_pd. 

13EPA’s ENERGY STAR program released a Final 

Draft Version 5.0 Eligibility Criteria for commercial 

refrigerators and freezers on January 19, 2022. For 

information on the Version 5.0 specification 

development, see www.energystar.gov/products/ 

spec/commercial_refrigerators_and_freezers_

specification_version_5_0_pd. 

14While the April 2014 Final Rule did not 

specifically refer to refrigerated preparation tables, 

DOE is including them in this category because they 

have similar features to salad bars and buffet tables. 

Each of these equipment categories includes an 

open top area for holding refrigerated pans and is 

used during food preparation and service. 

15California’s regulations for buffet tables and 

preparation tables refer to the 2001 version of 

ASTM F2143. DOE has reviewed ASTM F2143–16 

for this NOPR as it is the most current version of 

the standard. 

contain information of interest to DOE. 

(IGSD, No. 7, p. 3) 

DOE has reviewed the model 

regulation guidelines for CRE and 

recognizes the potential benefit of 

international harmonization and of 

providing an example framework for 

regulations to facilitate establishing 

them for jurisdictions where they are 

not yet in place. The model regulation 

guidelines include scope of coverage, 

definitions, test procedures, energy 

consumption requirements, additional 

equipment regulations, and verification 

guidelines. The definitions and test 

procedures referenced in the guidelines 

are not consistent with the scope, 

definitions, and test procedures 

established by DOE under EPCA. DOE 

has tentatively determined that 

requiring the approach as specified in 

the model regulation guidelines would 

represent a significant burden to the 

CRE industry while not resulting in test 

procedures that are more representative 

of average use of CRE. 

DOE is additionally proposing to 

define certain CRE and applicable test 

procedure provisions for equipment that 

is outside of the scope of the model 

regulation guidelines—e.g., hightemperature refrigerators, blast chillers 

and blast freezers. The model regulation 

guidelines do not present an 

opportunity to harmonize test 

procedures with such CRE. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preceding paragraph, DOE is not 

proposing to adopt the model regulation 

guidelines. 

DOE requests comment on the model 

regulation guidelines and on whether 

there are opportunities for DOE to 

harmonize its regulations with other 

regulations in place for CRE. 

C. Test Conditions for Specific CRE 

Categories 

DOE has identified specific categories 

of CRE that are not currently subject to 

the DOE test procedure or that the 

current test procedure may not produce 

results that are representative of their 

use. Additionally, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’) ENERGY STAR program 

considered three of these equipment 

categories for scope expansion and test 

method development during the Version 

5.0 Specification development process: 

Refrigerated preparation and buffet 

tables; chef bases or griddle stands; and 

blast chillers and freezers.12 DOE has 

considered information gathered 

through the ENERGY STAR process 

when developing the proposals 

included in this NOPR. 

In response to the June 2021 RFI, the 

Joint Commenters and CA IOUs 

commented in support of developing 

test methods for salad bars, buffet tables, 

and refrigerated preparation tables; blast 

chillers and blast freezers; chef bases 

and griddle stands; and mobile 

refrigerated cabinets. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 8, p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 

10, p. 1) The Joint Commenters 

commented in support of the test 

methods to allow for comparable 

efficiency information across models 

and to allow the consideration of both 

DOE and ENERGY STAR specifications 

for this equipment. (Joint Commenters, 

No. 8, p. 2) NEEA recommended that 

DOE align CRE test methods for these 

categories with the ENERGY STAR 

Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers 

Specification Version 5.0.13 (NEEA, No. 

5, p. 3) 

DOE discusses each of these 

categories in the following sections. 

1. Salad Bars, Buffet Tables and 

Refrigerated Preparation Tables 

Salad bars, buffet tables, and other 

refrigerated holding and serving 

equipment, including refrigerated 

preparation tables,14 are CRE that store 

and display perishable items 

temporarily during food preparation or 

service. These units typically have 

design attributes, such as easily 

accessible or open bins that allow 

convenient and unimpeded access to 

the refrigerated products, which make 

them unique from CRE designed for 

storage or retailing. In the April 2014 

Final Rule, DOE did not establish test 

procedures for this equipment, but 

maintained that this equipment meets 

the definition of CRE and is covered 

equipment that could be subject to 

future test procedures and energy 

conservation standards. 79 FR 22277, 

22281. In the June 2021 RFI, DOE 

considered definitions and test 

procedures applicable to salad bars, 

buffet tables, and refrigerated 

preparation tables. DOE also requested 

information on other refrigerated 

holding and serving equipment, 

including definitions and appropriate 

test procedures. 

NEEA and the CA IOUs commented 

generally in support of DOE developing 

test procedures for refrigerated salad 

bars, buffet tables, and preparation 

tables. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 3; CA IOUs, No. 

10, p. 3) 

a. Definitions 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE noted that 

ASTM International F2143–16 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Performance 

of Refrigerated Buffet and Preparation 

Tables’’ (‘‘ASTM F2143–16’’) provides 

the following definitions for refrigerated 

buffet and preparation tables: 

• Refrigerated buffet and preparation 

table—equipment designed with a 

refrigerated open top or open condiment 

rail. 

• Refrigerated buffet table or unit— 

equipment designed with mechanical 

refrigeration that is intended to receive 

refrigerated food and maintain food 

product temperatures and is intended 

for customer service such as a salad bar. 

A unit may or may not be equipped 

with a lower refrigerated compartment. 

• Refrigerated food preparation 

unit—equipment designed with a 

refrigerated open top or open condiment 

rail such as refrigerated sandwich units, 

pizza preparation tables, and similar 

equipment. The unit may or may not be 

equipped with a lower refrigerated 

compartment. 

86 FR 31182, 31185–31186. DOE noted 

that certain terms used within these 

definitions are undefined (e.g., 

condiment rails, food product 

temperatures). Id. DOE additionally 

noted that it was not aware of any other 

industry standard definitions for these 

equipment. Id. 

DOE additionally notes that the 

California Code of Regulations 

(‘‘CCR’’) 15 defines ‘‘buffet table’’ and 

‘‘preparation table’’ as follows: 

• ‘‘Buffet table’’ means a commercial 

refrigerator, such as a salad bar, that is 

designed with mechanical refrigeration 

and that is intended to receive 

refrigerated food, to maintain food 

product temperatures, and for customer 

service; and 

• ‘‘Preparation table’’ means a 

commercial refrigerator with a 

countertop refrigerated compartment 

with or without cabinets below, and 

with self-contained refrigeration 

equipment. 20 CCR § 1602. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39178 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

16Founded in 1944 as the National Sanitation 

Foundation, the organization changed its name to 

NSF International in 1990. 

17Hoshizaki did not include a specific version of 

NSF 7 in their comments. DOE assumes Hoshizaki 

was referencing the latest version available at the 

time of comment (i.e., the 2019 version). 

18A specific version of NSF 170 was not 

referenced by commenters. DOE assumed 

commenters referenced the 2019 version of NSF 170 

associated with NSF 7–2019. DOE notes there is an 

updated 2021 version that published September 1, 

2021, after the June 2021 RFI comment period 

ended, but DOE determined there are no updates in 

this version that would impact the comments 

received. 

Furthermore, EPA’s ENERGY STAR 

program’s Final Draft Version 5.0 

Eligibility Criteria for commercial 

refrigerators and freezers includes a 

definition for ‘‘preparation or buffet 

table’’ as a commercial refrigerator, 

freezer, or refrigerator-freezer with a 

food condiment rail designed to hold 

open perishable food and may or may 

not be equipped with a lower 

compartment that may or may not be 

refrigerated. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

information on the suitability of the 

ASTM F2143–16 definitions for 

refrigerated buffet and preparation 

tables (and also their applicability to 

salad bars) as potential regulatory 

definitions for this equipment. 86 FR 

31182, 31186. DOE also requested 

comment on whether any further 

delineation would be necessary to 

account for the range of performance 

related features available in this 

equipment (e.g., presence of pan covers, 

refrigerated storage compartments, and 

any other unique configurations or 

features that may require consideration 

for any potential test procedures). DOE 

further requested comment on the 

specific features and equipment 

capabilities that should be included in 

definitions for refrigerated salad bars, 

buffet tables, and preparation tables. Id. 

For example, DOE sought information 

on the factors that would differentiate 

this equipment from other typical CRE. 

Id. DOE also requested comment on 

whether potential definitions should 

specify temperature operating ranges, 

and if so, what the appropriate ranges 

would be. Id. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE also noted 

that the configuration of salad bars, 

buffet tables, and refrigerated 

preparation tables may raise questions 

as to whether a unit is commercial 

hybrid refrigeration equipment. Id. DOE 

defines ‘‘commercial hybrid 

refrigeration equipment’’ as a unit of 

CRE (1) that consists of two or more 

thermally separated refrigerated 

compartments that are in two or more 

different equipment families, and (2) 

that is sold as a single unit. 10 CFR 

431.62. 

DOE discussed in the June 2021 RFI 

that additional detail may be necessary 

to distinguish between a unit that is a 

salad bar, buffet table, or refrigerated 

preparation table and a unit that is 

commercial hybrid equipment that 

includes a salad bar, buffet table, or 

refrigerated preparation table. 86 FR 

31182, 31186. Refrigerated salad bars, 

buffet tables, and preparation tables 

typically have removable pans or bins 

that directly contact the chilled air in 

the refrigerated compartment of the 

unit. With that configuration, the 

entirety of the chilled compartment and 

surface pans would potentially be 

considered a refrigerated salad bar, 

buffet table, or preparation table. In 

contrast, if a unit includes solid 

partitions between the chilled 

compartment and the pans or bins on 

top of the unit, such a configuration 

would potentially be considered 

thermal separation and the unit would 

be considered a commercial hybrid 

consisting of a refrigerated salad bar, 

buffet table, or preparation table with a 

refrigerator and/or freezer. 

DOE requested comment on whether 

the presence of thermally separating 

partitions should be considered as a 

factor to differentiate between (a) 

refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and 

preparation tables; and (b) commercial 

hybrid units consisting of a refrigerated 

salad bar, buffet table, or preparation 

table with a refrigerator and/or freezer. 

Id. 

AHRI commented that salad bars and 

buffet tables are generally self-service 

equipment, whereas preparation tables 

are store-service equipment, stating that 

service could be either employee or 

customer operated for salad bars, 

condiment rails, etc. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 5) 

AHRI and Continental commented 

that buffet and preparation tables often 

have upsized refrigeration systems with 

larger compressors, larger evaporators, 

additional fans, and modified or 

specialized air flow patterns to maintain 

food-safe temperatures in the open pans. 

(AHRI, No. 3, p. 5; Continental, No. 6, 

p. 2) ITW commented that long-term 

stability required by operators increases 

the demand for refrigeration system 

capacity. (ITW, No. 2, p. 3) 

AHRI and Hussmann commented that 

the definition for ‘‘Refrigerated Buffet 

and Preparation Table’’ should be split 

to better define each unique case type, 

with ‘‘open top’’ and ‘‘open condiment 

rail’’ also being defined. (AHRI, No. 3, 

p. 4–5; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 6) AHRI 

and Hussmann commented that the 

definition for ‘‘refrigerated food 

preparation unit’’ should be clearly 

defined since the definition is similar to 

‘‘refrigerated buffet and preparation 

table.’’ (Id.) 

AHRI and Hussmann further 

commented that the ASTM definition 

for ‘‘refrigerated buffet table or unit’’ 

states that the unit is intended to receive 

refrigerated food and maintain food 

product temperatures and is intended 

for customer service such as a salad bar, 

and that the ‘‘refrigerated food’’ 

temperature should be included in the 

definition as well as the temperature at 

which the food must be maintained and 

for an expected duration. (AHRI, No. 3, 

p. 4–5; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 6) 

Hoshizaki commented that the ability 

to have cooled products in pans on the 

top and a refrigerated section below the 

pans in one unit is a feature of 

preparation tables. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, 

p. 1) Hoshizaki commented that 

refrigerated preparation tables are 

already defined in NSF International 

(‘‘NSF’’) 16/ANSI 7–2019, ‘‘Commercial 

Refrigerators and Freezers,’’ (‘‘NSF 7– 

2019’’) and ASTM F2143–16 and 

suggested that DOE utilize the current 

definitions of those products.17 (Id.) 

True, ITW, and Continental 

commented in support of using NSF 7– 

2019 (defined within NSF/ANSI 170– 

2019,18 ‘‘Glossary of Food Equipment 

Terminology,’’ (‘‘NSF 170–2019’’)), 

‘‘Commercial Refrigerators and 

Freezers’’ definitions, which defines 

‘‘Refrigerated Buffet Units’’ and 

‘‘Refrigerated Food Preparation Units’’ 

with ‘‘open display area’’ and also 

‘‘open-top refrigerated equipment.’’ 

(True, No. 4, p 6–7; ITW, No. 2, p. 2– 

3; Continental, No. 6, p. 1) 

ITW recommended the definitions 

based on NSF 7–2019 for: ‘‘refrigerated 

buffet units (salad bars),’’ ‘‘refrigerated 

food preparation units (tables).’’ (ITW, 

No. 2, p. 2–3) ITW commented that 

refrigerated buffet units (salad bars) 

could be viewed as open-top storage 

‘‘like’’ cabinets with modifiable features, 

but that food preparation units (tables) 

are designed around specific 

applications (e.g., salads, pizzas, 

sandwiches, grilling, etc.), such that a 

single overarching cabinet design 

cannot meet the specific needs of the 

end user. (ITW, No. 2, p. 3) ITW 

questioned if there is any value in 

regulating units without an integrated 

storage compartment, stating that there 

is minimal power consumption, 

installation base, and shorter daily 

operating hours for such units. (ITW, 

No. 2, p. 7) 

Regarding whether potential 

definitions should specify temperature 

operating ranges, and if so, what the 

appropriate ranges would be, ITW, 

AHRI, True, and Continental 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39179 

commented that the food safety 

temperature is between 33 °F and 41 °F 

(further specified for open pan versus 

lower refrigerated area in NSF 7–2019) 

with the lids open and covers removed 

for a specified period of time, which 

AHRI noted is 4 hours per NSF 7–2019. 

(ITW, No. 2, p. 3; AHRI, No. 3, p. 5; 

True, No. 4, p. 8; Continental, No. 6, p. 

2) 

Regarding whether the presence of 

thermally separated compartments 

differentiates units that are refrigerated 

salad bars, buffet tables, and preparation 

tables from units that are commercial 

hybrid units, the CA IOUs commented 

that a single-compressor, self-contained 

condenser product with top and bottom 

compartments that are not thermally 

separated are the predominant 

configuration for refrigerated 

preparation tables, as they can be used 

in a variety of kitchen and food service 

environments. (CA IOUs No. 10, p. 3) 

AHRI commented that some systems 

may share a coil between a prep or 

buffet station and a display or storage 

case already covered by DOE 

regulations. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 5) 

Hussmann commented that ‘‘multizone’’ units should be defined for a 

clear understanding of equipment that 

may/may not share a coil between the 

prep/buffet section of a case and another 

section of the case that is already 

covered under an existing DOE category. 

(Hussmann, No. 14, p. 7) Hussmann and 

AHRI commented that the ‘‘lower 

refrigerated compartment’’ should be 

clearly defined as having either the 

same or separate coil. (Hussmann, No. 

14, p. 6; AHRI, No. 3, p. 4–5) 

Hussmann, AHRI, True, and ITW 

commented that thermally separating 

partitions should not be considered a 

factor in differentiating equipment type. 

(Hussmann, No. 14, p. 8; AHRI, No. 3, 

p. 5–6; True, No. 4, p. 8; ITW, No. 2, p. 

3) ITW commented that thermally 

separating partitions do improve 

temperature stability between two areas 

but do not significantly change the heat 

load on the cabinet. (ITW, No. 2, p. 3) 

True commented that a unit should 

contain a complete refrigeration [unit] 

for each section for it to be considered 

‘‘commercial hybrid.’’ (True, No. 4, p. 8) 

True commented that a unit containing 

two thermally separated refrigerated 

compartments with one common 

condensing unit should not be 

considered a hybrid unit. (Id.) 

Regarding whether any further 

delineation is necessary to account for 

the range of performance related 

features available in this equipment, 

Hussmann commented that there should 

be definitions for different types of 

hybrid equipment, including: 

refrigerated buffet or prep table sharing 

a coil with a refrigerated compartment 

that is already covered by the DOE; 

refrigerated equipment that may split a 

single cooling zone between condiment 

rails, prep surfaces, pans with lids, pans 

without lids, non-critical temperature 

wells, etc.; equipment with wells that 

can switch from refrigerated to heated; 

and equipment intended to be used with 

different sized pans on the same rail. 

(Hussmann, No. 14, p. 7) 

Hussmann commented that the 

condiment and self-service zones may 

not be thermally separated but should 

still be considered a hybrid unit. 

(Hussmann, No. 14, p. 8) AHRI 

commented that equipment can 

incorporate frozen, cold, and hot food 

storage without thermally separated 

compartments and these systems should 

be considered hybrid refrigeration units. 

(AHRI, No. 3, p. 5–6) Hussmann 

commented that further definition 

would be needed for refrigerated 

preparation tops that require colder 

temperatures such as sushi or ice cream. 

(Hussmann, No. 14, p. 6–7) 

ITW commented that the thermal heat 

load of open-top refrigeration 

equipment with an integral storage 

compartment is influenced by its 

physical characteristics, including the 

following: (1) condiment pan area (TDA) 

and configuration (slope vs flat, cold 

wall vs forced air vs glycol), (2) lid or 

cover design, (3) storage cabinet volume, 

(4) door or drawer design and 

configuration, and (5) the flow path of 

room air entering and leaving the 

condenser coil. (ITW, No. 2, p. 3) ITW 

also commented that refrigerated buffet 

tables and food preparation tables 

require equipment categorization by 

how their contents are displayed, either 

horizontal or semi-vertical. (Id.) ITW 

commented that this presentation angle 

affects the stability of the chilled air 

blanket above the product, with a 

greater angle causing a decrease in 

stability and increase in energy 

consumption. (Id.) ITW further 

commented that refrigerated food 

preparation units (tables) should be 

subcategorized by end application use 

and their ability to hold potentially 

hazardous food items at food safe 

temperatures. (Id.) 

The comments from interested parties 

in response to the June 2021 RFI 

generally indicated support either for 

the definitions in the ASTM F2143–16 

standard, as presented earlier in this 

section, or based on NSF 7–2019 (by 

reference to NSF 170–2019). Comments 

from interested parties; existing 

industry, State, and Federal definitions; 

and DOE’s review of equipment 

available on the market indicate that the 

primary characteristic that differentiates 

salad bars, buffet tables, and refrigerated 

preparation tables from other types of 

CRE is the open-top refrigerated area 

(with or without lids) that allows access 

to pans or other removable containers 

that display or store merchandise and 

other perishable materials for customers 

or food preparation staff during food 

preparation or service. The merchandise 

and other perishable materials are only 

displayed or stored in pans or other 

removable containers when loaded into 

the open-top refrigerated area of this 

equipment (i.e., the open-top 

refrigerated area does not provide for 

any display or storage outside of the 

pans or other removable containers). 

Additionally, the equipment can 

include other refrigerated 

compartments, either as an integrated 

combined refrigerated space (i.e., the 

pans or other removable containers 

loaded in the open-top refrigerated area 

are in direct contact with the 

refrigerated compartment), or with 

thermal separation between the opentop refrigerated area and refrigerated 

compartments. 

To delineate this equipment from 

other types of CRE, DOE is proposing to 

define the term ‘‘buffet table or 

preparation table’’. DOE is proposing a 

definition for this term that combines 

elements of the existing industry and 

ENERGY STAR definitions, includes 

language for consistency with DOE’s 

existing CRE definitions, and includes 

further specificity regarding the 

characteristics of this equipment. 

Specifically, DOE is proposing to define 

this term as follows: 

‘‘Buffet table or preparation table’’ 

means a commercial refrigerator with an 

open-top refrigerated area, that may or 

may not include a lid, for displaying or 

storing merchandise and other 

perishable materials in pans or other 

removable containers for customer selfservice or food production and 

assembly. The unit may or may not be 

equipped with a refrigerated storage 

compartment underneath the pans or 

other removable containers that is not 

thermally separated from the open-top 

refrigerated area. 

DOE is not proposing to define the 

term ‘‘salad bar,’’ as this equipment 

would be captured within the proposed 

definition of ‘‘buffet table or preparation 

table.’’ DOE has tentatively determined 

that additional equipment definitions 

are not necessary for the purposes of 

testing buffet tables and preparation 

tables as proposed in this NOPR. 

Additionally, DOE has not proposed 

any reference to temperature storage 

temperature or duration in the proposed 

buffet table or preparation table 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39180 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

definition. DOE recognizes that these 

are important aspects of the equipment 

operation but has tentatively 

determined that they are not necessary 

for the purpose of defining the 

equipment to establish test procedures. 

By specifying that such units are 

commercial refrigerators, buffet tables 

and preparation tables would be units 

capable of operating at or above 32 °F 

(±2 °F). 

As discussed, CRE may include single 

refrigeration systems to provide cooling 

to multiple compartments or areas 

within a unit. Additionally, CRE may 

include multiple distinct refrigeration 

systems or evaporator coils to 

individually cool separate 

compartments or refrigerated areas. 

DOE’s proposed definition would 

include units both with and without a 

refrigerated storage compartment 

underneath the pans or other removable 

containers. The proposed definition, 

however, specifies that units including 

a refrigerated storage compartment 

underneath the pans or other removable 

containers may not be thermally 

separated from the open-top refrigerated 

area. 

DOE notes that while industry may 

use the term ‘‘hybrid’’ to refer to 

different combinations of equipment 

capabilities and configurations, the term 

‘‘commercial hybrid’’ is specifically 

defined by DOE in 10 CFR 431.62 as 

discussed earlier in this section. 

Currently, CRE with refrigerated storage 

compartments thermally separated from 

the open-top refrigerated area of the 

buffet table or preparation table are 

‘‘commercial hybrid’’ CRE and must be 

tested in accordance with the applicable 

test procedures and comply with the 

applicable standards. Such equipment 

would continue to be tested as currently 

required to determine compliance with 

the existing energy conservation 

standards applicable to the non-buffet 

table or preparation table element. As 

noted, DOE has not established energy 

conservation standards for CRE covered 

under the proposed definition of buffet 

table or preparation table. DOE 

discussed in the April 2014 Final Rule 

that because only the refrigerated 

storage compartment is subject to 

current energy conservation standards, 

the unit would be tested with the buffet 

table or preparation table portion 

disabled and not included in the 

determination of energy consumption. 

79 FR 22277, 22289. If the same 

refrigeration system serves both the 

refrigerated compartment and the opentop refrigerated area and refrigeration of 

the open-top area cannot be disabled, 

manufacturers may apply for a test 

procedure waiver for such equipment if 

the measured energy use would not be 

representative of the portion of the unit 

that is not a buffet table or preparation 

table of the CRE basic model. Id. 

Many of the comments received from 

interested parties reference the impact 

on buffet table or preparation table 

design on overall measured energy use. 

DOE acknowledges that the 

configuration, capability, and operation 

of this equipment can vary depending 

on application. However, for the 

purposes of proposing test procedures, 

DOE has initially determined that 

additional equipment definitions are not 

necessary. The definition for buffet table 

or preparation table as proposed in this 

NOPR would identify the equipment 

subject to the proposed test procedure, 

which, as discussed in the following 

section, would include general 

instructions for test setup and conduct 

that would be applicable to the 

equipment configurations identified in 

comments from interested parties. 

To the extent that the equipment 

configurations and capabilities of buffet 

tables or preparation tables may impact 

measured energy use, DOE would 

consider such impacts were it to 

consider energy conservation standards 

for such equipment. Specifically, a rule 

prescribing an energy conservation 

standard for a type (or class) of covered 

products must specify a level of energy 

use or efficiency higher or lower than 

that which applies (or would apply) for 

such type (or class) for any group of 

covered products which have the same 

function or intended use, if the 

Secretary determines that covered 

products within such group—(A) 

consume a different kind of energy from 

that consumed by other covered 

products within such type (or class); or 

(B) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard from that 

which applies (or will apply) to other 

products within such type (or class). (42 

U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In 

making a determination concerning 

whether a performance-related feature 

justifies the establishment of a higher or 

lower standard, the Secretary must 

consider such factors as the utility to the 

consumer of such a feature, and such 

other factors as the Secretary deems 

appropriate. (Id.) 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definition for buffet table or 

preparation table. DOE requests 

information on whether any additional 

definitions are necessary for the 

purposes of testing this equipment, or 

whether any additional equipment 

characteristics are necessary to 

differentiate this equipment from other 

categories of CRE. 

b. Test Methods 

In considering potential test methods 

for buffet tables and preparation tables, 

DOE reviewed ASTM F2143–16 and 

identified several differences between 

this test method and DOE’s current test 

procedure for CRE, as discussed in the 

June 2021 RFI. 86 FR 31182, 31186– 

31188. DOE requested comment on 

specific test procedure provisions in 

ASTM F2143–16 and how they relate to 

other requirements in the current DOE 

test procedure. 86 FR 31182, 31188. As 

discussed in the following paragraphs, 

DOE received comments on the general 

test approaches that may be appropriate 

for buffet tables and preparation tables. 

NEEA and the CA IOUs commented 

that a report created by Southern 

California Edison discussed testing on 

eight different refrigerated preparation 

tables from six manufacturers using 

ASTM F2143–16 that showed a range of 

performance, with the least efficient 

product tested using twice as much 

energy per day per volume. (NEEA, No. 

5, p. 3–4; CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 3) 

Hoshizaki commented that it has 

utilized ASTM F2143–16 for its 

preparation tables to list with the 

California Energy Commission (‘‘CEC’’) 

and support DOE adoption of this 

standard. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 1) 

AHRI commented that there are many 

customizable appurtenances for this 

equipment, and that ASTM F2143–16 

captures the base model distinctions to 

some degree but does not clearly 

distinguish between product categories 

and may lead to overlap between 

categories. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 4–5) AHRI 

also commented that self-contained 

versus remote applications would need 

to be considered. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 5) 

Hussmann commented that ASTM 

F2143–16 includes only self-contained 

products and seeks clarification from 

DOE whether remote cases are intended 

to be covered as buffet tables and 

preparation tables. (Hussmann, No. 14, 

p. 7) 

True commented that ASTM F2143– 

16 is not the correct industry standard 

to reference for buffet tables and 

preparation tables, asserting that it is 

not used by the food service industry, 

would add additional burden to 

overextended labs, and is not robust 

enough to withstand scrutiny. (True, 

No. 4, p. 6–7) True commented that NSF 

7–2019 is the correct standard to be 

used instead of ASTM F2143–16 

because, for at least the last 30 years, the 

three categories (refrigerated buffet and 

preparation table, refrigerated buffet 

table or unit, refrigerated food prep unit) 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39181 

have been defined and tested according 

to NSF 7–2019 (defined within NSF 

170–2019) and it is the standard 

followed by the CRE industry. (Id.) True 

commented that state and local health 

departments enforce health codes based 

on NSF 7–2019 when they test for food 

safety. (Id.) 

DOE reviewed both ASTM F2143–16 

and NSF 7–2019 in considering test 

methods for buffet tables and 

preparation tables. As described in 

section 1 of ASTM F2143–16 (‘‘Scope’’), 

that test method covers evaluation of the 

energy consumption of refrigerated 

buffet and preparation tables and allows 

food service operators to use this 

evaluation to select a refrigerated buffet 

and preparation table and understand 

its energy performance. The foreword to 

NSF 7–2019 specifies that the purpose 

of the industry testing standard is to 

establish minimum food protection and 

sanitation requirements for the 

materials, design, construction, and 

performance of commercial refrigerators 

and freezers. 

The general test approach in ASTM 

F2143–16 is to load the unit with 

distilled water in pans and no load in 

any refrigerated compartment, operate 

the unit to confirm stability, then 

conduct testing for 24 hours, with an 

eight hour ‘‘active period’’ with lid and 

door openings followed by a 16 hour 

‘‘standby period’’ with no door 

openings. DOE understands that this 

test is intended to represent unit 

operation and energy consumption over 

a day. 

The NSF 7–2019 test approach 

requires loading the unit pans with 

refrigerated food-simulating test media 

(a specified mixture of water, salt, and 

hydroxypropyl methylcellulose) and no 

load in any refrigerated compartment 

and operating the unit for four hours to 

determine whether temperatures at all 

measured locations are within the 

acceptable range. DOE understands that 

this test is intended to evaluate the 

ability of a unit to maintain the 

temperature of refrigerated pans (and 

any compartments) during a four-hour 

period. 

While these two industry test 

methods contain certain similarities— 

e.g., loading pans but not compartments, 

ambient temperature conditions—DOE 

has initially determined that ASTM 

F2143–16 provides the more 

appropriate basis for an energy 

consumption test that is representative 

of typical use. As discussed in more 

detail in the following sub-sections, 

DOE has initially determined that 24- 

hours of maintaining stable 

temperatures, as required in the ASTM 

F2143–16 method, is representative of 

average use for this equipment. DOE has 

also tentatively determined that the 

stabilization and operating periods 

specified in ASTM F2143–16 would 

ensure that units are maintaining 

temperatures on a consistent basis 

during testing and would allow for 

comparative energy use measurements 

across units. NSF 7–2019 provides a 

basis for determining whether a unit is 

capable of maintaining certain 

temperatures over a shorter period, but 

without additional instructions to 

ensure energy consumption testing on a 

consistent basis—i.e., the temperatures 

maintained over the shorter test period 

may not necessarily be stable. 

For these reasons, DOE is proposing 

to reference ASTM F2134–16 as the 

basis for testing buffet tables and 

preparation tables. Consistent with the 

scope of ASTM F2134–16, DOE is 

proposing test procedures only for selfcontained buffet tables and preparation 

tables. While DOE is proposing to base 

the test procedure for buffet tables and 

preparation tables on ASTM F2134–16, 

DOE is also proposing certain additional 

and different requirements for test 

conditions, setup, and conduct, to 

ensure the representativeness of the test 

procedure, as discussed in the following 

sections. 

To avoid confusion regarding testing 

of other CRE, DOE is also proposing to 

establish the test procedure for buffet 

tables and preparation tables as a new 

appendix C to subpart C of 10 CFR part 

431. DOE is also proposing to refer to 

the proposed appendix C as the test 

procedure for buffet tables and 

preparation tables in 10 CFR 431.64. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to adopt through reference 

certain provisions of ASTM F2143–16 

as the basis for testing buffet tables and 

preparation tables. DOE also seeks 

comment on the proposal to specify test 

procedures only for self-contained 

buffet tables and preparation tables, 

consistent with ASTM F2143–16. 

Test Conditions 

ASTM F2143–16 specifies different 

rating conditions for test room dry-bulb 

temperature and moisture content than 

the current DOE test procedure. NSF 7– 

2019 also specifies test conditions 

similar to those in ASTM F2143–16. 

Table III.1 summarizes these 

differences. 

TABLE III.1—TEST ROOM DRY-BULB TEMPERATURE & MOISTURE CONTENT STANDARDS COMPARISON

Equipment type Test standard 

Test room 

dry bulb 

temperature 

Wet bulb temperature 

(relative humidity) 

Moisture content 

(lb/lb dry air) 

Currently Covered CRE ............... ASHRAE 72 (2005 and 2018R) .. 75.2 °F ± 1.8 °F 64.4 °F ± 1.8 °F (49–62 percent) 0.009–0.011. 

Buffet and Preparation Tables ..... ASTM F2143–16 .......................... 86 °F ± 2 °F ..... 66.2 °F ± 1.8 °F (30–40 percent) 0.008–0.010. 

Buffet and Preparation Tables ..... NSF 7–2019 ................................. 86 °F ± 2 °F ..... Max 72 °F (based on max 50 

percent).

Max 0.013. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment and supporting data on test 

room dry-bulb temperature and 

moisture content typically experienced 

by buffet tables and preparation tables 

operating in the field. 86 FR 31182, 

31186. DOE requested comment on 

whether these conditions are 

significantly different from those 

encountered by conventional CRE and 

would justify adopting separate rating 

conditions for buffet tables and 

preparation tables. Id. 

ITW and Hussmann commented in 

support of the current ASHRAE 72– 

2018 test condition. (ITW, No. 2, p. 4; 

Hussmann, No. 14, p. 8) Hussmann 

commented that adopting ASTM 

F2143–16 would add burden on 

manufacturers, who would be required 

to test at two different dry-bulb 

temperatures for hybrid equipment. 

(Hussmann, No. 14, p. 8) ITW 

commented that manufacturers and test 

laboratories have invested significant 

effort to assemble laboratories and 

environmental chambers to hold tight 

tolerances around the ASHRAE 72–2018 

test conditions. (ITW, No. 2, p. 4) 

The CA IOUs commented in support 

of DOE aligning with the higher 

temperature and more humid ambient 

test conditions used in ASTM F2143–16 

for refrigerated preparation and buffet 

tables, stating that these products are 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39182 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

often found in similar spaces as chef 

bases, including commercial kitchens. 

(CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 3–4) 

ITW commented that the performance 

requirements and installation sites for 

refrigerated buffet (salad bars) and food 

preparation tables are comparable to 

existing CRE and do not require 

different environmental conditions for a 

representative energy evaluation. (ITW, 

No. 2, p. 4) ITW commented that most 

units are in proximity to the customer 

dining area, where ambient conditions 

are controlled at or below the ASHRAE 

72–2018 specification, stating that dew 

points typically fall into the mid-40s °F 

and dry bulb temperatures average 

72 °F. (Id.) 

Hoshizaki commented that ambient 

temperature, moisture content, and 

elevation vary across the country, with 

ambient temperatures ranging from 70 

to 100 °F and humidity ranging from 30 

to 80 percent. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 1) 

Arneg commented that field conditions 

vary widely, but that restaurants and 

supermarkets consistently maintain the 

75 °F (dry bulb) and 55 °F (wet bulb) 

condition; and convenience stores 

usually have higher ambient conditions 

(i.e., 80 °F dry bulb). (Arneg, No. 12, p. 

1) 

True and AHRI commented in 

support of the NSF 7–2019 test 

conditions (86 °F ± 2 °F, maximum 

relative humidity of 50 percent). (True, 

No. 4, p. 9; AHRI, No. 3, p. 6) True 

argued there is no such thing as a ‘‘real 

world’’ energy test. (True, No. 4, p. 13) 

True stated that they currently test 

vertical closed refrigerators and freezers 

at ASHRAE 72–2005 test conditions 

(75 °F ambient temperature, 55 percent 

relative humidity), but that commercial 

kitchens operate at 90–100 °F with 60– 

70 percent relative humidity. (Id.) True 

commented that in this case, the 

ASHRAE 72–2005 test works as a 

‘‘baseline’’ or ‘‘marker’’ comparison 

point between units. (Id.) 

Continental suggested that the NSF 7– 

2019 test conditions should be 

evaluated for the suitability of energy 

testing. (Continental, No. 6, p. 2) AHRI 

and Continental commented that 

refrigerated preparation tables in 

particular are often subject to high 

ambient temperatures and additional 

loads, similar to other conventional 

reach-in CRE, since they are used by 

kitchen staff and in close proximity to 

commercial kitchens. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 6; 

Continental, No. 6, p. 2) AHRI 

commented that salad bars and buffet 

tables have shorter operating windows 

but are open to ambient conditions that 

can differ from conventional CRE and 

commented that the NSF 7–2019 

definition for these units state they are 

intended for ‘‘customer self-service.’’ 

(AHRI, No. 3, p. 6) Continental 

encouraged DOE to work with ASHRAE, 

AHRI, and ASTM to develop suitable 

test procedures for any additional 

product categories. (Continental, No. 6, 

p. 2) 

NEEA and the CA IOUs commented 

in support of using ASTM F2143–16 for 

refrigerated buffet and preparation 

tables. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 4; CA IOUs, No. 

10, p. 3) NEEA commented that many of 

the factors DOE is seeking information 

on are addressed in detail within the 

ASTM F2143–16 standard. (NEEA, No. 

5, p. 4) The CA IOUs commented that 

DOE should leverage the work 

completed by the ASTM Committee F26 

on Food Service equipment and related 

ASTM F2143–16 to serve as the starting 

point for the test procedure. (CA IOUs, 

No. 10, p. 3) NEEA commented that 

DOE should consider aligning test 

procedure with EPA ENERGY STAR to 

reduce manufacturer burden and 

establish consistency in the industry. 

(Id.) 

As previously described, the apparent 

purpose of the NSF 7–2019 test is to 

determine the capability of a unit to 

maintain refrigerated temperature in the 

conditions specified by the industry 

testing standard. The ASTM F2143–16 

ambient conditions match those in NSF 

7–2019. However, DOE has initially 

determined that these conditions are not 

necessarily the most representative of 

typical use. As indicated in comments, 

buffet tables and preparation tables are 

typically installed in locations similar to 

other CRE (e.g., food service areas, 

supermarkets, commercial kitchens) and 

would be subject to the same ambient 

conditions during typical use. DOE 

acknowledges that while the ambient 

conditions at the point of installation 

may vary, DOE has determined that the 

conditions in ASHRAE 72 (in both the 

currently referenced 2005 version and 

the 2018R version proposed for use in 

this NOPR) are appropriately 

representative of the average use of CRE. 

79 FR 22277, 22283. For consistency 

with other CRE testing, DOE is 

proposing that the ambient conditions 

specified in ASHRAE 72–2018R also 

apply for testing buffet tables and 

preparation tables. 

For measuring these ambient 

conditions, ASHRAE 72–2018 and 

ASTM F2143–16 specify the same 

measurement locations; however, the 

locations may require further specificity 

depending on the configuration of the 

refrigerated buffet table or preparation 

table under test. For example, the 

specified measurement location based 

on the highest point of the unit under 

test as provided in ASTM F2143–16 

could be based on the height of the 

refrigerated table surface and pan 

openings or on the height of any lid or 

cover over the pans, if included. 

Additionally, the specified 

measurement location at the center of 

the unit as provided in ASTM F2143– 

16 could be based on the geometric 

center of the unit determined from the 

height of the open pan surfaces or on 

the geometric center of any door 

openings (for those units with 

refrigerated compartments below the 

pan area). 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on the appropriate locations 

for recording ambient conditions when 

testing buffet tables and preparation 

tables to ensure repeatable and 

reproducible testing for a range of 

equipment configurations. 86 FR 31182, 

31186. 

Hussmann, AHRI, Arneg, and ITW 

commented in support of using 

ASHRAE 72–2018 for ambient 

temperature measurement locations. 

(Hussmann, No. 14, p. 8; AHRI, No. 3, 

p. 6; Arneg, No. 12, p. 1; ITW, No. 2, p. 

4) AHRI and Hussmann commented in 

support of consistency with testing of 

other CRE categories wherever possible, 

and AHRI suggested that DOE work 

with ASHRAE to incorporate 

measurement locations into ASHRAE 

72–2018 or a new method of test. (AHRI, 

No. 3, p. 6; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 8) ITW 

provided measurement location options 

for DOE consideration based on the 

configuration and geometries of the test 

equipment. (ITW, No. 2, p. 4) 

Continental commented that ambient 

temperature locations are prescribed in 

ASTM F2143–16 and ASHRAE 72–2018 

and that DOE should work with 

ASHRAE, AHRI, and ASTM to evaluate 

the suitability of testing buffet tables 

and refrigerated preparation tables. 

(Continental, No. 6, p. 2) 

Hoshizaki commented that ASTM 

F2143–16 provides ambient 

measurement locations and that no 

changes are needed to them. (Hoshizaki, 

No. 13, p. 1) 

True commented that ambient 

measurement locations should follow 

NSF 7–2019 because buffet tables and 

preparation tables are short-term 

holding units, such that the NSF 7–2019 

test procedure would best capture the 

energy use of these units. (True, No. 4, 

p. 9) 

As described, DOE is proposing to 

incorporate by reference ASTM F2143– 

16 rather than NSF 7–2019 as the basis 

of testing buffet tables and preparation 

tables. The ASTM F2143–16 ambient 

measurement locations are generally 

consistent with those in the current 

DOE test procedure and the provisions 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39183 

in ASHRAE 72–2018R proposed for 

adoption in this NOPR, but ASHRAE 

72–2018R includes additional 

specificity regarding ambient 

measurement locations. To ensure 

appropriate measurement locations, 

DOE is proposing to reference ASHAE 

72–2018R rather than ASTM F2143–16 

for ambient condition measurement 

locations. To provide additional 

specifications for thermocouple 

placement to accommodate different 

buffet table and preparation table 

configurations, DOE is proposing to add 

instruction that the ‘‘highest point’’ of 

the buffet table or preparation table is 

determined as the highest point of the 

open-top refrigerated area of the buffet 

table or preparation table, without 

including the height of any lids or 

covers. DOE is also proposing to specify 

that the geometric center of the buffet 

table or preparation table is: for buffet 

tables or preparation tables without 

refrigerated compartments, the 

geometric center of the top surface of 

the open-top refrigerated area; and for 

buffet tables or preparation tables with 

refrigerated compartments, the 

geometric center of the door opening 

area for the refrigerated compartment. 

DOE is proposing this specification 

because the geometric center of the unit 

is used to measure ambient temperature 

gradient. For units with refrigerated 

compartments, this instruction 

referencing the center of the door 

opening area would ensure that the air 

entering the compartment during door 

openings is within the allowable 

temperature range. 

Regarding electrical supply 

requirements and measurements, 

appendix A to ASHRAE 72–2018R 

provides greater specificity for testing as 

compared to ASTM F2143–16. To 

improve test repeatability and 

reproducibility, DOE is proposing to 

reference the electric supply and 

measurement requirements specified in 

appendix A to ASHRAE 72–2018R for 

testing buffet tables and preparation 

tables. 

DOE is similarly proposing to adopt 

through reference certain provisions in 

ASHRAE 72–2018R rather than ASTM 

F2143–16 for instrumentation 

requirements for consistency with other 

CRE testing and with the proposed test 

conditions (e.g., wet-bulb temperature 

as specified in ASHRAE 72–2018R 

rather than relative humidity as 

specified in ASTM F2143–16). 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposal for testing buffet tables and 

preparation tables with test conditions 

(i.e., test chamber conditions, 

measurement location, and electric 

supply conditions) consistent with 

ASHRAE 72–2018R, with additional 

detail specific to buffet tables and 

preparation tables. 

Test Setup 

Section 9.1 of ASTM F2143–16 

specifies installation of the buffet table 

or preparation table for testing 

according to the manufacturer’s 

instructions, with 6 inches of rear 

clearance, at least 12 inches of clearance 

to any side wall or partition, and at least 

3 feet of clearance from the front of the 

unit. Section 5.2 of ASHRAE 72–2018R 

specifies that the test unit be installed 

next to a wall or vertical partition in the 

direction of (a) the exhaust, (b) the 

intake, or (c) both the exhaust and the 

intake at the minimum clearance, ±0.5 

inches, as specified in the installation 

instructions; if the installation 

instructions do not provide a minimum 

clearance, the vertical partition or wall 

shall be located 4 ± 0.5 inches from the 

sides or rear of the cabinet and extend 

at least 12 inches beyond each side of 

the cabinet from the floor to at least 12 

inches above the top of the cabinet. 

DOE has initially determined that the 

installation instructions in ASHRAE 72– 

2018R are more representative of actual 

use, as they require testing according to 

the minimum manufacturer-specified 

clearance in the direction of air exhaust 

or intake rather than a constant 6 

inches. DOE expects that CRE are 

typically installed with minimum 

installation clearances due to the spaceconstrained locations in which they 

operate (e.g., commercial kitchens or 

food service areas). DOE is proposing to 

reference the installation requirements 

in Section 5.2 of ASHRAE 72–2018R for 

buffet table and preparation table testing 

to represent typical use and to ensure 

consistency with appendix B test 

requirements. 

Sections 5.1 and 5.3 of ASHRAE 72– 

2018R also provide additional 

instructions regarding test unit 

installation and setup that are not 

addressed in ASTM F2143–16. 

Specifically, section 5.1 provides 

instructions regarding test unit 

installation within the test facility and 

section 5.3 specifies test requirements 

for components and accessories. While 

these provisions were established for 

conventional CRE, DOE has initially 

determined that they are also applicable 

to buffet table and preparation table 

installation and use due to both 

categories having similar installation 

locations and similar accessories 

available for use. DOE is proposing to 

also reference these Sections in 

ASHRAE 72–2018R for buffet table and 

preparation table testing to ensure 

consistent testing that is representative 

of actual use. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposal for testing buffet tables and 

preparation tables with test setup 

instructions consistent with ASHRAE 

72–2018R rather than ASTM F2143–16. 

Test Load 

ASTM F2143–16 specifies that 

temperature measurements for 

preparation tables or buffet tables be 

taken from standardized pans filled 

with distilled water. ASTM F2143–16 

also specifies measuring the 

temperature in any chilled 

compartments for refrigerated buffet and 

preparation tables using three 

thermocouples in an empty, unloaded 

compartment. DOE’s current test 

procedure for CRE requires that 

integrated average temperature 

measurements be taken from test 

simulators consisting of a plastic 

container filled with a sponge saturated 

with a 2-percent mixture of propylene 

glycol and distilled water. See ASHRAE 

72–2005, section 6.2.1. Additionally, the 

DOE test procedure requires 70 to 90 

percent of the compartment net usable 

volume to be loaded with filler material 

and test simulators for testing (60 to 80 

percent as proposed in this NOPR by 

referencing Section 5.4.8 of ASHRAE 

72–2018R). See ASHRAE 72–2005, 

section 6.2.5. Buffet tables and 

preparation tables may not typically be 

loaded to 70 percent of their net usable 

volume due to their use for service 

rather than long-term storage, but testing 

with the refrigerated compartment 

entirely empty also may not be 

representative of average use. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on the appropriateness of 

using only distilled water as the test 

medium to represent thermo-physical 

properties of foods that are typically 

stored in the surface pans of buffet 

tables and preparation tables. 86 FR 

31182, 31187. 

AHRI commented that DOE should 

work with the ASHRAE committee to 

consider revisions to ASHRAE 72 to 

incorporate appropriate requirements if 

they are unique enough to warrant a 

separate ASHRAE method of test. 

(AHRI, No. 3, p. 6) 

ITW, Hussmann, and Hoshizaki 

commented in support of DOE using 

distilled water as the test medium 

because it is cost effective and easy to 

replicate. (ITW, No. 2, p. 5; Hussmann, 

No. 14, p. 9; Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2) 

Hoshizaki commented that they tested 

preparation tables with the glycol 

mixture and distilled water and did not 

see a difference of pan temperature. 

(Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2) ITW 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39184 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

commented that open-top refrigeration 

equipment is designed to hold foods of 

all types (liquids, solids, loosely filled 

combinations of both, etc.) with varying 

thermo-physical properties, but that in 

general all variations are composed of 

mostly water. (ITW, No. 2, p. 5) ITW 

commented that distilled water has the 

advantages of providing a consistent 

and readily available medium that 

closely approximates the properties of 

most food types under the specified test 

conditions; allowing for bulk containers 

to be filled and pre-chilled; and 

allowing for food pans regardless of 

shape or dimensions to be ‘‘quickly’’ 

and evenly filled. (ITW, No. 2, p. 5) ITW 

also stated that pre-marking each pan 

one half inch below the top rim 

minimizes the total pan loading time as 

compared to the ‘‘balance scale’’ method 

outlined in the ASTM F2143–16 

standard, sections 10.4.3.5 through 

10.4.3.7. (Id.) 

Arneg and True commented that 

distilled water should not be used as the 

test medium. (Arneg, No. 12, p. 1; True, 

No. 4, p. 9) Arneg commented that 

although food temperatures are typically 

above 32 °F, depending on the type of 

food, the intended product temperature 

could be below 32 °F. (Arneg, No. 12, p. 

1) True commented that the test media 

in NSF 7–2019 (methocel) should be 

used to represent foods. (True, No. 4, p. 

9, 11) True commented that using 

distilled water is a problem because the 

pan temperature cannot be properly 

measured if testing below 32 °F since 

the water temperature will only change 

once completely solidified into ice. (Id.) 

CA IOUs commented that a 2014 study 

from Pacific Gas and Electric (‘‘PG&E’’) 

showed some units periodically 

dropping below 32 °F and suggested 

DOE explore alternatives to distilled 

water to validate if any alternatives 

would be warranted when weighing the 

added test complexity and costs. (CA 

IOUs, No. 10, p. 3) 

Hussmann commented that DOE 

should allow the use of methocel as an 

alternative to align with NSF 7–2019. 

(Hussmann, No. 14, p. 9) 

DOE has initially determined that the 

distilled water pan loading as specified 

in ASM F2143–16 provides a 

representative test load for the open-top 

refrigerated areas of buffet tables and 

preparation table, while limiting test 

burden, and is consistent with the filler 

material specified in both ASHRAE 72– 

2005 and ASHRAE 72–2018R (i.e., filler 

material that consists of water, a 50/50 

mixture (±2%) of distilled water and 

propylene glycol, or wood blocks with 

an overall density not less than 480 kg/ 

m3 (30 lb/ft3). As stated in the ITW 

comment, typical food loads are 

composed mostly of water, such that 

water is a representative test medium. 

Additionally, distilled water does not 

require any additional preparation by 

the test laboratory, limiting test burden 

and ensuring a consistent test medium 

across different test facilities. 

DOE acknowledges that using water 

would not accommodate testing at 

conditions at and below 32 °F. However, 

ASTM F2143–16 specifies pan 

temperature to be within 33 °F and 41 °F 

for a valid test. As discussed later in this 

section, DOE is proposing that the 

integrated average pan temperature be 

38 °F ± 2 °F for buffet table and 

preparation table testing. At these 

temperatures, the distilled water would 

be liquid and would not result in the 

testing issues associated with freezing. 

Additionally, DOE observed during 

investigative testing that individual 

pans filled with distilled water did not 

reach temperatures lower than 33 °F 

when tested with an integrated average 

pan temperature of 38 °F ± 2 °F. 

In addition to proposing the water test 

load, DOE is proposing that pans for 

testing be loaded to within one half inch 

of the top of the pan. For pans that are 

not configured in a horizontal 

orientation, DOE is proposing that only 

the lowest side of the pan be loaded to 

within one half inch of the top of the 

pan. ASTM F2143–16 specifies a pan 

loading procedure based on the weight 

of water needed to load pans to one half 

inch of the top of the pan. DOE expects 

a loading method based on marking 

pans or measuring distance from the 

water to the top of the pan would limit 

test burden as compared to the weightbased method in ASTM F2143–16 and 

that both the loads and loading methods 

would be substantively the same. 

ASTM F2143–16 specifies the pans 

for holding water to be standard 4-inch 

deep 1⁄6-size metal steam table pans 

with a weight of 0.70 ± 0.07 lb. ASTM 

F2143–16 allows for manufacturerspecified pans if the unit is designed 

specifically for such pans. DOE notes 

that manufacturers typically specify pan 

dimensions or provide pans for their 

units, but some manufacturers do not 

provide a pan depth or may specify a 

range of possible pan depths. DOE also 

notes that pan materials can vary and 

are not always specified by the 

manufacturer. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on whether pan dimensions 

should be standardized if testing buffet 

tables and preparation tables is 

required, or whether these units should 

be tested with pans meeting 

manufacturer-recommended pan 

dimensions. 86 FR 31182, 31187. If pans 

were standardized, DOE requested 

comment on whether the dimensions 

described in ASTM F2143–16 are 

appropriately representative of what is 

used, or whether another set of 

dimensions or materials would be more 

appropriate. Id. DOE also requested 

information on whether the pan 

material should be defined in greater 

detail, recognizing that ASTM F2143–16 

specifies only that the pans be ‘‘metal.’’ 

Id. 

True commented that the 1⁄6 metal 

steam table pans have a larger surface 

area (to product or media) than the 1⁄2

size metal steam table pans in NSF 7– 

2019, and suggested the following based 

on NSF 7–2019: ‘‘standard half-size 

hotel (4 in [102 mm]) shall be used 

unless the equipment being evaluated is 

specifically and permanently designed 

to hold alternate size pans,’’ ‘‘stainless 

steel pans shall be used unless 

otherwise specified by the 

manufacturer.’’ (True, No. 4, p. 10) 

ITW, AHRI, Hussmann, Hoshizaki, 

Arneg, and Continental commented that 

a standardized pan size should not be 

used due to the variety of pan sizes and 

configurations across different 

manufacturers. (ITW, No. 2, p. 5; AHRI, 

No. 3, p. 7; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 9; 

Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2; Arneg, No. 12, 

p. 1; Continental, No. 6, p. 2) Hoshizaki 

commented that manufacturers should 

specify what pan size they require for 

testing their unit as part of their test 

setup instructions. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, 

p. 2) AHRI and Hussmann commented 

that the pan(s) size should only be 

required to fill the pan opening in the 

unit and of a material offered by the 

manufacturer. (AHRI, No. 3. p. 7; 

Hussmann, No. 14, p. 9) ITW 

commented that a standardized food 

pan/pan configuration should only be 

used if the manufacturer does not 

supply food pans with their equipment 

or provide a list of acceptable pans with 

specifications to be used with their 

equipment. (ITW, No. 2, p. 5) 

Based on a review of buffet tables and 

preparation tables available on the 

market, manufacturers typically allow 

for a range of pan configurations in the 

open top refrigerated area. These 

configurations can nearly always 

accommodate the 1⁄6 size steam table 

pans referenced in ASTM F2143–16. To 

ensure consistent testing for units that 

offer multiple pan configurations, DOE 

is proposing to reference the pan 

instructions in ASTM F2143–16. If a 

buffet table or preparation table cannot 

be loaded with the specified standard 

pans, DOE is proposing to test with the 

pans that are consistent with the 

manufacturer installation instructions 

and with the dimensions as close to the 

standard pans as is available, consistent 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39185 

19ASHRAE 72–2018R describes a weighted 

thermocouple as a thermocouple in thermal contact 

with the center of a 45 g (1.6 oz) cylindrical brass 

slug with a diameter and height of 19 mm (0.75 in). 

with the ASTM F2143–16 loading 

instructions. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on the feasibility of requiring 

temperature measurements in closed 

refrigerated compartments of buffet 

tables and preparation tables using test 

packages as specified in ASHRAE 72 

(specified in the 2005, 2018, and 2018R 

versions), and whether the 

compartments should be loaded with 

any filler packages (and to what percent 

of the net usable volume) for testing. 86 

FR 31182, 31187. DOE requested 

comment on alternatives that should be 

used if the test packages are not 

appropriate for measuring compartment 

temperatures (e.g., thermocouples 

located in pans filled with distilled 

water, thermocouples as specified in 

ASTM F2143–16, or weighted 

thermocouples 19). Id. 

As discussed in section III.C.1 of this 

document, under the current test 

procedure a thermal separation would 

be required between the buffet table or 

preparation table and a refrigerated 

compartment for the refrigerated 

compartment to be subject to the testing 

requirements, which include test 

simulators and loading requirements. 

Buffet tables and preparation tables may 

include refrigerated compartments that 

are not thermally separated from the 

open-top refrigerated area, and DOE 

considered whether different loads (or 

no load) would be appropriate for 

testing such compartments. 

AHRI commented that DOE should 

work with ASHRAE SSPC 72 to 

incorporate appropriate requirements 

for these units or determine if they are 

unique enough to warrant a separate 

ASHRAE method of test. (AHRI, No. 3, 

p. 6) 

Hussmann and Hoshizaki commented 

that the method to measure 

compartment temperature should follow 

the locations specified in ASTM F2143– 

16. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 9; Hoshizaki, 

No. 13, p. 2) Hussmann commented that 

the thermocouples could be as stated in 

ASTM F2143–16 or brass slugs, as 

specified in NSF 7–2019. (Hussmann, 

No. 14, p. 9) Hoshizaki commented that 

this measurement of the refrigerated 

cabinet is the same as the NSF 7–2019 

test in which three slugs are positioned 

at different parts of the cabinet. 

(Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2) Hoshizaki 

recommended testing with only slugs, 

as currently shown in ASTM F2143–16. 

(Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2) 

True and Continental commented in 

support of using weighted 

thermocouples, as prescribed in NSF 7– 

2019, for air temperature measurements 

in closed refrigerated compartments. 

(True, No. 4, p. 10; Continental, No. 6, 

p. 2) Continental commented that 

requiring filler packages in the storage 

compartment would add significant 

unnecessary testing burden on 

manufacturers. (Continental, No. 6, p. 2) 

True and Hoshizaki commented that 

the addition of filler packages would 

add a thermal mass that will decrease 

the cooling requirements by helping to 

stabilize the temperature once 

stabilization temperature is reached for 

the closed refrigeration compartment, 

such that NSF 7–2019 would offer the 

worst case for energy use and would 

decrease test and stabilization time. 

(True, No. 4, p. 10; Hoshizaki, No. 13, 

p. 2) 

DOE is proposing that any refrigerated 

compartment of a buffet table or 

preparation table (i.e., any refrigerated 

compartment that is not thermally 

separated from the open-top refrigerated 

area) be tested with no load. DOE is 

proposing to reference the ASTM 

F2143–16 requirements, which specifies 

placing three thermocouples in specific 

locations within the empty refrigerated 

compartment. DOE has tentatively 

determined that this approach would 

limit test burden by not requiring 

additional test simulator preparation or 

loading of filler materials. Additionally, 

DOE expects that the refrigerated 

compartments of buffet tables and 

preparation tables are typically used for 

short-term storage of items used during 

food service and food preparation (i.e., 

with additional pans of prepared food or 

ingredients for food preparation) rather 

than long-term storage, and that 

therefore an unloaded cabinet would be 

more representative of typical usage. 

This is also consistent with the DOE test 

procedures for consumer refrigeration 

products, which measure internal 

compartment temperatures with no 

load. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart b, 

appendix A and appendix B. 

ASTM F2143–16 does not specify 

whether the internal compartment 

thermocouples are weighted or 

unweighted. For consistency with the 

NSF 7–2019 approach, DOE is 

proposing that the thermocouples be 

weighted—i.e., in thermal contact with 

the center of a 1.6-oz (45-g) cylindrical 

brass slug with a diameter and height of 

0.75 in. The brass slugs shall be placed 

at least 0.5 in from any heat-conducting 

surface. While ASHRAE 72–2018R 

requires internal compartment 

temperatures to be measured using test 

simulators, ambient temperature 

measurements are similarly made by 

thermocouples in contact with 

cylindrical brass slugs with the same 

specifications. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed test loads and temperature 

measurement locations for buffet tables 

and preparation tables—i.e., distilled 

water in pans for the open-top 

refrigerated area and no load in any 

refrigerated compartment—consistent 

with the approach in ASTM F2143–16. 

Test Conduct—Defrosts 

ASTM F2143–16 does not provide 

specific instructions for addressing 

defrost cycles when testing buffet tables 

and preparation tables, other than 

indicating in the test report whether a 

defrost cycle occurred. Section 7.3 of 

ASHRAE 72–2018R directs that the test 

period begins with a defrost cycle. This 

section also requires that for 

refrigerators with manual defrost or offcycle defrost, the test is started at the 

beginning of a refrigeration system off 

cycle (if the off-cycle defrost is not 

identifiable); or, if the refrigeration 

system never cycles off, the test is 

started at any point during refrigeration 

system operation. 

Defrost cycles can increase the energy 

consumption of refrigeration equipment 

as compared to stable operation; 

however, DOE has observed that most 

buffet tables and preparation tables 

often incorporate off-cycle defrosts, 

which melt frost accumulation by 

running the evaporator fan during a 

compressor off-cycle. This method of 

defrost does not actively introduce heat 

to melt the accumulated frost and may 

occur during the compressor’s normal 

cycling operation. With this defrost 

approach, there may not be an 

identifiable defrost occurrence in the 

measured test data. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on whether a possible test 

procedure should consider defrost 

cycles for buffet tables and preparation 

tables, and if so, how. 86 FR 31182, 

31188. 

Hussmann, AHRI, Hoshizaki, and 

True commented that the test procedure 

should not include defrost cycles. 

(Hussmann, No. 14, p. 12; AHRI, No. 3, 

p. 9; Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 3; True, No. 

4, p. 13) AHRI commented these units 

have shorter operating windows than 

typical CRE, with manual defrost often 

conducted overnight outside the 

operating window. (AHRI, No. 3, p.9) 

Hussmann commented that if the 

defrost interval is less than 4 hours, 

then it could be considered. (Hussmann, 

No. 14, p. 12) Hoshizaki commented 

that a truncated test should not address 

defrost cycles if the goal is to test for a 

given time because designing a test 

around defrost cycles, as done in the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39186 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

ASHRAE 72–2018 24-hour test, would 

be time consuming and would provide 

negligible insight to actual energy use. 

(Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 3) 

ITW commented that refrigerated 

salad bars, buffet tables, and preparation 

tables that include an integrated storage 

compartment typically operate on a 24- 

hour daily cycle and should have their 

defrost cycles considered, but units 

without this storage compartment do 

not need to include the defrost cycle in 

the energy evaluation since they 

typically operate on shorter schedules. 

(ITW, No. 2, p. 7) 

ITW commented that for units with a 

refrigerated storage compartment, the 

start of the defrost cycle should initiate 

the testing cycle in order to have a 

consistent methodology and to provide 

information on the characteristics of 

different defrost types. (ITW, No. 2, p. 

7) 

DOE has initially determined that to 

the extent that buffet tables or 

preparation tables incorporate automatic 

electric or hot gas defrosts (i.e., heating 

the evaporator to melt frost 

accumulation), or any automatic 

extended off-cycle defrost (i.e., off-cycle 

defrost with a duration longer than a 

compressor off-cycle), the energy 

consumption of these defrosts should be 

captured in the test period to measure 

energy use representative of typical use. 

DOE observed during investigative 

testing that automatic extended off-cycle 

defrost is used in both buffet tables and 

preparation tables. To incorporate this 

energy use and ensure consistent testing 

of buffet tables and preparation tables, 

DOE is proposing to require that test 

periods for buffet tables and preparation 

tables account for any defrosts 

consistent with the requirements in 

ASHRAE 72–2018R. This would require 

capturing a defrost at the start of the test 

period or starting the test period at the 

beginning of a refrigeration off-cycle if 

there is no identifiable defrost (or at any 

point during refrigeration system 

operation if the refrigeration system 

never cycles off). 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to account for defrosts when 

testing buffet tables and preparation 

tables, consistent with the approach in 

ASHRAE 72–2018R. 

Test Conduct—Moving Pans 

Section 10.5.6 of ASTM F2143–16 

specifies that if it is possible to control 

cooling to the display area 

independently of the refrigerated 

cabinet, the cooling to the display area 

is turned off and all pans are to be 

moved from the display area to the 

refrigerated cabinet underneath after the 

active period. The ability to control 

cooling in both the display area and the 

refrigerated cabinet independently of 

each other suggests that this language 

applies to units with thermallyseparated compartments and pan areas. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on whether moving pans from 

the display area to the refrigerated 

compartment as specified in Section 

10.5.6 of ASTM F2143–16 is appropriate 

for testing buffet tables and preparation 

tables. 86 FR 31182, 31187. DOE further 

requested feedback on whether storing 

pans in a refrigerated compartment is 

typical only for those units with certain 

configurations—e.g., thermal separation 

between the compartment and 

refrigerated pan area or closable covers 

for the pan area. Id. 

AHRI and Hussmann commented that 

the open pan area testing in NSF 7–2019 

should be considered for possible 

incorporation into industry test 

standards, and that ASHRAE 72–2018 

has provisions for storage compartment 

testing methods. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 7; 

Hussmann, No. 14, p. 10) 

Hoshizaki and True commented that 

requiring the movement of pans to 

refrigerated sections during the test 

should not be considered as part of an 

energy test standard. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, 

p. 2; True, No. 4, p. 11) Hoshizaki 

commented that the movement of pans 

is only a suggestion in ASTM F2143–16 

and suggested that manufacturers 

specify that as part of their test setup 

instructions. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2) 

Continental, AHRI, and Hussmann 

commented that equipment with the 

ability to turn off the open-top 

refrigeration system should have pans 

moved to the refrigerated storage 

compartment if it conforms with the 

manufacturer’s instructions for 

unloading the display area at night. 

(Continental, No. 6, p. 2; AHRI, No. 3, 

p. 7; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 10) 

ITW commented that equipment with 

the ability to turn off the open-top 

refrigeration system should not move 

the food pans to the storage 

compartment. (ITW, No. 2, p. 5–6) ITW 

commented that food pans should not 

be removed during the evaluation 

period because it would introduce 

variations or inconsistencies between 

test laboratories and manufacturers 

because the time to complete the 

activity would be inconsistent. (Id.) 

ITW commented that removing food 

pans from the open-top ‘‘rail’’ after 8 

hours changes the thermodynamic load 

placed on the refrigeration system, and 

movement to the integral storage 

compartment is dependent on the unit’s 

ability to switch off the cooling for the 

‘‘rail.’’ (ITW, No. 2, p. 5–6) ITW 

commented that DOE has consistently 

indicated that all manually operated on/ 

off switches that increase energy 

consumption should be in the on 

position throughout the evaluation 

period, such that switching off the 

‘‘rail’’ refrigeration system after 8 hours 

would be inconsistent with DOE’s 

previous position. (Id.) 

AHRI and Hussmann commented that 

the open pan area testing in NSF 7–2019 

should be considered for possible 

incorporation into industry test 

standards, and that ASHRAE 72–2018 

has provisions for storage compartment 

testing methods. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 7; 

Hussmann, No. 14, p. 10) 

DOE currently provides test 

procedures for any refrigerated 

compartments that are combined with 

buffet tables and preparation tables and 

that are thermally separate from the 

open-top refrigerated area. DOE is not 

proposing to amend the test 

requirements for such thermally 

separate refrigerated compartments. 

As discussed earlier in this section, 

DOE is proposing to reference ASTM 

F2143–16 rather than NSF 7–2019 as the 

basis for buffet table and preparation 

table testing. Section 10.5.6 of ASTM 

F2143–16 specifies moving pans from 

the display area to the refrigerated 

cabinet underneath after the active 

period if it is possible to control cooling 

to the display area independently of the 

refrigerated cabinet. As stated, the 

separate cooling control suggests 

thermal separation between the opentop area and the refrigerated cabinet. 

Because DOE is not proposing changes 

to the current test requirements for any 

thermally separated refrigerated 

cabinets, DOE is proposing that all 

buffet tables and preparation tables be 

tested with the pans in the display area 

for the entire test, including the 

‘‘standby period’’ specified in Section 

10.5.6 of ASTM F2143–16. 

DOE has initially determined that this 

proposed approach would limit test 

burden and variability by avoiding 

moving pans during the test period, 

which could introduce varying heat 

loads depending on how the movement 

is conducted. Additionally, DOE 

expects that the proposed test procedure 

is representative of typical buffet table 

and preparation table use. As previously 

discussed, DOE expects that buffet 

tables and preparation tables are used 

for short-term storage during food 

service and food preparation. Therefore, 

it is unlikely that these units would be 

used for storage in the refrigerated 

compartment without any pans loaded 

in the open-top pan area. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to require loading pans in the 

open-top refrigerated area and not 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39187 

moving them to a refrigerated 

compartment, if applicable, during 

testing. 

Test Conduct—Operating Periods and 

Door/Lid Openings 

As described, buffet tables and 

preparation tables temporarily store and 

display perishable items during food 

preparation or service. Because buffet 

tables and preparation tables are used 

only during food preparation or service, 

these equipment types may not be used 

for the same 24-hour duration used to 

characterize performance for other 

categories of CRE. Sections 10.5.5 and 

10.5.6 of ASTM F2143–16 specify a 24- 

hour test, with an active period of 8 

hours and a standby period of 16 hours. 

The active period specified in section 

10.5.5 contains instructions for a cover, 

if equipped (open for 2 hours, then 

closed for 4 hours, then open for 2 

hours), and a door opening sequence for 

any refrigerated compartments (every 30 

minutes, each cabinet door or drawer, or 

both, shall be fully opened sequentially, 

one at a time, for 6 consecutive seconds; 

for units with pass-thru doors, only the 

doors on one side of the unit are 

opened). 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on the typical daily usage of 

buffet tables and preparation tables. 86 

FR 31182, 31187. Additionally, DOE 

requested feedback on whether these 

CRE are used for long-term storage of 

food or only short-term storage during 

food preparation or service periods. Id. 

DOE also requested comment on 

whether the daily use of this equipment 

varies depending on configuration or 

other technical characteristics. Id. 

AHRI, Hussmann, Arneg, and True 

commented that the typical use is only 

during service operating hours 

(approximately 8–12 hours), such that 

the typical use is short-term during food 

preparation or service periods rather 

than long-term food storage. (AHRI No. 

3, p. 8; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 10–11; 

Arneg, No. 12, p. 1; True, No. 4, p. 11) 

Hoshizaki commented that preparation 

table units are typically used for a 

period of 11 hours for restaurants with 

active food prep areas. (Hoshizaki, No. 

13, p. 2) Arneg and True commented 

that it is common to store foods in salad 

bars and buffet tables for short periods 

of time during ‘‘rush periods’’ (i.e., 

breakfast, lunch, dinner, bar closing 

time). (Arneg, No. 12, p. 1; True, No. 4, 

p. 11) Arneg commented that if food 

safety time-temperature relations are 

used, depending on how long the food 

is displayed, the cabinets may not need 

to be refrigerated. (Arneg, No. 12, p. 1) 

True commented that most food service 

operators use walk-in coolers for 

overnight storage, not the storage 

section of these CRE models. (True, No. 

4, p. 11) True commented the NSF 7– 

2019 test procedure provides the worst 

case for energy use during a four-hour 

period with the covers open. (True, No. 

4, p. 11) True commented that ASTM 

F2143–16 is not appropriate for food 

safety nor performance testing and 

suggests the use of NSF 7–2019, which 

covers the performance requirements for 

these types of units and encompasses 

food safety. (True, No. 4, p. 13) True 

suggested multiplying the four-hour 

NSF 7–2019 test for energy 

consumption by six to get a 24-hour 

energy consumption ‘‘baseline’’ number 

that could be used as a comparison. 

(True, No, 4, p. 7) 

Continental commented that 

refrigerated preparation tables are 

designed and utilized for continued 

storage of products whenever the 

facility is operating, which can be 24 

hours a day. (Continental, No. 6, p. 2) 

ITW, AHRI, Hussmann, and 

Hoshizaki commented that there is no 

typical daily use of this equipment and 

that it will vary based on the 

configuration of the equipment and 

design characteristics (e.g., if the 

equipment is provided with a storage 

compartment), and that usage 

applications can vary from small 

sandwich shops to high volume 24-hour 

fast food chains. (ITW, No. 2, p. 6; 

AHRI, No. 3, p. 8; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 

10–11; Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2) 

ITW provided common operational 

characteristics among all applications 

depending on equipment 

configurations, including 24-hour unit 

operation and various pan/lid operating 

durations. (ITW, No. 2, p. 6) 

Based on comments from interested 

parties, DOE has tentatively determined 

that buffet tables and preparation tables 

are typically used for food service and 

food preparation rather than longer term 

food storage. As described earlier in this 

section, DOE is proposing to test this 

equipment with pans loaded into the 

open-top display areas for the duration 

of the test, which DOE has tentatively 

determined represents typical use 

during food service and food 

preparation. 

DOE recognizes that the duration of 

use per day varies based on application 

and installation location for this 

equipment. Based on comments from 

interested parties, buffet tables and 

preparation tables can be used for up to 

24 hours per day. DOE has initially 

determined that a 24-hour test period as 

specified in ASTM F2143–16 

incorporates the likely aspects of buffet 

table and preparation table operation— 

i.e., an active door-opening period and 

a period of stable operation. While the 

actual durations of use may vary based 

on end use application, the measured 

energy use in kWh/day is representative 

of the energy use of a unit operated in 

24 hours and allows for consistent 

energy use comparisons among models. 

DOE is proposing to require a 24-hour 

test period for buffet tables and 

preparation tables as specified in ASTM 

F2143–16. The proposed 24-hour test 

period is consistent with the industry 

test procedure, the test procedure for 

other CRE, limits test burden and 

variability by allowing for stable 

operation over a longer period, and 

incorporates the door openings and 

stable operation expected during typical 

usage. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed 24-hour test period, which is 

consistent with the approach in ASTM 

F2143–16. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on the applicability of the 

ASTM F2143–16 door and cover 

opening specifications. 86 FR 31182, 

31187. DOE requested comment on 

whether the door-opening requirements 

specified in ASHRAE 72–2018 are 

appropriate for buffet tables and 

preparation tables. Id. 

The CA IOUs commented that the 

door opening methodology in ASTM 

F2143–16 was developed specifically 

for units that have an open-top 

refrigerated area connected to a 

refrigerated bottom compartment, and 

that they understand this to be the most 

common configuration for these 

products. (CA IOUs, No. 8, p. 3) The CA 

IOUs commented that this methodology 

implements product loading and door 

opening that mirrors field observations 

from a 2014 PG&E study. (Id.) AHRI and 

Hussmann commented that further 

evaluation is needed for door opening 

provisions. (ASTM F2143–16 methods 

and target IATs). (AHRI, No. 3, p. 8; 

Hussmann, No. 14, p. 11) 

Hoshizaki commented in support of a 

longer cover opening time, stating that 

2 hours up, 4 hours down, and 2 hours 

up is adequate but unrealistic. 

(Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2) Hoshizaki 

suggested running a modified NSF 7– 

2019 test in which the lids are up for 4 

hours and then closed for 4 hours, with 

the 8 hour energy consumption test 

scaled to get a daily usage value. (Id.) 

ITW commented that due to 

variability in end use, the cover opening 

period should reflect usage time and 

pattern claimed by the manufacturer. 

(ITW, No. 2, p. 6) 

True and ITW commented that there 

is no typical use case for door openings, 

and True stated that no door openings 

should occur during testing. (True, No. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39188 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

4, p. 11–12; ITW, No. 2, p. 6) ITW 

commented that if DOE were to adopt 

the door opening period, frequency, and 

length specified in ASHRAE 72–2018 

(for the storage compartment), the 

simulated product loading requirements 

specified in the standard should also be 

adopted. (ITW, No. 2, p. 6) 

As discussed, ASTM F2143–16 

includes an eight hour ‘‘active period’’ 

which includes instructions for any 

open-top display area covers (two hours 

open, four hours closed, and two hours 

open) and any refrigerated compartment 

doors and/or drawers (fully opened 

sequentially for six seconds every 30 

minutes). DOE recognizes that the actual 

use of buffet tables and preparation 

tables can vary depending on 

application. The cover and door 

opening requirements in ASTM F2143– 

16 were developed by an industry 

committee with the intent of evaluating 

energy performance. While the dooropenings specified in ASTM F2143–16 

are less frequent than those required in 

ASHRAE 72–2018R, DOE expects that 

any refrigerated compartments in buffet 

tables or preparation tables are accessed 

less frequently than in other CRE 

because maintaining the refrigerated 

temperature of food items held in the 

open-top pan area is the primary 

function of buffet tables or preparation 

tables during operation. Additionally, 

the eight-hour ‘‘active period’’ during 

which door openings occur is consistent 

with the eight-hour period of door 

openings required in ASHRAE 72– 

2018R. Based on the foregoing, DOE has 

tentatively determined that the cover 

and door opening provisions of ASTM 

F2143–16 are appropriately 

representative. 

Accordingly, DOE is proposing to 

incorporate the ‘‘active period’’ 

requirements for cover and door and/or 

drawer openings as specified in Section 

10.5.5 of ASTM F2143–16. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed door and cover opening 

procedures, which are consistent with 

the approach specified in ASTM F2143– 

16. DOE requests data and information 

on representative usage of buffet tables 

and preparation tables, including door 

and cover openings. 

Test Conduct—Stabilization 

Sections 10.3 and 10.4 of ASTM 

F2143–16 require that the unit be 

operated with empty pans and open 

covers for at least 24 hours, that the unit 

operate with empty pans for at least 2 

hours, that water be pre-cooled before 

being loaded into the pans, and, once 

the water has been loaded into the pans, 

that the thermostat be calibrated until 

the pan temperatures are never outside 

of 33 °F to 41 °F for any 15-minute 

period over a 4-hour measurement 

period. In contrast, the current CRE test 

procedure, by reference to ASHRAE 72– 

2005, generally provides that the unit be 

loaded with test simulators and filler 

packages prior to pre-cooling, operated 

to establish steady-state conditions over 

consecutive 24-hour periods or 

refrigeration cycles, and, once steadystate conditions have been achieved, 

continue to operate for at least 12 hours 

without any adjustment to the controls. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on the appropriate 

stabilization method to use when testing 

buffet tables and preparation tables. 86 

FR 31182, 31187. 

AHRI and Hussmann commented that 

further evaluation is needed regarding 

stabilization provisions. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 

11; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 8) 

AHRI, Hussmann, Continental, and 

True commented that covers should be 

closed during the stabilization period, 

as prescribed in NSF 7–2019. (AHRI, 

No. 3, p. 11; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 8; 

Continental, No. 6, p. 2; True, No. 4, p. 

12) Continental commented that ASTM 

F2143–16 Section 10.3.3 prescribes 

placing pans in the open top area and 

leaving covers open for a 24-hour 

stabilization period, which Continental 

stated is not representative of typical 

use. (Continental, No. 6, p. 2) True 

commented that deviation from the NSF 

7–2019 standard for loading and 

stabilization requirements of product 

and filler pans would cause additional 

test burden since handling of pans and 

probes can lead to errors and the need 

to repeat tests. (True, No. 4, p. 11–12) 

Hoshizaki commented that the 24- 

hour stabilization period specified in 

ASTM F2143–16 is appropriate for their 

units, as they observe temperatures 

stabilizing in that period, and the 24- 

hour period helps with scheduling. 

(Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2) Hoshizaki 

commented that the ASTM F2143–16 

requirement for the unit to operate with 

empty pans for at least 2 hours poses an 

access challenge, since most 

manufacturers prefer to use a door 

opener mechanism, which would 

prevent clear access to the pans and 

front of the machine. (Id.) 

As discussed, DOE is proposing 

generally to reference ASTM F2143–16 

rather than NSF 7–2019 for buffet table 

and preparation table testing. However, 

the stabilization and thermostat 

calibration requirements in Sections 

10.3 and 10.4 of ASTM F2143–16 may 

require an iterative process of 

thermostat adjustment and recalibration 

to achieve stability and then to ensure 

that appropriate conditions are 

maintained during the test period. The 

recent update to ASHRAE 72–2018R 

specifies provisions for other CRE that 

require stability to be confirmed over 

two test periods with identical 

operation in order to avoid the need for 

an iterative process. DOE is proposing to 

reference sections 7.1 through 7.5 

(excluding sections 7.2.1, 7.2.2, 7.3.1, 

7.3.2, 7.3.3, and 7.3.4, as those sections 

would not be applicable to selfcontained buffet tables or preparation 

tables because those sections are 

intended for CRE with remote 

condensing units, CRE without doors, 

CRE with different door opening 

sequences, and CRE with lighting 

occupancy sensors and controls) of 

ASHRAE 72–2018R for determining 

stabilization and specifying the testing 

sequence for testing buffet tables and 

preparation tables. The preparation 

period under Section 7.2 of ASHRAE 

72–2018R would include loading the 

pans with water and adjusting the 

necessary controls to maintain the 

specified temperatures. For the 

purposes of determining stability as 

specified in Section 7.5 of ASHRAE 72– 

2018R, the average temperatures of 

measured pans would be used to 

compare Test A and Test B rather than 

the temperatures of test simulators. DOE 

has tentatively determined that this 

approach would ensure stability over 

the test period and limit test burden by 

avoiding an iterative approach to 

determine stability and test conditions. 

This approach would also maintain 

consistency with the procedures used 

for testing other CRE. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed stabilization approach for 

buffet table and preparation table 

testing, which would reference the 

approach specified in ASHRAE 72– 

2018R. 

Test Conduct—Target Temperatures 

ASTM F2143–16 instructs that if a 

buffet table or preparation table is 

equipped with a refrigerated 

compartment, the compartment air 

temperature is to be between 33 °F and 

41 °F. Likewise, the water temperature 

in each of the pans placed in the display 

area also is to be between 33 °F and 

41 °F. The DOE test procedure for other 

CRE requires IATs of 38 °F ± 2.0 °F for 

medium temperature applications. 

Through preliminary research, DOE 

has found that buffet and preparation 

tables use a variety of refrigeration 

methods for cooling the pans in the 

display area and the refrigerated 

compartment. In some configurations, 

units might not be able to maintain all 

pans and the refrigerated compartment 

within the specified temperature range. 

For example, units with a single 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39189 

refrigeration system and thermostat 

control for temperatures in either the 

refrigerated compartment or in the pan 

area would control for temperature in 

either the pan area or refrigerated 

compartment, and both may not be 

within the target range. As a result, 

certain equipment may maintain only 

the refrigerated compartment or the pan 

area, but not both, within a specified 

temperature range during operation. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on appropriate temperature 

ranges for all pans and compartments 

during testing, and whether the test 

temperature should be specified as an 

allowable range or as a target IAT with 

a specified tolerance. 86 FR 31182, 

31188. Additionally, if a target IAT is 

appropriate, the pans and any 

refrigerated compartment IAT could be 

measured separately from each other, or 

all temperature measurement locations 

within the refrigerated compartment 

and pans could be averaged together to 

determine a single IAT. If separate IATs 

of the pans and the compartment should 

be used, DOE requested comment on 

which IAT should be used to determine 

the appropriate thermostat control (if 

the unit has only one overall 

temperature control). Id. 

AHRI commented that further 

evaluation is needed to incorporate the 

appropriate IAT provisions into 

industry test standards. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 

8) AHRI also commented that 

preparation or service of cold 

temperature foods (e.g., sushi or ice 

cream) would need to be considered. 

(AHRI, No. 3, p. 5) 

True, Hoshizaki, and Continental 

commented in support of the NSF 7– 

2019 standard. (True, No. 4, p. 12; 

Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2; Continental, No. 

6, p. 3) True commented that during the 

NSF 7–2019 test, the product is moved 

from a separate holding cabinet (e.g., a 

reach in refrigerator or walk in cooler). 

(True, No. 4, p. 12) Hoshizaki and 

Continental commented in support of 

the moving box car average temperature 

(i.e., a data treatment method that 

replaces a group of consecutive data 

points with its average) for open-top 

pans, along with the maximum and 

minimum temperature range for 

thermocouples, stating that this 

approach would provide a good 

indicator of maintaining temperatures 

over an extended period of time. 

(Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2; Continental, 

No. 6, p. 3) 

Hussmann and Continental 

commented in support of an IAT of 

below 41 °F with a specified tolerance 

for the storage compartment. 

(Hussmann, No. 14, p. 11; Continental, 

No. 6, p. 3) 

ITW commented in support of a target 

temperature range of 35 °F in the opentop for consistency and repeatability. 

(ITW, No. 2, p. 7) ITW commented that 

this would represent the best approach, 

assuming that distilled water pre-cooled 

to 35 °F in bulk is used in filling empty 

food pans already placed in the opentop pans at the initiation of the 

evaluation, that the environmental 

conditions for the evaluation match 

those found in the ASHRAE 72–2018 

standard, and that the temperatures of 

the simulated product held within the 

storage compartment are recorded but 

not specified. (Id.) 

As discussed, ASTM F2143–16 and 

NSF 7–2019 both specify a pan and 

compartment temperature range of 33 °F 

to 41 °F for testing. The current DOE test 

procedure for CRE requires testing to an 

IAT within 2 °F of the specified target 

temperature. DOE expects that this 

smaller allowable temperature range 

would limit test variability as compared 

to the 8 °F allowable range specified in 

ASTM F2143–16 and NSF 7–2019. 

The ASTM F2143–16 and NSF 7– 

2019 temperature ranges apply to all 

measured pan and compartment 

temperatures, whereas DOE’s current 

temperature specifications apply to the 

IAT—i.e., the average of all test 

simulator temperature measurements 

over the test period. DOE has tentatively 

determined that the temperature 

specification based on an average 

temperature rather than individual 

temperature measurements would limit 

test burden by limiting the need for retests in the case of individual 

temperature measurements being 

outside of the required range. 

Additionally, DOE has initially 

determined that the average temperature 

approach would allow for testing buffet 

tables and preparation tables with 

configurations not capable of 

maintaining all temperature 

measurements within the required 

range. For example, if the refrigerated 

compartment provides cooling to the 

open-top pan area, the refrigerated 

compartment temperature 

measurements may be colder than the 

pan temperatures and not necessarily 

within a specified range. Additionally, 

certain temperature measurement 

locations may be warmer or colder than 

others depending on proximity to the 

evaporator or refrigerated areas, 

resulting in ‘‘hot’’ or ‘‘cold’’ spots. 

Testing to a specified average 

temperature would consider the overall 

average measured temperature and 

would allow for testing such 

configurations. 

Based on these initial determinations, 

DOE is proposing to require testing 

buffet tables and preparation tables to a 

specified average temperature rather 

than an allowable range. DOE is 

proposing that the average temperature 

be calculated over the test period 

separately for the pan temperature 

measurements (i.e., the average of 

temperatures measured throughout the 

test period at each pan measurement 

location specified in ASTM F2143–16) 

and the temperature measurements in 

any refrigerated compartment (i.e., the 

average of temperatures measured 

throughout the test period at each of the 

three compartment measurement 

locations specified in ASTM F2143–16). 

DOE is proposing that the average 

temperature of all refrigerated pans be 

38 °F ± 2 °F. This temperature is 

consistent with the current DOE test 

procedure for medium temperature CRE 

and is within the allowable range 

specified in ASTM F2143–16 and NSF 

7–2019. Testing to a lower average 

temperature, such as 35 °F as 

recommended in the ITW comment, 

could increase the likelihood of 

refrigerated pans freezing during the test 

period. DOE is similarly proposing that 

the average temperature of any 

refrigerated compartment also be 38 °F ± 

2 °F. If the buffet table or preparation 

table configuration does not allow 

independent control of the refrigerated 

compartment and both the pan average 

temperature and refrigerated 

compartment average temperature 

cannot be maintained within 38 °F ± 2 °F 

over the test period, DOE is proposing 

that the refrigerated compartment be 

tested to the average temperature 

necessary to maintain the pan average 

temperature within the specified range. 

Similar to the existing LAPT provision 

in section 2.2 of appendix B, DOE also 

proposes that if a unit is not capable of 

maintaining average pan temperatures 

within the specified range, the unit 

would be tested at the LAPT. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed approach for testing buffet 

tables and preparation tables based on 

separate pan and compartment average 

temperatures. DOE also requests 

feedback on the proposed target 

temperature of 38 °F ± 2 °F for each 

average temperature. 

Test Conduct—Capacity Metrics 

ASTM F2143–16 specifies the 

reporting of ‘‘production capacity,’’ 

which is defined as the total volume of 

the pans when each pan is filled within 

one-half inch of the rim. Energy 

consumption of refrigerated buffet and 

preparation tables likely varies with pan 

volume as well as the volume of any 

closed refrigerated compartments. 

Therefore, both values are of interest 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39190 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

20 ‘‘Holding temperature application’’ means a 

use of commercial refrigeration equipment other 

than a pull-down temperature application, except a 

blast chiller or freezer. 10 CFR 431.62 (see also 42 

U.S.C. 6311(9)(B)). 

when considering metrics that define 

energy performance. Pan surface area 

could be another possible metric for 

evaluating energy performance, similar 

to TDA for horizontal open equipment 

classes. Reliance on pan surface area 

may eliminate the variability with 

different test pan dimensions. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on the potential 

methodologies for determining pan 

volume, pan surface area, and pan TDA, 

as well as refrigerated compartment 

volume for buffet tables and preparation 

tables in a potential test procedure for 

this equipment. 86 FR 31182, 31188. 

DOE additionally requested comment 

on which parameter(s) (e.g., total pan 

volume, pan surface area, TDA, or a 

combined metric), may best represent 

the useful ‘‘capacity’’ of this equipment. 

Id. 

AHRI and Hussmann commented that 

because these units are highly 

customizable, the volume, surface area, 

and TDA should be used as specified by 

the manufacturer. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 9; 

Hussmann, No. 14, p. 12) 

ITW commented that DOE has already 

specified measuring storage 

compartment volume in accordance 

with AHAM HRF–1–2008 for units for 

which the open-top refrigeration system 

can be turned off, and that this should 

be applied to all units regardless of the 

on/off feature or the existence of a 

thermally separating barrier. (ITW, No. 

2, p. 7) Hoshizaki commented that 

computer-aided design (‘‘CAD’’) is a 

good way to calculate compartment 

volume. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2) 

ITW commented that the pan surface 

area or TDA provides a more accurate 

representation of the heat load placed 

on open-top refrigeration units than 

total food pan volume because the 

environmental energy introduced into 

the system crosses the horizontal plane 

at the pan surface, not along the vertical 

sides or bottom representing the pan 

volume. (ITW, No. 2, p. 7) Hoshizaki 

commented that pans come in standard 

sizes with designated volumes, such 

that it would make for an easy 

calculation of total pan volume by 

selecting the number and size of pans. 

(Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2) 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

pan storage volume, pan display area, 

and refrigerated volume may all 

contribute to the capacity and energy 

consumption of a buffet table or 

preparation table; therefore, DOE is 

proposing that the test procedure 

include measures of these three metrics. 

DOE is proposing to define and measure 

‘‘pan volume’’ consistent with the 

production capacity specified in ASTM 

F2143–16. DOE is proposing to refer to 

pan volume rather than production 

capacity to avoid confusion with the 

other relevant capacity metrics. 

DOE is proposing that the refrigerated 

volume of buffet table and preparation 

table refrigerated compartments be 

tested in accordance with AHRI 1200– 

202X, consistent with the method 

proposed for use with other CRE. To 

avoid double counting of refrigerated 

pan volumes, DOE is proposing that the 

refrigerated compartment volume would 

not include any volume occupied by the 

pans loaded in the open-top display 

area for testing. DOE discusses volume 

measurements based on CAD drawings 

in section III.H of this NOPR. 

DOE is proposing that pan display 

area be defined and measured as the 

surface area of the test pan when filled 

to within one half inch of the rim. This 

surface area measurement would ensure 

that the pan display area would be 

consistent with the pan storage volume 

(i.e., both measurements would be based 

on the pans as filled for testing). 

Additionally, the measurement based on 

the surface area of the water as loaded 

for testing would ensure that the surface 

area measurement accounts for the 

actual food storage area and excludes 

any areas not providing refrigerated 

storage for food service or food 

preparation. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed capacity metrics of pan 

storage volume, compartment volume, 

and pan display area. DOE requests 

feedback on the proposed methods for 

measuring each and the extent to which 

these metrics are relevant capacity 

metrics for buffet tables and preparation 

tables. 

2. Pull-Down Temperature Applications 

As defined, CRE is equipment that is 

designed for holding temperature 

applications 20 or pull-down 

temperature applications. 10 CFR 

431.62 (see also 42 U.S.C. 

6311(9)(A)(vi)). ‘‘Pull-down temperature 

application’’ is a commercial refrigerator 

with doors that, when fully loaded with 

12-ounce beverage cans at 90 °F, can 

cool those beverages to an average stable 

temperature of 38 °F in 12 hours or less. 

10 CFR 431.62 (42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(D)). 

CRE within this definition are typically 

known as beverage merchandisers or 

beverage coolers because of their use in 

displaying individually packaged 

beverages for sale, and their ability to 

pull-down temperatures of such 

beverages. Pull-down temperature 

applications with transparent doors and 

a self-contained condensing unit are the 

only pull-down temperature 

applications currently subject to DOE’s 

energy conservation standards specified 

at 10 CFR 431.66(e). 

DOE’s current CRE test procedure 

does not include specific provisions 

related to the performance criteria in the 

pull-down temperature application 

definition. For example, the test 

procedure does not provide instructions 

for the starting conditions of the 

equipment (e.g., whether the equipment 

begins the test in a pre-cooled state or 

at ambient temperature conditions), 

loading of the cans (e.g., whether the 

equipment must be loaded to full within 

a certain amount of time), or a method 

to measure the temperature of the cans 

to confirm cooling to 38 °F. The current 

CRE test procedure specifies that 

commercial refrigerators designed for 

pull-down applications be tested at 

steady state (see 10 CFR 431.64(b), and 

appendix B section 2.1), consistent with 

testing other covered CRE categories. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE sought 

information on whether CRE that 

provides pull-down temperature 

applications is sufficiently 

differentiated from other types of CRE. 

86 FR 31182, 31188. If not, DOE sought 

comment on how manufacturers 

currently determine whether a model 

meets the pull-down temperature 

application criteria. Id. DOE also 

requested comment on appropriate 

starting conditions, loading methods, 

and other necessary specifications for a 

potential test method to verify the pulldown performance of a commercial 

refrigerator. Id. Additionally, DOE 

requested comment and data on the 

energy consumption associated with 

pull-down operation and steady-state 

operation for CRE designed for pulldown temperature applications, and on 

whether a modified test method would 

be appropriate to represent the energy 

consumption of such equipment. Id. 

AHRI commented that AHRI members 

and working group participants 

discussed pull down applications 

during AHRI 1200–202X revisions. 

(AHRI, No. 3, p. 9–10) AHRI commented 

that requirements for pull down 

temperatures vary greatly based on 

product, end use, and stocking, and that 

the industry does not have a test method 

for these systems. (Id.) AHRI 

commented that based on the varied 

conditions, customized nature, and 

small market segment, the working 

group determined not to address pull 

down units at this time, and suggested 

this may need to be addressed 

separately from CRE or alongside blast 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39191 

21Based on DOE’s Compliance Certification 

Database (accessed January 23, 2022), available at 

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/ 

#q=Product_Group_s%3A*. 

22See www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/ 

standards-and-guidelines/project-committeeinterim-meetings. 

chillers and freezers given the unique 

application. (Id.) 

True commented that 75 °F ambient 

temperature, 55 percent relative 

humidity, and pull down of 90 °F 

products is typical. (True, No. 4, p. 14) 

True commented that this category is 

irrelevant if the models meet the DOE 

energy conservation standards for 

holding temperature applications, and 

that this category should not exist. (Id.) 

The Joint Commenters expressed 

support for DOE developing a test 

procedure to verify pull-down 

performance. (Joint Commenters, No. 8, 

p. 2) The Joint Commenters stated that 

the test procedure contains a definition 

for ‘‘pull-down temperature 

application,’’ but that there is no 

procedure to verify whether a unit 

meets that definition, such that it would 

make sense to develop a pull-down test 

procedure to verify performance so that 

a manufacturer, DOE, or third party can 

determine if a unit meets the ‘‘pulldown temperature application’’ 

definition. (Id.) 

While DOE defines ‘‘pull-down 

temperature application’’ and has 

established energy conservation 

standards for self-contained commercial 

refrigerators with transparent doors for 

pull-down temperature applications, no 

models are currently certified to DOE in 

this equipment class.21 DOE has not 

established energy conservation 

standards for other categories of CRE for 

pull-down temperature applications. 

DOE recognizes that manufacturers 

may represent their models as for use in 

pull-down temperature applications 

rather than holding temperature 

applications. To ensure appropriate 

application of DOE’s definitions, DOE is 

proposing a method to determine 

whether a model meets the definition of 

‘‘pull-down temperature application.’’ 

Specifically, DOE is proposing to 

include product-specific enforcement 

provisions for CRE, as discussed further 

in section III.J of this NOPR, and 

proposes to include a section to specify 

how DOE would confirm whether a 

commercial refrigerator meets the 

definition of pull-down temperature 

application. 

As stated, the pull-down temperature 

application definition requires that a 

model be capable of cooling a full load 

of 12 ounce beverage cans from 90 °F to 

an average stable temperature of 38 °F in 

12 hours or less. To confirm this 

capability, DOE is proposing to specify 

in 10 CFR 429.134 that a classification 

as pull-down temperature application is 

valid based on meeting the pull-down 

temperature application definition by: 

(1) measuring the temperatures of 12- 

ounce beverage cans loaded into the 

commercial refrigerator at locations 

consistent with those specified in 

ASHRAE 72–2018R (i.e., those 

temperature measurement locations 

required for test simulators during DOE 

testing of other commercial 

refrigerators); 

(2) operating the commercial 

refrigerator under the required 

commercial refrigerator test conditions 

(e.g., 75.2 °F ± 1.8 °F dry-bulb 

temperature) and at the control setting 

necessary to achieve a stable integrated 

average temperature of 38 °F, prior to 

loading; 

(3) fully loading the commercial 

refrigerator with 12-ounce beverage cans 

maintained at 90 °F ± 2 °F; 

(4) determining the duration of pulldown (which must be 12 hours or less) 

starting from closing the commercial 

refrigerator door after completing the 

12-ounce beverage can loading until the 

integrated average temperature reaches 

38 °F ± 2 °F; and 

(5) determining an average stable 

temperature of 38 °F by operating the 

commercial refrigerator for an 

additional 12 hours after initially 

reaching 38 °F ± 2 °F with no changes to 

control settings, and determining an 

integrated average temperature of 38 °F 

± 2 °F at the end of the 12 hour stability 

period. 

The proposed product-specific 

enforcement provisions are consistent 

with the existing definition of pulldown temperature application, but 

would provide additional clarity 

regarding how DOE would determine 

whether a commercial refrigerator could 

be classified as such. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed product-specific enforcement 

provisions regarding how DOE would 

determine whether a model meets the 

pull-down temperature application 

definition. DOE also requests data and 

comment on whether the proposed 

product-specific enforcement provisions 

sufficiently differentiate pull-down 

temperature applications from holding 

temperature applications. 

3. Blast Chillers and Blast Freezers 

As stated, CRE is equipment that, in 

part, is designed for holding 

temperature applications. (42 U.S.C. 

6311(9)(A)(vi)) EPCA defines ‘‘holding 

temperature application’’ as use of 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

other than a pull-down temperature 

application, except a blast chiller or 

freezer. (42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(B)) Per the 

definition, ‘‘holding temperature 

application’’ includes blast chillers and 

blast freezers, even if such equipment 

meets the criteria of ‘‘pull down 

temperature application.’’ 

In general, blast chillers and blast 

freezers are commercial refrigeration 

equipment with solid doors intended for 

the rapid temperature pull-down of hotfood products. 

Blast chiller and blast freezer 

operation is typically characterized by 

three cycles. The first cycle pulls the air 

temperature within the unit down until 

it reaches a target air temperature set by 

the manufacturer (e.g., 0 °F for blast 

chillers and ¥28 °F for blast freezers). 

This target air temperature within the 

unit is maintained until the food 

reaches a certain temperature, set by the 

manufacturer, as measured by the unit’s 

temperature probe. Once the food 

reaches a certain temperature, the 

second cycle begins by allowing the air 

temperature within the unit to drift up 

until it reaches the same temperature as 

the target food temperature (e.g., 38 °F 

for blast chillers and 0 °F for blast 

freezers). Once the food reaches the 

target food temperature, the last cycle 

begins by proceeding to a holding 

pattern during which the blast chiller or 

blast freezer behaves similar to a typical 

CRE—i.e., cycling the refrigeration 

system to maintain a target temperature. 

Within the general sequence of 

operations, many blast chillers and blast 

freezers provide users options to alter 

the specific pull down profile based on 

the food load. For example, a ‘‘soft 

chill’’ mode may provide a slower 

temperature pull-down intended for 

more delicate food, as compared to a 

‘‘hard chill’’ mode that cools food as 

quickly as possible. 

ASHRAE has established a standard 

project committee (‘‘SPC’’) to consider 

the development of an industry test 

standard for this equipment: SPC 220P, 

Method of Testing for Rating Small 

Commercial Blast Chillers, ChillerFreezers, and Freezers (‘‘ASHRAE 

220’’).22 DOE is participating in this 

process and is aware of a draft test 

standard underway that contains certain 

definitions, requirements, and 

procedure. DOE will consider 

referencing the final version of the SPC 

220P standard when it is made publicly 

available. 

a. Definitions 

DOE does not define blast chiller or 

blast freezer. The California Code of 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39192 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

23See NSF/ANSI 7—2019, ‘‘Commercial 

Refrigerators and Freezers’’. 

Regulations provides the following 

definition for a blast chiller: 

• Blast chiller—a refrigerator 

designed to cool food products from 

140 °F to 40 °F within four hours. (CCR, 

Title 20, section 1602) 

The SPC for ASHRAE 220 has 

provided the following tentative 

definitions for blast chiller and blast 

freezer, and a related term: 

• Blast chiller—a rapid pull down 

cooler designed to cool food to a safe 

refrigerated temperature (typically 

between 32 °F and 41 °F), but not freeze 

it. 

• Blast freezer—a rapid pull down 

cooler designed to freeze food. 

• Rapid pull down cooler— 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

intended for the rapid intermediate 

chilling or freezing of hot food products 

within a specified time period and 

holding the food at a safe temperature 

when not engaged in the chilling or 

freezing process. 

NSF 7–2019 provides the following 

performance specification for rapid 

pull-down refrigerators and freezers: 

• Rapid pull-down refrigerators and 

freezers—capable of reducing the 

internal temperature of their contents 

from 135 °F to 40 °F within a period of 

4 hours or in the time specified by the 

manufacturer, whichever is less. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on whether definitions are 

needed for blast chillers and blast 

freezers to further delineate the 

equipment subject to the DOE test 

procedures and standards. 86 FR 31182, 

31188. If definitions are needed, DOE 

requested comment on the appropriate 

definitions for blast chillers and blast 

freezers, including how to differentiate 

such equipment from CRE currently 

subject to testing and compliance with 

DOE’s energy conservation standards. 

86 FR 31182, 31188–31189. 

NEEA commented in support of DOE 

establishing a definition for blast 

chillers and blast freezers. (NEEA, No. 5, 

p. 3) NEEA commented that the scope 

of the pull-down temperature 

application definition is better suited to 

focus exclusively on beverage 

merchandisers and coolers, due to the 

differences in intended operation of 

blast chillers and freezers. Id. NEEA 

commented that delineating both the 

definition and test procedure to 

highlight the different use cases of pulldown equipment and blast chillers will 

lead to more representative energy use 

projections. Id. 

The Joint Commenters stated that 

blast chillers and blast freezers have 

oversized refrigeration systems 

compared to other CRE, such that blast 

chillers and freezers use more energy 

compared to other equipment with 

similar volumes. (Joint Commenters, No. 

8, p. 2) 

Based on the comments from 

interested parties and DOE’s review of 

existing State definitions, tentative and 

established industry definitions, and 

equipment available on the market, DOE 

has tentatively determined that the 

characteristic of blast chillers and blast 

freezers that differentiate this 

equipment from other categories of CRE 

are the oversized refrigeration systems 

that allow for the rapid temperature 

pull-down of hot food products within 

a specified time period. Blast chillers 

and blast freezers specifically differ 

from other types of CRE intended for 

pull-down temperature applications 

because of the intended product (hot 

food product for blast chillers and blast 

freezers versus 12 ounce beverage cans 

for pull-down temperature 

applications), initial product 

temperature (minimum 135 °F 23 for 

blast chillers and blast freezers versus 

90 °F for pull-down temperature 

applications), and intended product 

storage duration (minimal storage 

duration for blast chillers and blast 

freezers versus long-term storage 

duration for pull-down temperature 

applications). 

As discussed, blast chillers and blast 

freezers provide rapid cooling to ensure 

hot food is quickly pulled down to safe 

refrigerated storage temperatures. DOE 

tentatively identified the capability to 

pull down hot food from 135 °F to 40 °F 

within four hours as the primary 

operating characteristic of blast chillers 

and blast freezers. This is consistent 

with the performance specification for 

rapid pull-down refrigerators and 

freezers specified in NSF 7–2019, the 

California definition, and tentative 

definitions provided by the SPC for 

ASHRAE 220. Although DOE is not 

proposing to test blast chillers and blast 

freezers according to NSF 7–2019, as 

discussed in the following section, DOE 

expects that any blast chiller or blast 

freezer meeting the NSF 7–2019 

performance specification would be 

capable of pulling down hot food from 

135 °F to 40 °F within four hours when 

tested as proposed in this NOPR. As 

discussed in section III.C.1.b, DOE is 

proposing a lower ambient temperature 

condition than the ambient temperature 

condition specified in NSF 7–2019. 

To delineate blast chillers and blast 

freezers from other categories of CRE, 

including from CRE designed for pulldown temperature applications, DOE is 

proposing to define the terms ‘‘blast 

chiller’’ and ‘‘blast freezer.’’ DOE is 

proposing definitions for these terms 

that combine parts of existing 

definitions, add language for 

consistency with DOE’s existing CRE 

definitions, and include further 

specificity regarding the characteristics 

of this equipment. Specifically, DOE is 

proposing to add the following 

definitions to 10 CFR 431.62: 

‘‘Blast chiller’’ means commercial 

refrigeration equipment, other than a 

blast freezer, that is capable of the rapid 

temperature pull-down of hot food 

products from 135 °F to 40 °F within a 

period of four hours, when measured 

according to the DOE test procedure. 

‘‘Blast freezer’’ means commercial 

refrigeration equipment that is capable 

of the rapid temperature pull-down of 

hot food products from 135 °F to 40 °F 

within a period of four hours and 

capable of achieving a final product 

temperature of less than 32 °F, when 

measured according to the DOE test 

procedure. 

DOE seeks comment on the proposed 

definitions of ‘‘blast chiller’’ and ‘‘blast 

freezer.’’ 

b. Test Methods 

DOE has reviewed the ASHRAE 220 

test method in development to 

determine the suitability of the test 

method for a DOE test procedure. The 

draft ASHRAE 220 test method 

determines the pull-down energy 

consumption per pound of food 

product, hot food product temperature 

pull-down performance, and other 

performance factors for self-contained 

commercial blast chillers and blast 

freezers that have a refrigerated volume 

of up to 500 ft3. DOE understands that 

the ASHRAE 220 test method has 

certain deviations from DOE’s current 

CRE test procedures and ASHRAE 72– 

2018R. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE stated that 

it was not aware of any existing test 

methods for assessing the energy 

performance of blast chillers and blast 

freezers but acknowledged the ongoing 

industry work to develop ASHRAE 220. 

86 FR 31182, 31189. DOE requested 

information on typical blast chiller and 

blast freezer operation to evaluate any 

eventual test methods available for this 

equipment. Id. 

NEEA commented in support of 

collaboration between DOE and EPA 

regarding test procedures for blast 

chillers and freezers. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 

3) The CA IOUs commented that DOE 

should work with the ASHRAE 220 

committee to finalize an approach for 

evaluating the performance of blast 

chillers and freezers that will be 

consistent with DOE’s statutory 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39193 

24See the Version 5.0 Specification and Test 

Method Discussion Guide, December 2020, at 

www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/ 

ENERGY%20STAR%20Commercial

%20Refrigerators%20and%20Freezers

%20V5.0%20Discussion%20Guide.pdf. 

requirements for a test procedure. (CA 

IOUs, No. 10, p. 4) The CA IOUs 

commented that ASHRAE 220 was 

expected to be published in late 2021, 

and that International Organization for 

Standardization (‘‘ISO’’) 22042:2021, 

(‘‘ISO 22042:2021’’), ‘‘Blast chiller and 

freezer cabinets for professional use— 

Classification, requirements and test 

conditions was published in March 

2021. Id. The CA IOUs provided a 

comparison of the two standards. Id. 

NEEA commented that DOE’s test 

procedure for pull-down temperature 

application is only reflective of steady 

state operation and does not account for 

energy usage in pull-down mode or 

percentage of time in each of the two 

modes. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 3) NEEA 

commented that DOE should study pulldown conditions of blast chillers and 

blast freezers to ensure the test 

procedure represents actual usage. (Id.) 

The CA IOUs commented that DOE 

should focus on self-contained blast 

chillers and freezers, stating that the 

ASHRAE 220 test method is geared 

toward this equipment configuration, 

and that this is the predominant 

configuration in terms of market share 

in food service applications. (CA IOUs, 

No. 10, p. 5) 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

test procedures that account for the 

pull-down operation of blast chillers 

and blast freezers are appropriate. As 

discussed in section III.C.3.a, the 

primary function of blast chillers and 

blast freezers is the rapid cooling of hot 

food product and minimal storage 

duration rather than long-term storage 

duration. Consistent with comments 

from interested parties, DOE has 

considered the draft ASHRAE 220 

standard as the basis for many of the test 

procedure proposals. 

DOE has also reviewed the ISO 

22042:2021 test standard. Many of the 

provisions in the ISO 22042:2021 

method are similar to those included in 

the draft ASHRAE 220 (e.g., ambient 

temperature, starting food load 

temperature, final blast freezer 

temperature). DOE has tentatively 

determined that the provisions in draft 

ASHRAE 220 provide a more 

representative basis for testing (e.g., 

blast chiller target temperature of 38 °F 

rather than 50 °F) and would limit test 

variability as compared to ISO 

22042:2021 (e.g., using a well-defined 

food simulator test load rather than 

actual food and defining door openings 

for pan loading). 

DOE has also participated in EPA’s 

specification review process to establish 

version 5.0 Eligibility Criteria for 

commercial refrigerators and freezers. 

EPA considered including blast chillers 

and blast freezers as part of the version 

5.0 Eligibility Criteria,24 but did not 

include them in the specification due to 

the lack of a standardized test 

procedure. 

Consistent with the tentative scope of 

ASHRAE 220, DOE is proposing test 

procedures for self-contained 

commercial blast chillers and blast 

freezers that have a refrigerated volume 

of up to 500 ft3. DOE is proposing to 

incorporate certain provisions from 

draft ASHRAE 220 and certain 

deviations, as discussed in the following 

sections. DOE understands that, to the 

extent feasible, ASHRAE 220 will likely 

harmonize with requirements included 

in ASHRAE 72–2018R. For this reason, 

DOE is proposing to refer to ASHRAE 

72–2018R for certain test requirements 

rather than using the approach in the 

ongoing draft ASHRAE 220. The intent 

of these proposals is to harmonize with 

the eventual ASHRAE 220 final test 

standard approach. 

To avoid confusion regarding testing 

of other CRE, DOE is also proposing to 

establish the test procedure for blast 

chillers and blast freezers as a new 

appendix D to subpart C of 10 CFR part 

431. DOE is also proposing to refer to 

the proposed appendix D as the test 

procedure for blast chillers and blast 

freezers in 10 CFR 431.64. 

DOE seeks comment on the proposal 

to establish test procedures for selfcontained commercial blast chillers and 

blast freezers that have a refrigerated 

volume of up to 500 ft3. 

DOE seeks comment on the proposal 

to incorporate certain provisions from 

the draft ASHRAE 220 and certain 

deviations for the blast chillers and blast 

freezers test procedures. 

Instruments 

DOE reviewed the latest version of the 

draft ASHRAE 220 standard and 

compared it to ASHRAE 72–2018R, as 

shown in Table III.2, to determine 

appropriate instrument requirements for 

blast chiller and blast freezer testing. 

TABLE III.2—INSTRUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS COMPARISON BETWEEN ASHRAE 220 AND ASHRAE 72–2018R 

ASHRAE 220 ASHRAE 72–2018R 

Calibration ............................ Instruments shall be calibrated traceable to National Institute of Standards and Technology (‘‘NIST’’) standards annually.Measurements from the instruments shall be traceable 

to primary or secondary standards calibrated by NIST 

(or other rating standards). Instruments shall be recalibrated on regular intervals that do not exceed the 

intervals prescribed by the instrument manufacturer, 

and with an interval no longer than 1 year. 

Temperature ......................... Accuracy of temperature measurements shall be within 

±1.4 °F. Accuracy of temperature-difference measurements shall be within ±0.2 °F. Temperature measurements not specified shall be made per ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 41.1.2.

Required Accuracy: ±1.4 °F. Temperature measurement methods and instruments shall be applied and 

used in accordance with ASHRAE Standard 41.1– 

2020. 

Time ..................................... Time measurements shall be made with an accuracy of 

±0.5% of the time period being measured.

Required Accuracy: ±0.5% of time period measured. 

Energy .................................. Electrical energy measurements shall be made with instruments accurate to ±2% of the quantity measured.Required Accuracy: must be measured with an integrating watt-hour meter with accuracy ±2.0% of the 

quantity measured and graduated to 0.01 kWh. 

Electrical supply potential 

and supply frequency.

None specified ................................................................ Required Accuracy: ±2.0% of the quantity measured. 

Generally, ASHRAE 72–2018R has the 

same instrumentation requirements as 

draft ASHRAE 220. DOE understands 

that ASHRAE 220 intends to harmonize 

with ASHRAE 72–2018R to the extent 

possible to maintain consistent test 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39194 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

25ASHRAE RP–1469, ‘‘Thermal Comfort in 

Commercial Kitchens,’’ Final Report, January 6, 

2012, page 24. 

requirements across similar equipment 

types. Because ASHRAE 72–2018R 

provides greater detail on the 

instrumentation requirements, and DOE 

expects that the final ASHRAE 220 

standard will likely adopt the ASHRAE 

72–2018R requirements, DOE is 

proposing to reference section 4 and the 

relevant portions of Appendix A of 

ASHRAE 72–2018R for blast chiller and 

blast freezer instrumentation 

requirements. ASHRAE 72–2018R 

provides additional requirements for 

instruments that are not necessary for 

testing blast chillers and blast freezers 

(e.g., air velocity, radiant heat, dry-bulb 

temperature gradient, and test chamber 

illuminance). DOE is proposing to 

incorporate requirements only for 

instruments necessary to test blast 

chillers and blast freezers (i.e., those 

listed in Table III.2). 

DOE seeks comment on the proposal 

to reference section 4 and the relevant 

portions of Appendix A of ASHRAE 72– 

2018R for instrumentation requirements 

for the blast chiller and blast freezer test 

procedures. 

Test Conditions 

Blast chillers and blast freezers are 

typically intended for use only in 

commercial kitchens, as compared to 

other categories of CRE, which are 

typically used in either commercial 

kitchens or in customer-facing 

environments. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment and supporting data on the 

typical ambient conditions experienced 

by blast chillers and blast freezers. 86 

FR 31182, 31189. 

NEEA commented that ASHRAE 220 

is working to answer some of the 

questions posed by DOE, including 

establishing starting food temperatures, 

blast chiller temperatures, and ambient 

temperatures. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 3) 

ASHRAE 220 specifies different test 

conditions for testing blast chillers and 

blast freezers compared to the current 

DOE CRE test procedures, as illustrated 

in Table III.3. 

TABLE III.3—AMBIENT TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY TEST CONDITIONS COMPARISON

ASHRAE 220 DOE’s current CRE test procedure 

Dry Bulb ............................... Measured at point TA; Average: 86.0 °F ± 1.8 °F; Individual: 86.0 °F ± 3.6 °F.Measured at point TA for open; CRE and TB for closed 

CRE; Average: 75.2 °F ± 1.8 °F; Individual: 75.2 °F ± 

3.6 °F. 

Humidity ............................... No test condition specified .............................................. Wet Bulb measured at point TA for open CRE and TB

for closed CRE; Average: 64.4 °F ± 1.8 °F; Individual: 64.4 °F ± 3.6 °F. 

The dry-bulb is required to be 

measured in ASHRAE 220 at the same 

point (TA) as specified in Section 6.1 of 

ASHRAE 72–2018R. ASHRAE 220 does 

not specify the type of thermocouple to 

be used when taking dry-bulb 

measurements. ASHRAE 72–2018R 

specifies that the thermocouples used to 

measure dry-bulb temperatures shall be 

in thermal contact with the center of 1.6 

ounces cylindrical brass slug with a 

diameter and height of 0.75 inches. The 

brass slugs shall be placed at least 0.50 

inches from any heat-conducting 

surface. 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

the test conditions specified in ASHRAE 

220 are more representative of actual 

blast chiller and blast freezer operation 

as compared to the existing CRE test 

procedure conditions. As stated, blast 

chillers are typically only used in 

commercial kitchens, whereas other 

conventional CRE are used in a range of 

environments. 

In response to the June 2021 RFI, the 

CA IOUs referenced a 2012 ASHRAE 

research project 25 benchmarking the 

thermal conditions in 100 commercial 

kitchens in the United States that found 

the average temperature in preparation 

areas ranged from 72 °F to 79 °F, while 

the average temperature in cooking 

areas ranged from 79 °F to 93 °F. (CA 

IOUs, No. 10, p. 2–3) The conditions 

specified in ASHRAE 220 are consistent 

with the commercial kitchen data in the 

ASHRAE report. 

DOE recognizes that harmonizing test 

conditions across different CRE 

categories may provide users with 

measures of energy use that can be 

compared on a consistent basis. 

However, given the particular 

application of blast chillers and blast 

freezers in rapidly lowering the 

temperature of hot food products, it is 

not expected that other CRE would 

serve as a substitute for blast chillers 

and blast freezers (and vice versa). 

Moreover, as indicated by the 2012 

ASHRAE report, the test conditions in 

the draft ASHRAE 220 are more 

representative for blast chillers and blast 

freezers than the test conditions 

applicable to CRE generally. 

Because blast chillers and blast 

freezers experience different ambient 

conditions than other types of CRE, and 

because the proposed test procedures 

for blast chillers and blast freezers 

would use a different energy use and 

capacity metric, DOE is proposing to 

require the representative dry-bulb 

temperatures specified in the tentative 

ASHRAE 220 draft. DOE is also 

proposing to incorporate section 6.1 and 

Figure 6 of ASHRAE 72–2018R to 

specify the point TA where the dry-bulb 

temperatures are to be measured and to 

specify the dry-bulb thermocouple 

setup. 

DOE seeks comment on the proposal 

to require the dry-bulb temperatures 

specified in the tentative ASHRAE 220 

draft and incorporate section 6.1 and 

Figure 6 of ASHRAE 72–2018R to 

specify the point TA where the dry-bulb 

temperatures are to be measured and the 

type of thermocouple to use when 

measuring dry-bulb in the blast chillers 

and blast freezers test procedures. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies the same 

requirements for the power supply, 

voltage and frequency, as ASHRAE 72– 

2018R. Specifically, ASHRAE 220 

specifies that the rated voltage be 

maintained at an average of ± 2.0 

percent over the duration of the test and 

individual recorded voltages be within 

± 4.0 percent of the rated voltage. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies that the rated 

frequency be maintained within ±1 

percent. Because ASHRAE 72–2018R 

specifies the same requirements for 

voltage and frequency, DOE is 

proposing to incorporate the portions of 

Appendix A in ASHRAE 72–2018R, 

which specify the requirements for 

voltage and frequency. 

DOE seeks comment on the proposal 

to incorporate the portions of Appendix 

A in ASHRAE 72–2018R which specify 

the requirements for voltage and 

frequency in the blast chillers and blast 

freezers test procedures. 

ASHRAE 72–2018R specifies 

additional test conditions that ASHRAE 

220 does not specify. These include 

requirements for air currents, radiant 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39195 

heat, dry-bulb temperature gradient, and 

test chamber illuminance. DOE expects 

that these requirements in ASHRAE 72– 

2018R are primarily intended to limit 

variability of testing for CRE without 

doors or with transparent doors. DOE is 

only aware of blast chillers and blast 

freezers with solid doors, and therefore 

has tentatively determined that the 

additional test conditions in ASHRAE 

72–2018R are not necessary for blast 

chiller and blast freezer testing, 

consistent with the draft of ASHRAE 

220. 

DOE seeks comment on whether any 

additional test conditions are 

appropriate for blast chiller and blast 

freezer testing, including those specified 

in sections 6.2, 6.3, and Appendix A in 

ASHRAE 72–2018R. 

Test Setup, Capacity, and Loading 

The ASHRAE 220 draft specifies 

certain test unit setup instructions for 

components and accessories, electrical 

loads, condensate pan heaters and 

pumps, and crankcase heaters which are 

based on Sections 5.3, 5.3.1, 5.3.5, and 

5.3.15 in ASHRAE 72–2018R. DOE 

notes that Sections 5.3 and 5.3.5 of 

ASHRAE 72–2018R contain minor 

differences from the draft ASHRAE 220. 

Section 5.3 of ASHRAE 72–2018R refers 

to installing all necessary components 

and accessories prior to loading the 

storage and display areas with test 

simulators and filler material, whereas 

ASHRAE 220 does not use test 

simulators and filler material. Section 

5.3.5 of ASHRAE 72–2018R refers to a 

self-contained refrigerator instead of a 

blast chiller or blast freezer and does not 

specify that the condensate pan shall be 

emptied before testing (this instruction 

is provided in Section 7.2.3 of ASRHAE 

72–2018R) and that if a condensate 

heater is used during the test, it shall be 

recorded. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies that the 

manufacturer’s recommendation on 

clearances shall be followed on all sides 

with a minimum of 3 feet on the door(s) 

opening sides. The current DOE CRE 

test procedures do not specify any 

clearance requirements. Section 5.2 and 

Appendix A of ASHRAE 72–2018R 

specify that there must be greater than 

or equal to 59.1 inches ± 1 inch of 

clearance from the front of the unit 

under test and a vertical partition or 

wall shall be located at the minimum 

clearance, ± 0.5 inches, as specified in 

the installation instructions. Section 5.2 

also provides that if the installation 

instructions do not provide a minimum 

clearance, the vertical partition or wall 

shall be located 4 ± 0.5 inches from the 

sides or rear of the cabinet and extend 

at least 12 ± 0.5 inches beyond each side 

of the cabinet from the floor to not less 

than 12 ± 0.5 inches above the top of the 

cabinet. 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

because ASHRAE 72–2018R provides 

similar, equal, or greater detail on the 

installation and settings, clearance, and 

components and accessories 

requirements as compared to the draft of 

ASHRAE 220, the ASHRAE 72–2018R 

instructions are appropriate for DOE 

testing. DOE also understands that, to 

the extent feasible, ASHRAE 220 

intends to harmonize with ASHRAE 72– 

2018R requirements, and therefore will 

likely adopt similar instructions in the 

final version of the standard. DOE is 

proposing to incorporate Sections 5.1, 

5.2, 5.3 (including sub-Sections 5.3.1 to 

5.3.17), and the relevant portions of 

Appendix A of ASHRAE 72–2018R for 

testing blast chillers and blast freezers 

with the following deviations: 

• The term ‘‘refrigerator’’ shall 

instead refer to ‘‘blast chiller’’ or ‘‘blast 

freezer,’’ as applicable. 

• For Section 5.3 of ASHRAE 72– 

2018R, replace ‘‘all necessary 

components and accessories shall be 

installed prior to loading the storage and 

display areas with test simulators and 

filler material’’ with ‘‘all necessary 

components and accessories shall be 

installed prior to precooling the unit 

under test.’’ 

• Section 5.3.5 would be included 

with the additional requirement that the 

condensate pan be emptied before 

precooling the unit under test. 

DOE seeks comment on the proposal 

to incorporate Sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 

(including sub-sections 5.3.1 to 5.3.17), 

and the relevant portions of Appendix 

A of ASHRAE 72–2018R, with the 

proposed deviations, for the blast 

chillers and blast freezers test 

procedures. 

Appendix A of ASHRAE 72–2018R 

specifies electrical measurements at the 

equipment terminals. ASHRAE 220 

specifies the following electrical 

measurement locations: at the plug-in 

location for units with a standard wall 

plug, or at the terminal box for units 

that are hard wired to the building 

electrical system. Because the electrical 

measurement location in Appendix A of 

ASHRAE 72–2018R is similar to 

ASHRAE 220, DOE expects that the 

ASHRAE 72–2018R approach is the 

likely final approach to be used in the 

eventual final ASHRAE 220 standard. 

For that reason, DOE is proposing to 

incorporate the relevant portions of 

Appendix A of ASHRAE 72–2018R for 

the electrical measurement locations. 

DOE seeks comment on the proposal 

to incorporate the relevant portions of 

Appendix A of ASHRAE 72–2018R for 

the electrical measurement locations for 

the blast chillers and blast freezers test 

procedures. 

ASHRAE 220 provides instructions 

for measuring the gross refrigerated 

volume of blast chillers and blast 

freezers. The gross refrigerated volume 

is calculated by multiplying the internal 

length, width, and height of the cabinet 

excluding panels and space occupied by 

the evaporator or evaporator fan. 

Appendix C of AHRI 1200–202X 

specifies instructions for determining 

the refrigerated volume of display 

merchandisers and storage cabinets. 

DOE has reviewed the instructions in 

AHRI 1200–202X for determining 

refrigerated volume and has initially 

determined that the instructions can be 

applied to blast chillers and blast 

freezers because of the similar 

construction of these CRE. Based on this 

initial determination, DOE is proposing 

to refer to AHRI 1200–202X for 

measuring the refrigerated volume of 

blast chillers and blast freezers. 

DOE seeks comment on the proposal 

to reference AHRI 1200–202X for 

measuring the refrigerated volume of 

blast chillers and blast freezers. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies that the 

standard product vessel shall be a 12 

inch by 20 inch by 2.5 inch 22 gauge or 

heavier and 300 series stainless steel 

pan. ASHRAE 220 states that if the test 

unit is not capable of holding the 

standard product pan, the 

manufacturer’s recommended pan size 

is used, conforming as closely as 

possible to the standard product load. 

Based on a review of blast chillers and 

blast freezers available on the market, 

DOE observed that all units are intended 

for use with food pans, and nearly all 

units available can accommodate the 

specified standard pan sizes. DOE has 

tentatively determined that the pans as 

specified in ASHRAE 220 are 

representative of typical use and is 

proposing to incorporate the standard 

product pan specifications included in 

the draft of ASHRAE 220. 

DOE seeks comment on the proposal 

to incorporate the standard product pan 

specifications in ASHRAE 220 for the 

blast chillers and blast freezers test 

procedures. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies that the 

manufacturer’s recommended maximum 

12 inch by 20 inch by 2.5 inch pan 

capacity should be used for testing. DOE 

has reviewed the ASHRAE 220 

specifications and equipment available 

on the market. Based on DOE’s review, 

additional specifications may be needed 

to determine how many standard 

product pans are used in the test unit. 

The number of standard product pans 

that would be used for testing is 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39196 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

26See ISO 22042:2021. 

dependent on the specified product 

capacity of the test unit based on food 

weight. The ASHRAE 220 committee 

tentatively determined that having a 

uniform food simulator thickness across 

all standard product pans is important 

for repeatable and comparable results, 

manufacturer design parameters, and 

consistency with European blast chiller 

and blast freezer testing requirements.26

The ASHRAE 220 committee tentatively 

concluded that a uniform food simulator 

thickness of 2 inches in the standard 

product pan (i.e., filled to within 0.5 

inch of the top of the pan) is 

appropriate. Based on this conclusion, 

the number of pans required for testing 

blast chillers and blast freezers would 

be determined by the number of 

standard product pans filled with the 

standard food simulator load to 2 inches 

deep that can fit in the blast chiller or 

blast freezer without exceeding the 

manufacturer’s recommended capacity. 

Because this approach could potentially 

require the tested capacity to be smaller 

than the manufacturer’s stated capacity, 

if the stated capacity is not evenly 

divisible by the number of pans, the 

ASHRAE 220 committee considered 

allowing for one additional pan that has 

a thickness less than 2 inches which 

would make up the difference to meet 

the manufacturer’s rated capacity but 

that this additional pan would not 

require temperature measurement. 

Based on the discussion from the 

ASHRAE 220 committee, DOE proposes 

that the number of pans required for 

testing blast chillers and blast freezers 

be determined by the number of 

standard product pans filled to 2 inches 

deep with food simulator product that 

can be loaded into the blast chiller or 

blast freezer without exceeding the 

manufacturer’s stated food load capacity 

by weight, plus one additional standard 

product pan, if needed, to meet the 

manufacturer’s stated food load 

capacity. 

DOE seeks comment on the proposed 

method to determine the number of 

pans required for testing blast chillers 

and blast freezers. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies that the tested 

product capacity is determined based on 

loading the test unit with the maximum 

number of pans with food product up to 

the manufacturer’s recommended 

maximum food product weight capacity. 

The food product weight does not 

include the weight of the pans. 

Consistent with the comment from the 

CA IOUs, the ASHRAE 220 committee 

determined that blast chiller and blast 

freezer capacity based on food product 

weight is relevant in addition to 

refrigerated volume because the 

throughput of food product by weight is 

the primary function provided to users, 

as compared to long-term refrigerated 

storage volume for typical CRE. Blast 

chillers and blast freezers with the same 

volume may have different pull-down 

capacities by weight depending on the 

design of the cooling system. 

Based on participation in the 

ASHRAE 220 committee, DOE expects 

that manufacturers specify capacity by 

food weight based on the maximum 

food load that can be loaded into the 

blast chiller or blast freezer while 

meeting the performance requirement of 

NSF 7–2019. DOE has reviewed the 

ASHRAE 220 specifications and 

equipment available on the market and 

tentatively determines that additional 

specifications may be needed to 

determine the product capacity used 

during the test. DOE is proposing that 

when determining the product capacity, 

all manufacturer literature that is 

included with the unit would be 

reviewed, and the largest product 

capacity stated in the literature would 

be used. If the unit is able to operate as 

both a blast chiller and a blast freezer in 

different operating modes and the 

literature specifies different product 

capacities for blast chilling and blast 

freezing, the largest capacity stated for 

the respective operating mode during 

the test would be used. 

If no product capacity is stated in the 

manufacturer literature, DOE is 

proposing that the product capacity be 

represented by the maximum number of 

12 inch by 20 inch by 2.5 inch pans that 

can fit in the test unit with each pan 

filled 2 inches deep with product, 

consistent with the ASHRAE 220 

approach, with capacity determined as 

the sum of the food weights within the 

individual pans loaded for testing. As 

discussed further in a subsequent 

section, DOE is proposing use of a food 

simulator. The tested capacity would 

not include the weight of the pans, 

temperature sensors, or wires. If upon 

testing a blast chiller or blast freezer 

with no stated product capacity is not 

capable of pulling down temperatures 

from 135 °F to 40 °F within a period of 

four hours with the load specified in the 

proposed test procedure, DOE proposes 

that one pan be removed until the unit 

achieves the specified pull-down 

operation. 

To ensure repeatability of testing, 

DOE is proposing that the tested 

capacity (determined as the sum of the 

food weights for individual pans loaded 

for testing) be within ±5 percent or ±2 

pounds of the rated capacity, whichever 

is less. DOE acknowledges that the 

actual weight of food simulator may be 

slightly different in each pan because 

each pan may not be loaded with food 

simulator to the exact same specified 

thickness. Specifying a tolerance on the 

overall tested capacity would ensure 

that the total food load by weight is 

consistent from test to test. 

DOE seeks comment on the proposal 

to determine the tested product capacity 

for the blast chillers and blast freezers 

test procedures. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies where to place 

the standard product pans in the blast 

chiller or blast freezer if a full load of 

pans is not needed to meet the 

manufacturer’s stated capacity. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies that if there are 

fewer pans than there are rack spaces in 

the unit, the pans shall be placed evenly 

in the unit with top and bottom shelves 

occupied. If not all shelves are occupied 

by pans, the pan locations shall be 

recorded. The ASHRAE 220 committee 

has also discussed specifying that pans 

would be loaded without pans nesting 

on each other and without touching the 

top and the bottom of the cabinet. DOE 

has reviewed the ASHRAE 220 

specifications, ASHRAE 220 committee 

discussions, and equipment available on 

the market. Based on DOE’s review, 

additional specifications may be needed 

to determine where to place the 

standard product pans. DOE proposes 

that once the number of standard 

product pans needed for the test has 

been determined, the pans should be 

spaced evenly throughout each vertical 

column of rack positions in the test unit 

without the pans touching any other 

pans and without the pans touching the 

top and the bottom of the cabinet. For 

test units that have an additional pan 

with a product thickness of less than 2 

inches, DOE proposes to require placing 

the additional pan as close to the 

middle rack position as possible while 

maintaining an even distribution of all 

pans. DOE also proposes that if not all 

rack positions are occupied by pans, the 

pan locations shall be recorded. 

DOE seeks comment on the proposed 

method for distributing the pans within 

the test unit’s cabinet for testing blast 

chillers and blast freezers. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies that if multiple 

pans are used per level (i.e., pans can be 

loaded side-by-side at the same level), 

only one pan needs to be measured with 

product temperature sensors per level. 

ASHRAE 220 provides a figure 

illustrating an example for test units 

with multiple pans per level, indicating 

which pans would include 

thermocouples. In the figure, each level 

includes two side-by-side pans, and the 

thermocouple location is staggered such 

that it alternates between the left and 

right pan at each level, and such that 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39197 

each vertical column does not have two 

measured pans in sequential levels. 

DOE has reviewed the draft ASHRAE 

220 pan loading approach and has 

tentatively determined that it provides a 

representative measure of food load 

temperature within the blast chiller or 

blast freezer while limiting test burden. 

DOE acknowledges that food 

temperatures within the cabinet may 

vary depending on proximity to the 

evaporator or airflow pathway through 

the cabinet but expects that measuring 

one pan per level and staggering the 

measured pans would ensure a 

representative food temperature average 

would be measured during testing. DOE 

has also initially determined that this 

approach would limit test burden by 

avoiding the need for every pan to 

include a thermocouple, thereby 

avoiding the setup of the thermocouple 

within the pan and the routing of 

additional thermocouple wires from 

inside the cabinet. 

Based on the review of ASHRAE 220, 

DOE proposes to incorporate the 

ASHRAE 220 approach with additional 

instructions. DOE proposes that if 

multiple standard product pans are used 

per level, only one pan per level be 

measured with a temperature sensor. 

DOE proposes to specify that the pan 

measured should alternate vertical 

columns so that each vertical column 

does not have two measured pans in 

sequential levels and that if a test unit 

uses an additional pan that has a 

thickness less than 2 inches, this 

additional pan would not be measured 

for product temperature. 

DOE seeks comment on the proposed 

method to determine which standard 

product pans would include 

temperature measurement sensors for 

the blast chillers and blast freezers test 

procedures. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies measuring the 

product temperature in the geometric 

center of any measured pans and 

provides an example figure illustrating 

the temperature sensor location in a 

measured pan and, in particular, 

showing the unweighted thermocouple 

as being placed 5⁄8 inch above the 

bottom of the pan. ASHRAE 220 

provides that temperature sensor leads 

must allow for the transfer of pans from 

the heating compartment to the test unit 

cabinet. 

DOE proposes to incorporate this 

approach with additional instruction to 

specify explicitly details that are shown 

visually in the example figure in 

ASHRAE 220. DOE proposes that 

product temperature shall be measured 

in the geometric center of the product 

pan, 5⁄8 inches above the bottom of the 

pan, that the temperature sensor shall be 

unweighted, and that the temperature 

sensor leads shall be secured to the 

bottom of the pan while also allowing 

for the transfer of the pan from the 

heating source into the test unit’s 

cabinet. 

DOE seeks comment on the proposed 

method of measuring the product 

temperature in the measured pans for 

the blast chillers and blast freezers test 

procedures. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies instructions to 

prepare the product medium mixture to 

be placed in the standard product pans 

as follows: 

(a) Determine the manufacturer’s 

recommended maximum food product 

weight capacity. 

(b) Prepare a 20 percent by volume 

propylene glycol (1,2-Propanediol) 

mixture in water. 

(c) In each pan, pour the propylene 

glycol mixture over #20 mesh southern 

yellow pine sawdust to create a 22 

percent to 78 percent by mass slurry. 

Mixture must be pre-portioned for each 

individual pan to avoid large batch 

component separation. 

(d) Mix until the sawdust becomes 

completely saturated and leave 

uncovered in the pan. The weight of the 

mixture shall correspond with the 

determined weight. Record the weight 

of each pan, weight of the mixture, and 

number of pans to be loaded. Weight of 

the thermocouples shall be omitted. 

Note: Acceptable Sawdust Specification 

Example: American Wood Fibers brand, #20 

Mesh Pine Sawdust (50 lbs bags), Item # 

30020205018 

(e) Verify that the pan thermocouple 

is fully submerged in the mixture, 

reposition the thermocouple in the 

geometric center of the mixture if it is 

not. 

The ASHRAE 220 committee 

developed the food simulator 

specifications based on the food load 

specified in NSF 7–2019 for rapid pulldown refrigerators and freezers. Because 

this test load is already in use for this 

equipment, and because its heat transfer 

characteristics are similar to actual food 

loads, DOE has tentatively determined 

that the food simulator load specified in 

the ASHRAE 220 draft is representative 

for testing blast chillers and blast 

freezers. 

DOE proposes to incorporate the 

ASHRAE 220 approach with additional 

specifications to ensure repeatability. As 

stated, each pan would be loaded to 2 

inches of food load thickness (i.e., 

depth) within the pan and an additional 

pan would be loaded as needed to meet 

the manufacturer’s stated capacity. DOE 

is proposing that each pan shall be 

weighed prior to heating, before and 

after the food product simulator is 

added. A cumulative total of the 

product weight shall be calculated and 

the pans shall continue to be loaded 

with the product mixture until the 

cumulative total reaches the 

manufacturer’s stated capacity (the total 

product weight shall be within ± 5 

percent or ± 2 pounds of the 

manufacturer’s stated capacity, 

whichever is less). 

DOE seeks comment on the proposed 

method for preparing the product 

medium mixture to be placed in the 

standard product pans for the blast 

chillers and blast freezers test 

procedures. 

Test Conduct 

In response to the June 2021 RFI, DOE 

received a comment from the CA IOUs 

stating that test engineers at Southern 

California Edison’s Foodservice 

Technology Center indicated that 

production kitchens that use blast 

chillers or blast freezers are often 

designed to maximize throughput of hot 

food products (usually cooked in 

combination ovens or rack ovens) 

through the blast chiller or blast freezer, 

and then once the food is cooled it is 

typically placed in standard 

refrigerators or freezers for long term 

storage. (CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 5) 

The overall test approach in the 

ASHRAE 220 draft includes pre-cooling 

the blast chiller’s or blast freezer’s 

cabinet to a pre-set or controlled 

operating temperature, loading of hot 

food pans into the blast chiller or blast 

freezer, and pull-down of the hot food 

pans to the target temperature. The 

ASHRAE 220 committee also 

considered including an operating 

period in which the blast chiller or blast 

freezer would maintain the food load at 

the target temperature (i.e., a ‘‘holding 

period’’). However, consistent with the 

comment from the CA IOUs, the 

ASHRAE 220 committee determined 

that the primary function of the blast 

chiller or blast freezer is to pull-down 

hot food temperatures and that the 

prioritization of throughput through the 

blast chiller or blast freezer would result 

in less operation in holding periods. 

DOE has tentatively determined that the 

ASHRAE 220 approach is appropriate 

for blast chiller and blast freezer testing 

and is proposing to only include precooling and pull-down operation within 

the test. 

DOE seeks comment on the proposal 

to include pre-cooling and pull-down 

operating in the blast chiller and blast 

freezer test procedure and to not include 

any holding periods during testing. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies that all 

measurements shall be continuously 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39198 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

recorded during the test in intervals no 

greater than 10 seconds. The current 

DOE CRE test procedures require that 

measurement intervals do not exceed 

three minutes and ASHRAE 72–2018R 

requires certain measurements at oneminute intervals. Because the blast 

chiller and blast freezer test procedure 

is not conducted at stable cabinet 

temperature conditions, as is the case 

for other CRE testing, DOE has 

tentatively determined that a shorter 

measurement interval is appropriate to 

accurately identify unit performance 

(e.g., determining when all pans reach 

the target temperatures). Therefore, DOE 

proposes to incorporate the ASHRAE 

220 approach requiring data acquisition 

at 10 second intervals. 

DOE seeks comment on the proposed 

data recording rate for the blast chillers 

and blast freezers test procedures. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies that data 

would be recorded once a steady-state 

condition is established. ASHRAE 220 

specifies that the test unit stabilize at 

ambient temperatures for at least 24 

hours before pre-cooling and that the 

prepared product be heated for a 

minimum of 8 hours in the standard 

product pans at the required 

temperature prior to loading into the 

blast chiller or blast freezer. Consistent 

with these requirements, DOE proposes 

that the test unit stabilize at ambient 

temperatures for at least 24 hours, and 

then data acquisition would be recorded 

prior to the pre-cool period. For the 

prepared product in the standard 

product pans, DOE proposes that data 

acquisition begin prior to the minimum 

8 hour heating period. 

DOE seeks comment on the proposed 

data collection periods for the blast 

chillers and blast freezers test 

procedures. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies a procedure 

for pre-cooling the test unit from 

ambient conditions prior to pull-down 

operation. The test unit is to remain in 

the required ambient conditions for at 

least 24 hours before pre-cooling. The 

test unit’s pre-cooling cycle is used, if 

available. For test units with more than 

one pre-cool cycle, the cycle used is 

recorded. For units without a precooling cycle, an empty blast cycle 

should be run in its entirety. During the 

pre-cool cycle, the test unit’s sensing 

probe will remain in its default or 

holstered position. Pre-cool is deemed 

complete when the test unit’s pre-cool 

notification reports. If the test unit does 

not have a pre-cool cycle or pre-cool 

completion notification, the pre-cool is 

deemed complete when the compressor 

first cycles off. The pre-cool data to be 

recorded is the selected cycle name, precool duration, temperature, and energy 

consumed. 

Because the main function of a blast 

chiller or blast freezer is to pull down 

the product temperature of hot food, 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

measuring performance during the precool period is not necessary, other than 

to determine when pre-cooling is 

complete. However, because pull-down 

testing is initiated after the completion 

of pre-cooling, operation during precooling may impact pull-down 

performance. Based on DOE’s review of 

ASHRAE 220, additional specifications 

regarding pre-cooling may be needed. 

DOE proposes that the pre-cool cycle 

may be initiated on blast chillers and 

blast freezers once the test unit has been 

maintained at ambient temperatures 

without operating for at least 24 hours. 

Rather than selecting and recording any 

pre-cooling cycle, DOE is proposing that 

the fastest pre-cooling cycle be selected. 

DOE proposes to specify that the precool cycle is complete when the test 

unit notifies the user that the pre-cool 

is complete, consistent with ASHRAE 

220, but that if the test unit does not 

notify the user that the pre-cool cycle is 

complete, the pre-cool will be deemed 

complete when the test unit reaches 

40 °F or 2 °F based on the test unit’s 

sensing probe for blast chillers and blast 

freezers, respectively. DOE has 

tentatively determined that this 

approach would ensure a consistent 

starting point for pull-down testing from 

unit to unit rather than the first 

compressor off cycle. 

For test units without any defined 

pre-cooling cycles, DOE is proposing 

that the fastest blast chilling or blast 

freezing cycle shall be run with an 

empty cabinet until the test unit reaches 

40 °F or 2 °F based on the test unit’s 

sensing probe. Consistent with ASHRAE 

220, during the pre-cool cycle, the test 

unit’s sensing probe will remain in its 

default or holstered position. The precool test data to be recorded are the 

ambient conditions, pre-cool cycle 

selected, pre-cool duration, and final 

pre-cool cabinet temperature based on 

the test unit’s sensing probe. 

As stated, DOE is proposing that test 

procedures for blast chillers and blast 

freezers are to measure the energy 

consumed by the product temperature 

pull-down operation. Additionally, blast 

chillers and blast freezers may run 

multiple pull-down cycles 

consecutively without the need for 

individual pre-cooling cycles. However, 

DOE acknowledges that the energy 

consumed during the pre-cool period 

may be relevant to the overall energy 

consumption of blast chillers and blast 

freezers and requests comment on 

whether pre-cooling energy use should 

be measured and considered in the 

overall energy consumption metric for 

blast chillers and blast freezers. 

DOE seeks comment on the proposed 

method to conduct the pre-cool cycle for 

the blast chillers and blast freezers test 

procedures. 

ASHRAE 220 specifies instructions 

for loading the prepared standard 

product pans into the test unit. 

Measured standard product pans are 

maintained at an average temperature of 

160.0 ± 1.8 °F and an individual pan 

temperature tolerance of 160 ± 10 °F for 

a minimum of 8 hours prior to being 

loaded into the test unit. Non-measured 

pans are also required to be heated for 

a minimum of 8 hours. The test unit 

door is opened for loading at 4 ± 1 

minutes after the test unit completes its 

pre-cool cycle. ASHRAE 220 specifies 

that the door remain open to load all of 

the standard product pans for the 

entirety of the loading procedure. 

ASHRAE 220 further specifies that the 

door is open for 20 seconds per roll-in 

rack and 15 seconds per pan for roll-in 

and standard test units, respectively. 

The test unit’s sensing probe is inserted 

into the geometric center of a standard 

product pan in the center level of the 

cabinet. If the center level has capacity 

for multiple pans, the probed pan 

should be furthest away from the 

evaporator. The probe must not touch 

the bottom of the pan or be exposed to 

the air. The location of the pan with the 

probe is recorded. The factory probe is 

placed so that it does not interfere with 

the test thermocouple measurement. 

The door remains closed for the 

remainder of the test. 

DOE proposes to adopt ASHRAE 

220’s approach with additional 

specifications and certain deviations to 

ensure consistent testing. DOE proposes 

that while maintaining the temperature 

of the measured standard product pans 

prior to loading into the blast chiller or 

blast freezer, the non-measured standard 

product pans shall be placed in 

alternating positions with the measured 

standard product pans in the heating 

device for a minimum of 8 hours prior 

to being loaded into the test unit to 

ensure consistent product temperatures. 

The test unit door would be opened for 

loading at the specified time in 

ASHRAE 220, but DOE is proposing to 

specify more precise values, i.e., 4.0 ± 

1.0 minutes. DOE is proposing that the 

total door open period for loading pans 

would have a tolerance of ± 5 seconds 

to account for different test lab 

operation. DOE is proposing that the 

door would be fully open, based on the 

definition of ‘‘fully open’’ in ASHRAE 

72–2018R, for the duration specified in 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39199 

ASHRAE 220 to ensure test 

repeatability. DOE is proposing that the 

test unit’s sensing probe would be 

inserted into the geometric center of the 

standard product pan approximately 1 

inch deep in the product mixture at the 

median pan level in the test unit, which 

adds greater specificity for test 

repeatability. If the standard product 

pan at the median level is the additional 

pan with less than 2 inches of product 

thickness, DOE is proposing to specify 

that the closest pan or pan level that is 

farthest away from the evaporator fan 

would be used to insert the test unit’s 

sensing probe, consistent with the 

ASHRAE 220 approach. DOE is 

proposing to add that the product 

temperature sensor wiring not affect 

energy performance, consistent with 

section 5.4.9 of ASHRAE 72–2018R. 

DOE seeks comment on the proposed 

method to load the prepared standard 

product pans into the test unit for the 

blast chillers and blast freezers test 

procedures. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment and supporting data on the 

typical usage settings for blast chillers 

and blast freezers and how different setpoint modes affect energy performance. 

86 FR 31182, 31189. For units with 

multiple temperature settings within the 

refrigerator or freezer temperature range, 

DOE requested comment on which 

setting is appropriate for testing. Id. 

Additionally, for units with settings that 

affect the pull-down duration, DOE 

requested comment on whether the 

fastest or slowest setting (or any other 

setting if more than two settings are 

provided) should be used for testing. Id. 

NEEA commented that ASHRAE 220 

is working to answer some of the 

questions posed by DOE, including 

establishing starting food temperatures, 

blast chiller temperatures, and ambient 

temperatures. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 3) 

ASHRAE 220 specifies instructions to 

operate the blast chilling or blast 

freezing cycle. A blast chilling or blast 

freezing cycle is selected for blast 

chilling and blast freezing tests, 

respectively. ASHRAE 220 specifies that 

the cycle selected should provide the 

most rapid product cooldown designed 

for the densest food product as stated in 

manufacturer literature. ASHRAE 220 

provides that a manufacturer may 

provide additional clarification on cycle 

selection. ASHRAE 220 specifies that 

the selected cycle name and settings are 

recorded. 

ASHRAE 220 further specifies the 

following: Temperature and energy 

measurement starts once the first pan is 

loaded in the unit; the selected cycle 

continues until all individual measured 

pan temperatures are below the final 

temperatures of 40 °F and 2 °F for blast 

chilling and blast freezing tests, 

respectively; if the selected cycle 

program terminates prior to all product 

temperatures reaching below the test’s 

prescribed final temperature, the 

standard product pans remain in the 

unit until it does so; if the temperature 

does not reach below the test’s 

prescribed temperature after two 

additional hours, unit temperature 

settings are adjusted to achieve the 

desired final temperature; temperature 

and energy measurements end once the 

door is opened to remove the standard 

product pans; and energy consumption, 

temperature, and time is reported 

starting with the first pan loaded in the 

unit and ending with the final pan 

reaching the prescribed final 

temperature. 

Based on DOE’s review of ASHRAE 

220, DOE has initially determined that 

additional specifications and certain 

deviations may be needed to improve 

test repeatability and reproducibility. 

Consistent with the integrated average 

temperature requirements from the 

current DOE CRE test procedures, DOE 

proposes that a blast chilling cycle with 

a target temperature of 38 °F and a blast 

freezing cycle with a target temperature 

of 0 °F be selected for blast chilling and 

blast freezing tests, respectively. 

Consistent with ASHRAE 220, the cycle 

selected would be the cycle with the 

most rapid product temperature 

pulldown that is designed for the 

densest food product, as stated in the 

test unit’s manufacturer literature. 

Ambient conditions and time 

measurements would be recorded from 

the pre-cool cycle. Product temperature 

measurements from the measured 

standard product pans would be 

recorded from the 8-hour period of 

heating prior to being loaded into the 

test unit to ensure that pull-down 

performance data is recorded. Voltage, 

frequency, and energy consumed would 

start to be recorded as soon as the test 

unit door is opened to load the standard 

product pans so that blast chiller and 

blast freezer tests are started at a 

consistent point across all tests. Once 

the test unit door is closed, the blast 

chilling or blast freezing cycle would be 

selected and initiated as soon as is 

practicable. The blast chilling or blast 

freezing cycle selected would be 

recorded. The blast chilling or blast 

freezing test period would continue 

from the door opening until all 

individual measured pan temperatures 

are at or below 40.0 °F or 2.0 °F for blast 

chiller and blast freezer tests, 

respectively, regardless of whether the 

selected cycle program has terminated. 

If all individual measured pan 

temperatures do not reach 40.0 °F or 

2.0 °F for blast chiller and blast freezer 

tests, respectively, two hours after the 

selected cycle program has terminated, 

the test would be repeated and the target 

temperature would be lowered by 1 °F 

until all individual measured pan 

temperatures are at or below 40.0 °F or 

2.0 °F for blast chiller and blast freezer 

tests, respectively, at the conclusion of 

the test. The duration of the blast chiller 

or blast freezer test would be recorded. 

DOE seeks comment on the proposed 

method to conduct the blast chilling or 

blast freezing test. 

Calculations 

In response to the June 2021 RFI, the 

CA IOUs commented that the primary 

factors for energy use are the weight of 

the food to be chilled, starting 

temperature, and ending temperatures 

of the food; therefore, the CA IOUs 

suggested that DOE choose an energy 

use metric based on energy use per 

weight of food and degrees cooled (i.e., 

the active pull-down mode). (CA IOUs, 

No. 10, p. 4) 

ASHRAE 220 specifies calculations 

used to report the energy consumed 

during the test. The measured energy 

consumption is divided by the test 

product capacity in pounds, averaged 

for 3 repeated tests. DOE proposes to 

incorporate the ASHRAE 220 approach 

(and to specify that the measured energy 

consumption is reported in kilowatthours) except that only one test would 

be needed in order to limit test burden. 

ASHRAE test standards do not generally 

provide requirements for multiple tests, 

as sampling plans are typically 

established by the rating programs that 

reference the ASHRAE test standard. 

However, DOE already provides 

sampling plans for the determination of 

CRE represented energy or efficiency 

values at 10 CFR 429.42(a). Accordingly, 

DOE has initially determined that the 

three tests considered for the ASHRAE 

220 standard are not necessary for 

representations, and DOE is not 

planning to incorporate ASHRAE’s 

method of averaging over three tests. 

DOE seeks comment on the proposed 

method for calculating the reported 

energy use metric for blast chillers and 

blast freezers. 

4. Chef Bases and Griddle Stands 

DOE defines ‘‘chef base or griddle 

stand’’ as CRE that is designed and 

marketed for the express purpose of 

having a griddle or other cooking 

appliance placed on top of it that is 

capable of reaching temperatures hot 

enough to cook food. 10 CFR 431.62. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39200 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

27See www.caetrm.com/media/referencedocuments/ET15SCE1010_Chef_Bases_Report_

final2.pdf. 

As discussed in the April 2014 Final 

Rule, the explicit categorization of 

griddle stands covers equipment that 

experiences temperatures exceeding 

200 °F. 79 FR 22277, 22282. As 

explained, this was to distinguish 

between equipment that experience 

cooking temperatures and equipment 

that experiences temperatures at which 

food is kept warm. Id. However, DOE 

notes that the current definition for chef 

bases and griddle stands does not 

specify a quantitative temperature and 

instead states ‘‘hot enough to cook 

food.’’ 

DOE stated in the April 2014 Final 

Rule that chef bases and griddle stands 

are able to be tested according to the 

DOE test procedure, but that their 

refrigeration systems require larger 

compressors to provide more cooling 

capacity per storage volume than 

equipment with compressors that are 

appropriately sized for conventional 

CRE and more typical room temperature 

conditions. 79 FR 22277, 22281–22282. 

However, the definition does not 

include specifications for the 

refrigeration systems to differentiate this 

equipment from typical CRE. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on whether the definition for 

chef bases and griddle stands should be 

modified to include a specific 

temperature requirement for cooking 

appliances placed on top of chef bases 

and griddle stands, or other such 

specification. 86 FR 31182, 31189. DOE 

requested feedback on quantifiable 

characteristics of chef bases and griddle 

stands that differentiate this equipment 

from other CRE, including information 

on appropriate temperature ranges and 

refrigeration system characteristics that 

could be used to classify equipment as 

chef bases and griddle stands. Id. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE also 

requested comment on whether 

modifications to the current CRE test 

procedure would be appropriate for 

testing chef bases and griddle stands to 

better represent real-world use 

conditions. Id. DOE specifically 

requested supporting data on the time 

per day that top-mounted cooking 

equipment is active, as well as typical 

temperatures of the cooking equipment 

when active, to gain an understanding 

of the magnitude of the resulting 

thermal loads. Id. DOE also requested 

comment on whether the existing DOE 

test procedure is appropriate for 

measuring the energy use of this 

equipment. Id. 

True, Hoshizaki, NEEA, and the CA 

IOUs commented in support of using 

the ASHRAE 72–2018 test procedure for 

chef bases and griddle stands to prevent 

additional burden of a new test 

procedure. (True, No. 4, p. 15; 

Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 3; NEEA, No. 5, p. 

2; CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 1–2) The CA 

IOUs commented that utility programs 

for this equipment would benefit from 

uniform test procedures and definitions 

to document the rated energy 

performance for both baseline and 

efficient products. (CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 

1–2) NEEA commented in support of 

collaboration with EPA to ensure market 

consistency. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 2) 

Hoshizaki commented that the 

ASHRAE 72 committee should be given 

the chance to review whether a heat 

load should be added to the top of the 

units to represent heating equipment 

(e.g., fryers, griddles, hot pads, etc.). 

(Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 3) NEEA 

commented that an ASHRAE 

investigation added an electric griddle 

to the top of chef bases to emulate real 

world conditions; however, that version 

of ASHRAE 72 was abandoned when 

there was insufficient variation in the 

data to demonstrate the effectiveness of 

thermal breaks between the surface and 

refrigerated compartments beneath. 

(NEEA, No. 5, p. 2) The CA IOUs 

commented that PG&E and Southern 

California Edison (‘‘SCE’’) 

commissioned and conducted testing 

including a griddle at 350 °F and a 

broiler at 600 °F to evaluate heat loads 

typically found near chef bases and 

found negligible impact on the daily 

energy consumption of the chef base.27

(CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 2) The CA IOUs 

commented that the six door openings 

per day in ASHRAE 72–2018 may not be 

representative of field use and 

encouraged DOE to work with industry 

stakeholders to establish a more 

representative door opening schedule. 

(CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 2) 

The Joint Commenters stated that 

preliminary EPA research found 

significant variation in energy 

performance between preparation tables 

and work top tables, which have similar 

designs to chef bases. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 8, p. 2) NEEA 

commented that SCE tested six different 

chef bases using ASHRAE 72–2014 

without modification and that results 

indicated wide variation in energy 

performance in the market, suggesting 

chef bases could be tested using 

ASHRAE 72–2014. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 2) 

ITW commented that UL Standard 

197, ‘‘Commercial Electric Cooking 

Appliances’’ generally covers the 

cooking appliances and does not refer to 

any minimum cooking or appliance 

surface temperature, such that DOE’s 

definition appears correct. (ITW, No. 2, 

p. 8) 

AHRI commented that chef bases and 

griddle stands are highly customizable, 

with the following characteristics that 

may differ from typical CRE: additional 

insulation below the high temperature 

surface, modified temperature operation 

for easily spoilable product, shortened 

operating windows for loading only 

during business hours, drawer 

configurations, and attributes for the 

high ambient conditions. (AHRI, No. 3, 

p. 15) AHRI commented that none of 

these characteristics are distinguishing 

features and can be custom built based 

on the end user’s needs. (Id.) 

True commented that DOE should not 

regulate food safety and should limit its 

regulations to energy consumption. 

(True, No. 4, p. 15) True commented 

that chef bases and griddle stands are 

known to operate with higher heat loads 

due to cook tops, grills, etc. (Id.) True 

commented that their reach-in 

equipment within the VCS.SC.M/L 

equipment classes (used to hold frozen 

fries or refrigerated meat, poultry, or 

fish) are commonly installed next to 

fryers and grills in hot kitchens, but that 

they perform ASHRAE 72–2018 for 

energy consumption and NSF 7–2019 

for food safety and performance testing. 

(Id.) 

AHRI commented that the current test 

procedure does not account for the high 

ambient conditions, added thermal load 

from the cook top, or customized 

operating windows. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 10) 

AHRI commented that the time per day 

that top mounted equipment is active 

varies based on the application (e.g., 

breakfast diner operating a griddle 

during breakfast hours only versus a 24- 

hour diner using the grill continuously). 

(Id.) 

The CA IOUs and Joint Commenters 

commented that DOE should establish 

higher ambient temperature and relative 

humidity conditions for evaluating the 

performance of chef bases. (CA IOUs, 

No. 10, p. 2–3; Joint Commenters, No. 8, 

p. 2) The CA IOUs recommended 

adopting conditions from ASTM F2143– 

16 or the emerging ASHRAE Standard 

220, which have an ambient 

temperature of 86 °F ± 2 °F and relative 

humidity of 35 percent ± 5 percent. (CA 

IOUs, No. 10, p. 2–3) The CA IOUs 

commented that these elevated kitchen 

temperatures are supported by a 2012 

ASHRAE research project benchmarking 

the thermal conditions in 100 

commercial kitchens in the United 

States, which found that the average 

temperature in preparation areas ranged 

from 72 °F to 79 °F, while the average 

temperature in cooking areas ranged 

from 79 °F to 93 °F. (Id.) The CA IOUs 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39201 

28For information on the Version 5.0 

specification development, see www.energystar.gov/ 

products/spec/commercial_refrigerators_and_

freezers_specification_version_5_0_pd. 

29Undercounter: A vertical closed commercial 

refrigerator or freezer that has no surface intended 

for food preparation. The equipment is intended for 

installation under a separate counter or workspace. 

This equipment may have doors or drawers and 

shall have a minimum height of 32-inches, 

including legs or casters. 

Worktop: A vertical closed commercial 

refrigerator or freezer that has a surface intended for 

food preparation that is incapable of supporting 

cooking equipment. This equipment may have 

doors or drawers and shall have a minimum height 

of 32-inches, including legs or casters. 

commented that a 2014 PG&E study 

investigated refrigerated prep tables at 

eleven different sites in California, 

finding that the ambient temperatures 

over a two-week period ranged from 

70 °F to 78 °F during a cold month in 

February and between 82 °F and 84 °F 

during a two-week period during a 

warmer fall season, and that both 

studies found consistently elevated 

ambient temperatures in kitchens 

compared to the existing 75 °F ambient 

temperature requirement in ASHRAE 

72–2018. (Id.) 

ITW and True commented that the 

test procedure should not change and 

would create an unnecessary burden. 

(ITW, No. 2, p. 8; True, No. 4, p. 16) 

ITW commented that UL 197 Section 

50.1.3, ‘‘Normal Temperature Test,’’ 

assumes an ambient temperature of 

77 °F, which is within the ASHRAE 72– 

2018 temperature specification, such 

that no change is needed. (ITW, No. 2, 

p. 8) ITW commented that a radiant 

panel could be added or held above (at 

a 4 foot to 6 foot clearance) the top 

surface to simulate a ‘‘worst case’’ 

cooking appliance, but that the panel 

would need to evenly raise the surface 

temperature to a maximum of 194 °F 

(see UL 197, Table 50.1). (Id.) 

Since publication of the June 2021 

RFI, EPA has published a Final Draft 

Version 5.0 Eligibility Criteria for the 

ENERGY STAR program for commercial 

refrigerators and freezers.28 This final 

draft specification includes a definition 

for ‘‘chef base or griddle stand’’ 

consistent with DOE’s current definition 

and would require testing according to 

the existing DOE test procedure in place 

for CRE. 

DOE has considered whether 

additional detail regarding the 

characteristics of chef bases or griddle 

stands would better differentiate it from 

other CRE. As discussed, chef bases or 

griddle stands are designed for use with 

cooking equipment placed on top of the 

unit. Typical chef bases or griddle 

stands may include oversized 

refrigeration systems and additional 

cabinet insulation to ensure the unit can 

maintain cold storage temperatures with 

the additional heat load from the 

cooking equipment. However, these 

characteristics may not be readily 

identifiable in a given chef base or 

griddle stand. For example, 

manufacturers may not offer CRE in the 

a different CRE equipment class with 

similar designs to any chef base or 

griddle stand, in which case there 

would not be a point of comparison 

available to determine whether the chef 

base or griddle stand includes more 

insulation or an oversized refrigeration 

system. 

While EPA’s Final Draft Version 5.0 

Eligibility Criteria includes a definition 

of chef base or griddle stand consistent 

with DOE’s definition, it also includes 

definitions for similar equipment types; 

i.e., worktop and undercounter 29 CRE. 

Both of these definitions include a 

minimum height requirement of 32 

inches. Chef bases or griddle stands 

have similar construction to worktop 

and undercounter equipment but are 

typically shorter to allow for installing 

cooking equipment above the 

refrigerated cabinet at a normal working 

height. Consistent with the ENERGY 

STAR definitions for worktop and 

undercounter, DOE is proposing to 

amend the definition for chef base or 

griddle stand to specify that the 

equipment has a maximum height of 32 

inches, including any legs or casters. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed amendment to the definition 

for chef base or griddle stand, which 

specifies a maximum height of 32 

inches for this equipment. DOE requests 

information on any other identifiable 

equipment characteristics that may 

differentiate chef bases and griddle 

stands from other similar CRE. 

Regarding testing for chef bases or 

griddle stands, DOE has initially 

determined that the existing DOE test 

procedure provides an appropriate basis 

for measuring the energy consumption 

of this equipment. DOE recognizes that 

chef bases or griddle stands can be 

installed and used in ambient 

environments that are different from 

other CRE, but DOE proposes to test this 

equipment in the same conditions 

because DOE has tentatively determined 

that the additional heat loads of cooking 

equipment do not affect measured 

energy use. Additionally, this proposal 

would maintain a consistent testing 

basis for similar equipment. 

Specifically, testing chef bases or 

griddle stands according to the same test 

procedure as other CRE would allow 

end users to compare energy 

consumptions among chef bases or 

griddle stands and other currently 

covered equipment. 

Additionally, DOE conducted testing 

similar to the PG&E and SCE testing to 

investigate whether cooking equipment 

operation would impact chef base or 

griddle stand energy use during typical 

operation, as illustrated in Table III.4. 

DOE tested chef base or griddle stand 

refrigerators and freezers to the current 

DOE CRE test procedure with and 

without an active griddle installed on 

top of the test unit. During the tests with 

an active griddle installed, the griddle 

was turned on three hours after the start 

of the defrost period and maintained a 

target griddle surface temperature of 

185 °F for 8 hours, concurrent with the 

door opening period. After the 8-hour 

period of griddle operation, the griddle 

was turned off for the remainder of the 

test. 

TABLE III.4—CHEF BASE OR GRIDDLE STAND ENERGY CONSUMPTION COMPARISON WITH AND WITHOUT AN ACTIVE

GRIDDLE

Test unit 

Refrigerated 

volume 

(ft3) 

Energy 

consumption 

with 

griddle 

installed 

(kWh/day) 

Energy 

consumption 

without 

griddle 

installed 

(kWh/day) 

(percent) 

Energy 

consumption 

difference 

Refrigerator #1 ................................................................................................. 5.21 0.97 0.96 ¥0.5 

Refrigerator #2 ................................................................................................. 9.17 1.04 1.03 ¥0.5 

Refrigerator #3 ................................................................................................. 9.72 1.59 1.58 ¥0.1 

Freezer #1 ....................................................................................................... 6.56 7.28 7.29 +0.2 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39202 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE III.4—CHEF BASE OR GRIDDLE STAND ENERGY CONSUMPTION COMPARISON WITH AND WITHOUT AN ACTIVE

GRIDDLE—Continued 

Test unit 

Refrigerated 

volume 

(ft3) 

Energy 

consumption 

with 

griddle 

installed 

(kWh/day) 

Energy 

consumption 

without 

griddle 

installed 

(kWh/day) 

(percent) 

Energy 

consumption 

difference 

Freezer #2 ....................................................................................................... 11.31 8.58 8.70 +1.4 

* DOE tested an additional freezer that is not shown in the table due to inconsistent issues with the evaporator icing during testing. 

Consistent with the findings in the 

PG&E and SCE report, DOE observed 

that chef bases or griddle stands 

consumed similar amounts of energy 

with and without cooking equipment 

operating above the unit. DOE has been 

unable to determine why Freezer #2 

consumed slightly more energy without 

a griddle installed. For these reasons, 

DOE is proposing to maintain the 

existing CRE test procedure for testing 

chef bases or griddle stands (with the 

additional proposals as discussed in this 

NOPR). DOE has tentatively determined 

that this approach would allow for 

measuring energy consumption 

representative of typical use, provide a 

consistent basis for comparing energy 

consumption across similar equipment 

types, and would limit test burden. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to test chef bases and griddle 

stands according to the test procedure 

used for other CRE. 

5. Mobile Refrigerated Cabinets 

DOE does not currently define or 

specify test procedure provisions 

specific to other categories of 

refrigerated holding and serving 

equipment, such as certain mobile 

refrigerated cabinets. Specifically, 

mobile refrigerated cabinets chill the 

refrigerated compartment before being 

unplugged from power and taken to a 

remote location to hold food products 

while maintaining cooling. Such 

equipment meets the definition of CRE 

as defined at 10 CFR 431.62; however, 

unlike typical CRE, mobile refrigerated 

cabinets are not continuously connected 

to a power supply. As discussed in the 

April 2014 Final Rule, DOE determined 

that such other categories of refrigerated 

holding and serving equipment meet the 

definition of CRE and could be subject 

to future test procedures and energy 

conservation standards. 79 FR 22277, 

22281. To better distinguish mobile 

refrigerated cabinets from other defined 

categories of CRE, DOE is considering 

developing a definition for this 

equipment. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE sought 

information on the design features and 

operating characteristics of mobile 

refrigerated cabinets that would 

differentiate this equipment from other 

CRE or buffet tables and preparation 

tables. 86 FR 31182, 31189. DOE also 

requested comment on appropriate test 

conditions (e.g., temperature, moisture 

content) and conduct (e.g., stabilization, 

door openings, duration connected and 

disconnected from power supply) for 

such equipment. 86 FR 31182, 31189– 

31190. 

AHRI requested further clarification 

on what DOE considers to be a mobile 

refrigerated cabinet, stating that it is 

unclear how this product category 

differs from the others discussed in the 

previous rulemaking and the June 2021 

RFI. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 11) The Joint 

Commenters commented that mobile 

refrigeration cabinets are often placed 

outdoors and often exposed to higher 

ambient temperatures than other CRE. 

(Joint Commenters, No. 8, p. 2) 

The CA IOUs commented that these 

products should be referred to as 

‘‘refrigerated storage lockers’’ and 

supported a method of test using a 

modified version of ASHRAE 72–2018. 

(CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 6–7) The CA IOUs 

commented that several petitions for 

test procedure waivers have been 

submitted by manufactures. The CA 

IOUs supported the door opening 

methodology granted in those waivers, 

asserting that an 8-second door opening 

cycle once every 2 hours for 10 hours 

seems more representative of real-world 

operation than door opening cycles once 

every 10 minutes for eight hours, as 

specified in ASHRAE 72–2018). (Id.) 

The focus of the request for 

information regarding mobile cabinets 

was CRE that that typically operate 

without a continuous connection to a 

power supply. Examples of this 

equipment include refrigerated cabinets 

used to hold cold merchandise for 

vending outdoors during the day 

without connection to a power supply 

while outdoors, or storage cabinets to 

hold food at temperature while being 

delivered for service (e.g., delivered to 

hospital rooms). 

The CA IOUs’ comment in response to 

the June 2021 RFI appears to refer to 

customer order storage cabinets, 

discussed further in section III.C.5 of 

this NOPR, and not mobile refrigerated 

cabinets. It is not clear whether the Joint 

Commenters also intended to refer to 

customer order storage cabinets or 

mobile refrigerated cabinets. DOE 

recognizes that mobile refrigerated 

cabinets can be used outdoors, as in the 

case of vending refrigerated 

merchandise, but are often used 

indoors, as in the case of refrigerated 

storage for food service. 

Based on a review of mobile 

refrigerated cabinets available on the 

market, the operation and use of this 

equipment is subject to varied end-use 

applications, which may be specific to 

individual models. DOE did not identify 

data or information that would inform 

development of representative test 

conditions for such equipment. As such, 

DOE is not proposing to establish test 

procedures for mobile refrigerated 

cabinets in this NOPR. 

To better distinguish mobile 

refrigerated cabinets from other defined 

categories of CRE, DOE proposes to add 

the following definition to 10 CFR 

431.62 for mobile refrigerated cabinets: 

A ‘‘mobile refrigerated cabinet’’ 

means commercial refrigeration 

equipment that is designed and 

marketed to operate only without a 

continuous power supply. 

CRE that allow the user to choose 

whether to operate with or without a 

continuous power supply do not meet 

the definition of a mobile refrigerated 

cabinet. 

Although DOE is not proposing to 

establish test procedure provisions 

specific to mobile refrigerated cabinets, 

CRE that do not meet the definition of 

a mobile refrigerated cabinet are subject 

to DOE’s test procedure at appendix B 

and energy conservation standards 

under the applicable CRE equipment 

class. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definition for mobile 

refrigerated cabinet. DOE also requests 

comment on the proposal to not 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39203 

30Type I equipment is designed to operate in 

75 °F ambient conditions and Type II equipment is 

designed to operate in 80 °F ambient conditions. 

establish test procedures for mobile 

refrigerated cabinets. 

6. Additional Covered Equipment 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

feedback on other CRE that may be 

available on the market and that may 

warrant separate equipment category 

definitions and test procedures. 86 FR 

31182, 31190. Specifically, DOE sought 

information on the relevant equipment 

features and utilities that would require 

separate equipment categories, as well 

as the impact of those features and 

utilities on energy use and whether the 

current test procedure would provide 

results of those impacts. Id. DOE also 

requested any available information on 

potential definitions, test procedures, 

and usage data (specifically, how the 

typical daily energy use of the unique 

design compares to energy use of a unit 

of the most similar CRE equipment 

class) for these equipment categories. Id. 

DOE also requested comment on 

whether it should establish a definition 

for ‘‘other refrigerated holding and 

serving equipment’’ to clearly delineate 

equipment not currently subject to 

DOE’s test procedure. Id. DOE sought 

feedback on an appropriate definition, 

and on the types of equipment it should 

cover. Id. 

AHRI commented that there is not a 

need for additional equipment classes at 

this time. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 11) 

AHRI and Hussmann commented that 

creating additional definitions for niche 

models not currently subject to the DOE 

test procedure would create confusion 

in the regulated community that 

outweighs any potential benefits. (AHRI, 

No. 3, p. 11–12; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 

12) AHRI and Hussmann commented 

that models outside the scope or unable 

to achieve the efficiency standards 

should use the test procedure waiver 

process, asserting that there will always 

be gaps between covered equipment and 

the list of ‘‘other refrigerated holding 

and serving equipment.’’ (AHRI, No. 3, 

p. 11–12; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 12) True 

commented that the existing test 

procedure should be used for these 

additional equipment categories. (True, 

No. 4, p. 17) 

AHRI and Hussmann commented that 

any alternate testing should be handled 

through waiver requests or specific 

supplemental instructions on a case-bycase basis. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 12; 

Hussmann, No. 14, p. 13) 

DOE provided examples of potential 

CRE that may require additional test 

procedure provisions in the June 2021 

RFI. 86 FR 31182, 31190. DOE has 

initially determined that additional test 

procedure provisions to account for 

what is likely unique equipment 

operation or usage are not needed at this 

time. The existing DOE test procedure is 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results which reflect energy efficiency 

and energy use of the CRE subject to the 

test procedure during a representative 

average use cycle, and is not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct. In that the test 

procedure provides a representative 

average use cycle, DOE is unable to 

account for every combination of 

operating conditions and usage without 

the resulting test procedures being 

unduly burdensome. If the test 

procedure cannot be conducted for 

certain equipment, or if the test 

procedure results in measures of energy 

consumption so unrepresentative of the 

equipment’s true energy consumption 

characteristics as to provide materially 

inaccurate comparative data, 

manufacturers may petition DOE for a 

test procedure waiver under the 

provisions of 10 CFR 431.401. Section 

III.I of this NOPR discusses waivers 

currently in place for CRE, including for 

equipment with typical usage patterns 

different from the current test procedure 

approach. 

D. Harmonization of Efficiency 

Standards and Testing With NSF 7– 

2019 Food Safety 

NSF 7–2019 establishes minimum 

food protection and sanitation 

specifications for the materials, design, 

manufacture, and performance of 

commercial refrigerators and freezers 

and their related components. Section 

2.3 of appendix B in the CRE test 

procedure provides that for CRE that is 

also tested in accordance with NSF test 

procedures (Type I and Type II),30

integrated average temperatures and 

ambient conditions used for NSF testing 

may be used in place of the DOEprescribed integrated average 

temperatures and ambient conditions 

provided they result in a more stringent 

test. To that end, the ambient 

temperature may be higher, but not 

lower than the DOE test condition; and 

the IAT may be lower, but not higher, 

than that measured at the DOE ambient 

test condition. Id. The test conditions, 

and possible different thermostat 

settings, under NSF 7–2019 may result 

in measured energy use that is more 

representative of average use in 

applications for which users prioritize 

food safety over energy efficiency. 

Permitting the use of the NSF 7–2019 

test conditions may also reduce testing 

burden for manufacturers. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on ways in which the DOE 

test procedure may be modified to better 

harmonize with NSF 7–2019, if 

appropriate. 86 FR 31182, 31190. DOE 

specifically requested comment on 

potential test requirements related to 

food safety that could be specified to 

ensure that equipment is tested as it 

would operate in the field. Id. 

ITW, AHRI, Arneg, and True 

commented that the DOE test procedure 

is appropriate and that test procedures 

changes are not needed to harmonize 

with NSF 7–2019. (ITW, No. 2, p. 9; 

AHRI, No. 3, p. 12; Arneg, No. 12, p. 2; 

True, No. 4, p. 18) ITW commented that 

the typical restaurant, kitchen, and 

dining area all have air conditioning set 

to temperatures lower than those 

specified in the ASHRAE 72–2018 

standard, and that DOE should make no 

changes or introduce any new 

environmental conditions. (ITW, No. 2, 

p. 9) AHRI commented that NSF 7–2019 

applies only to self-contained medium 

temperature units. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 12) 

Hussmann commented that rather 

than referring to NSF 7–2019 (which 

only applies to SC.M units), Hussmann 

would support DOE standardizing 

testing for energy efficiency using 

product temperatures that better 

resemble the temperatures that a display 

case must run to preserve perishable 

food product for all equipment classes. 

(Hussmann, No. 14, p. 13–14) 

DOE is not proposing any additional 

amendments to the test procedures to 

further reference or harmonize with 

NSF 7–2019 testing. The existing test 

procedure instructions in section 2.3 of 

appendix B allow for the use of NSF 7– 

2019 test data, subject to certain 

requirements, to be used for DOE 

testing. DOE recognizes that NSF 7– 

2019 testing is not applicable or 

appropriate for all equipment types. For 

those equipment types, the DOE test 

procedure provides the required test 

instructions, including additional IAT 

rating temperatures, and reference to 

NSF 7–2019 is not needed. DOE 

maintains that the DOE test procedure 

(and proposed in this NOPR), by 

reference to AHRI 1200–202X and 

ASHRAE 72–2018R for conventional 

CRE, provides a measure of energy use 

of CRE during a representative average 

use cycle and is not unduly burdensome 

to conduct. The optional NSF 7–2019 

test provides a means to further reduce 

test burden in certain instances, but it 

not required for DOE testing. 

E. Dedicated Remote Condensing Units 

DOE is aware of remote condensing 

CRE models for which specific 

dedicated condensing units are 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39204 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

intended for use with specific 

refrigerated cases. For certain of these 

models, the remote condensing units are 

intended to be installed on or near the 

refrigerated case within the same 

conditioned space. For other models, 

the remote condensing units are 

intended to be installed outdoors, but 

the refrigerated case is intended to be 

used specifically with the designated 

remote condensing unit. 

For this equipment, the combined 

refrigerated case and condensing unit 

refrigeration system would effectively 

operate as if it were a CRE with a selfcontained condensing unit. Under the 

current DOE test procedure, remote CRE 

energy consumption is determined from 

the energy use of components in the 

refrigerated case plus a calculated 

compressor energy consumption based 

on the enthalpy change of refrigerant 

supplied to the case at specified 

conditions. The compressor energy use 

calculation is based on typical 

reciprocating compressor energy 

efficiency ratios (‘‘EERs’’) at a range of 

operating conditions. See Table 1 in 

AHRI 1200–2010. For CRE used with 

dedicated condensing units, the actual 

compressor used during normal 

operation is known (i.e., the compressor 

in the dedicated condensing unit). 

Accordingly, testing the whole system 

using the same approach as required for 

a self-contained CRE may produce 

energy use results that are more 

representative of how this equipment 

actually operates in the field. 

Additionally, testing such a system as a 

complete system rather than using the 

test procedures for remote condensing 

units may be less burdensome because 

it would not require use of a test facility 

capable of maintaining the required 

liquid and suction line refrigerant 

conditions as currently required for 

testing remote CRE (i.e., the refrigerant 

conditions consistent with the ASHRAE 

72–2005 requirements and at the 

conditions necessary to maintain the 

appropriate case temperature for 

testing). 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE sought 

feedback on whether CRE with 

dedicated remote condensing units 

should be tested to evaluate the 

performance of the paired condensing 

unit and refrigerated case, rather than 

assuming a condensing unit EER as 

specified in the AHRI 1200 standards. 

86 FR 31182, 31191. DOE also requested 

information on how to identify whether 

testing with a dedicated remote 

condensing unit is appropriate for a 

particular system (rather than the 

typical remote CRE testing under the 

existing approach). Id. 

ITW commented that testing the 

paired condensing unit and refrigerated 

case is an excellent option or 

alternative. (ITW, No. 2, p. 9) 

Arneg commented that display case 

manufacturers are not necessarily the 

same as the condensing unit 

manufacturers, and that condensing 

units and refrigerated cases are installed 

by a third party and there is no control 

over the installation, such that 

evaluating the performance of the paired 

unit would not be practical. (Arneg, No. 

12, p. 2) Arneg commented that 

dedicated condensing units are selected 

based on the product temperature 

requirements, ambient temperature, 

elevation, and the distance between the 

display case and condensing unit. 

(Arneg, No. 12, p. 2) 

AHRI and Hussmann commented that 

the use of refrigeration racks and 

condensing units are determined by 

application specific factors, and that 

there are no significant model 

characteristics that differentiate between 

whether the system should be used with 

a rack condensing system or a dedicated 

remote condensing unit. (AHRI, No. 3, 

p. 13; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 14) AHRI 

and Hussmann commented that most 

remote units are designed to 

accommodate either a condenser rack or 

dedicated condensing unit because 

units are dependent on user constraints, 

and manufacturers are not involved in 

the discussion (i.e., distributors 

typically work with customers). (Id.) 

AHRI and Hussmann commented that 

multiple cases can often use a single 

condensing unit. (Id.) 

AHRI and Hussmann requested 

further clarification from DOE on when 

a condensing unit would be considered 

specifically dedicated in order to further 

evaluate if there are unique situations 

where the outlined approach should be 

considered. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 13; 

Hussmann, No. 14, p. 14) AHRI and 

Hussmann do not believe the term 

‘‘dedicated remote condensing unit’’ is 

applicable. (Id.) 

The Joint Commenters stated that if 

DOE pursued the approach of testing 

complete systems only when a complete 

system is specified by the manufacturer, 

it could potentially create market 

distortions (e.g. a manufacturer of a 

display case who currently specifies a 

specific dedicated remote condensing 

unit may choose to discontinue that 

practice, depending on the implications 

for their equipment). (Id.) 

NEEA commented that CRE models 

exist connected to remote multicompressor rack systems and remote 

dedicated condensing units, and 

recommended that DOE test CRE with 

dedicated remote condensing units as 

self-contained units to enhance the 

representativeness of testing. (NEEA, 

No. 5, p. 6) NEEA commented that 

testing, instead of using the AHRI 1200– 

2013 EER table, would encourage 

increased efficiency of the entire unit 

and not default to assumptions about 

the remote equipment. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 

6) NEEA commented that units designed 

and sold with a dedicated remote 

condensing unit may already experience 

increased test burden due to required 

changes at the testing facility to 

accommodate that CRE. (Id.) NEEA 

commented that in these instances, 

testing remote CRE with a dedicated 

condensing unit would be more 

representative of daily energy 

consumption, less burdensome to test, 

and increase the scope of products 

subject to efficiency standards. (Id.) 

The CA IOUs commented in support 

of testing CRE dedicated remote 

condensing units together as a matched 

pair, asserting that it would be more 

representative of actual energy use as 

well as being comparable to selfcontained units. (CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 7– 

8) 

AHRI and Hussmann commented that 

they do not believe that strictly 

‘‘dedicated’’ condensing units are 

applicable. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 13; 

Hussmann, No. 14, p. 15) AHRI and 

Hussmann commented that remote 

cases are already held to energy 

requirements and are paired with 

condensing units based on end-user 

requirements. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 13; 

Hussmann, No. 14, p. 15) 

Arneg commented that the role of an 

application engineer is to do the 

performance comparison and make a 

professional judgement for the most 

practical solution, such that there is no 

need for standards for this process. 

(Arneg, No. 12, p. 2) 

AHRI and Hussmann commented that 

dedicated remote condensing units 

should be further discussed at the 

industry test standard level. (AHRI, No. 

3, p. 13–14; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 15) 

AHRI and Hussmann commented that 

some units may be designed as 

packaged pairs, when installation 

conditions differ, but that an end user 

may choose only one side of the system 

to pair with another manufacturer’s 

condensing unit. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 13–14; 

Hussmann, No. 14, p. 15) 

Through participation in the industry 

test standard committees to consider 

updates to AHRI 1200 and ASHRAE 72, 

DOE understands that remote CRE are 

most commonly installed with rack 

condensing systems and that 

installations with dedicated condensing 

units represent a very small portion of 

the remote CRE market. Additionally, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39205 

31ASHRAE 72–2005 and ASHRAE 72–2018 

define steady state as the condition in which the 

average temperature of all test simulators changes 

less than 0.4 °F from one 24-hour period or 

refrigeration cycle to the next. 

DOE has not identified a method to 

determine whether a remote CRE unit 

would be installed with a dedicated 

condensing unit rather than a rack 

condensing system. DOE is not aware of 

any remote CRE that are capable of 

installations only with a dedicated 

remote condensing unit (i.e., DOE 

expects that all remote CRE may be 

installed with rack condensing systems). 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

an amended test procedure to account 

for remote CRE installed with dedicated 

remote condensing units is not 

appropriate. While remote CRE can be 

installed with dedicated remote 

condensing units, the existing test 

procedure is representative of the most 

common installations (i.e., installations 

with a rack condensing system) for 

remote CRE and therefore measures the 

energy use of this equipment during a 

representative average use cycle. 

Additionally, DOE has not identified 

any remote CRE capable of use only 

with dedicated remote condensing 

units, and therefore has tentatively 

determined that the existing test 

procedure is applicable to all remote 

CRE. 

For remote CRE that can be installed 

with dedicated condensing units, 

manufacturers do not always specify 

dedicated remote condensing units to 

match with the remote cabinet. Having 

performance information for both the 

refrigerated cases and separate 

dedicated remote condensing units 

would allow users to compare the 

performance of both parts of the system 

when matched. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on whether, and if so how, 

users of CRE consider the energy 

performance of the system in instances 

in which a specific dedicated remote 

condensing unit is not identified for a 

refrigerated case. 86 FR 31182, 31191. 

DOE also requested comment on 

potential approaches to evaluate the 

energy performance of dedicated remote 

condensing units independent of their 

use with specific refrigerated cases. Id. 

Arneg commented that every 

condensing unit would have a specific 

EER based on design condition. (Arneg, 

No. 12, p. 2) AHRI and Hussmann 

commented that appropriate EER values 

can be obtained from the condensing 

unit manufacturer if the matched pair 

needs to be calculated separately from 

the specified condensing unit. (AHRI, 

No. 3, p. 13–14; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 

15) 

The Joint Commenters stated that 

manufacturers often do not specify a 

specific dedicated remote condensing 

unit for use with a specific refrigerated 

case and that it would be preferable to 

develop an approach to allow for 

independently measuring the 

performance of all dedicated remote 

condensing units, regardless of how 

they are sold. (Joint Commenters, No. 8, 

p. 3) The Joint Commenters stated that 

DOE should consider an approach for 

treating dedicated remote condensing 

units similar to the approach for walkin coolers and freezers, which allows for 

rating both a matched pair (i.e., unit 

cooler and dedicated remote condensing 

unit) and either a unit cooler or a 

dedicated remote condensing unit by 

itself (with assumptions for the 

performance of the other piece of 

equipment). (Id.) The Joint Commenters 

stated that this approach could be 

applied to CRE to allow for rating both 

a complete system (e.g., display case 

and dedicated remote condensing unit) 

and either a display case or dedicated 

remote condensing unit by itself. (Id.) 

The CA IOUs commented that DOE 

should consider using a test 

methodology similar to AHRI Standard 

1250–2020 to serve as the starting point 

for developing a test method for 

dedicated remote condensing units, and 

specifically that the ‘‘Room Calorimeter 

Method’’ in AHRI 1250 could serve as 

a starting point with representative 

outdoor temperatures of 35 °F, 59 °F, 

and 95 °F. (Id.) 

DOE is not aware of dedicated 

condensing units that are intended for 

use only with CRE. Many of the 

dedicated condensing units available for 

use with remote CRE are also used with 

other equipment and subject to DOE 

testing and energy conservation 

standards, such as walk-in coolers and 

walk-in freezers and automatic 

commercial ice makers. Because of the 

relatively small portion of the remote 

CRE market that is installed connected 

to a dedicated remote condensing unit, 

the applicability of other DOE test 

procedures and energy conservation 

standards to condensing units that may 

be used with CRE, and because DOE is 

not aware of any dedicated condensing 

units intended for use specifically with 

CRE, DOE is not proposing definitions 

or test procedures that would directly 

assess performance of CRE dedicated 

condensing units. 

In summary, DOE is not proposing to 

amend the existing approach for testing 

remote CRE, which represents the 

performance of remote CRE as installed 

with a remote compressor rack 

condensing system. 

DOE requests comment on its 

tentative determination to not propose 

amended test procedures for dedicated 

remote condensing units. 

F. Test Procedure Clarifications and 

Modifications 

1. Defrost Cycles 

The test period requirements in 

ASHRAE 72–2005, incorporated by 

reference in the current CRE test 

procedure, and in ASHRAE 72–2018 

require a 24-hour test period, which 

begins with a defrost after steady-state 

conditions are achieved.31 Use of a fixed 

24-hour test period can provide for a 

degree of variability in the measured 

energy consumption, depending on 

when additional defrost cycles occur 

after the initial defrost cycle. (e.g., the 

test period may capture only a portion 

of a defrost cycle at the end of the test 

period rather than a complete number of 

defrost cycles). Typically, if multiple 

complete defrost cycles occur within the 

24-hour period, the impact of capturing 

partial defrost cycles would be small. 

Similarly, if the defrost cycle duration is 

slightly greater than 24-hours, the 

impact of capturing a partial defrost 

cycle would be small. However, the 

impact may be more substantial if the 

defrost cycle duration is very long (i.e., 

multiple days between defrost) or if the 

defrost cycle is slightly less than 24 

hours (i.e., the test period would capture 

two defrost occurrences but only one 

period of ‘‘normal’’ operation between 

defrosts). DOE also notes that ASHRAE 

72–2005 does not have any specific 

provisions for CRE with variable defrost 

control schemes (i.e., defrosts that may 

be triggered based on conditions or 

other parameters rather than only a 

timer) and does not account for CRE 

with no automatic defrost (i.e., manual 

defrost). 

DOE has addressed similar issues in 

the test procedures for consumer 

refrigeration products. The test 

procedures for those products apply a 

two-part test period (one period for 

steady-state operation and one period to 

capture events related to the defrost 

cycle) to account for defrost energy 

consumption for products with long 

defrost cycle durations or with variable 

defrost control. The energy use 

calculations then weight the 

performance from each test period based 

on the known compressor runtime 

between defrosts or based on a 

calculated average time between 

defrosts in field operation that is based 

on the control parameters for variable 

defrosts. See appendices A and B to 

subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39206 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

32On June 2, 2021, AHT sent a letter to DOE 

requesting that this interim waiver be withdrawn. 

See www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BTWAV-0027-0015. 

Additionally, DOE has addressed 

testing of certain CRE models that do 

not have automatic defrost in a waiver 

granted to AHT published on October 

30, 2018. 83 FR 54581 (‘‘October 2018 

Waiver’’). For the basic models subject 

to the waiver, the test period begins 

after steady state conditions occur 

(instead of beginning with a defrost 

cycle) and the door-opening period 

begins 3 hours after the start of the test 

(instead of 3 hours after a defrost cycle). 

83 FR 54581, 54583. DOE also granted 

AHT an interim waiver for testing 

certain models with defrost cycles 

longer than 24 hours. 82 FR 24330 (May 

26, 2017; ‘‘May 2017 Interim 

Waiver’’).32 The interim waiver required 

that AHT test the specified models 

using a two-part test method similar to 

the method for consumer refrigerators, 

with the first part capturing normal 

compressor operation between defrosts, 

including an 8-hour period of door 

openings, and the second part capturing 

all operation associated with a defrost, 

including any pre-cooling or 

temperature recovery following the 

defrost. 82 FR 24330, 24332–24333. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on the impact of the potential 

defrost cycle variability and whether the 

test period should be revised to 

minimize the effects of defrost cycle 

duration for certain equipment. 86 FR 

31182, 31191. DOE additionally 

requested comment and supporting data 

on how incorporating a two-part test 

procedure may impact measured energy 

consumption, test burden, and 

repeatability and reproducibility. Id. 

Additionally, DOE requested 

information on the availability of 

equipment with variable defrost control 

and the control schemes employed in 

those models, if any are available. Id. 

DOE requested comment on whether the 

approach granted to AHT in the May 

2017 Interim Waiver may better measure 

the representative energy use of CRE 

over complete defrost cycles compared 

to the current 24-hour test period. Id. 

AHRI and Hussmann commented that 

the ASHRAE SSPC 72 committee has 

discussed defrost cycles and is 

considering changes to the test 

procedure to address variability in 

future revisions, and suggested that DOE 

bring this topic to the industry test 

standard discussions for further 

considerations. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 14; 

Hussmann, No. 14, p. 16) 

True and ITW commented in support 

of the current DOE test procedure length 

of 24 hours, which they stated captures 

the defrosts by starting the test at the 

beginning of a defrost cycle such that all 

energy evaluations experience at least 

one defrost cycle. (True, No. 4, p. 20; 

ITW, No. 2, p. 10) ITW commented that 

if DOE finds it necessary to restructure 

the test procedure, the evaluation period 

should be increased in steps of 24 

hours, with the 8-hour door opening 

cycle repeating during each 24 hour 

period, to dilute any concerns of defrost 

variability and maintain a constant load 

per 24 hour period. (ITW, No. 2, p. 10) 

The CA IOUs commented that defrost 

energy can represent a significant 

contribution to energy use of CRE and 

that equipment with frost build up on 

their refrigeration coils suffer from 

reduced efficiency compared to a clean 

coil. (CA IOUs, No. 8, p. 9) 

For testing CRE with no automatic 

defrost, ASHRAE 72–2018R 

incorporates instructions for starting the 

test period and door openings that are 

consistent with those provided in the 

October 2018 Waiver (i.e., the 

instructions do not require a defrost 

occurrence). Therefore, DOE’s proposal 

to incorporate by reference ASHRAE 

72–2018R would address this test issue. 

For testing CRE with variable defrost, 

DOE has tentatively determined that the 

existing 24-hour test period represents 

typical operation during a day, 

including a period of door openings and 

a period of closed-door operation, and is 

not proposing any additional test 

requirements in this NOPR. Units with 

variable defrost controls may initiate 

more frequent defrosts in response to 

door openings, which is captured by the 

current test procedure. 

The 24-hour test period specified in 

ASHRAE 72–2018 provides a 

representative basis for measuring 

energy consumption of most CRE, 

capturing the defrost occurrences and 

door opening periods expected for a 24- 

hour period. Most CRE include multiple 

defrosts during a 24-hour test period, 

and any incomplete defrost cycle 

captured in the test period does not 

significantly impact measured energy 

consumption. DOE is not proposing to 

amend the 24-hour test to require that 

the test procedure capture complete 

defrost cycles in situations where the 

defrost interval is less than 24 hours. 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

for CRE with defrost cycles longer than 

24 hours, the 24-hour test period would 

overestimate the actual average defrost 

energy contribution during a day. 

Therefore, DOE is proposing to allow 

the use of a two-part test for CRE with 

defrost cycles longer than 24 hours. 

DOE is proposing the two-part test 

approach, consistent with the approach 

in the May 2017 Interim Waiver, for 

such equipment—rather than extending 

the existing test period in 24-hour 

increments—in order to limit test 

burden. For the basic models addressed 

in the May 2017 Interim Waiver, testing 

in 24-hour increments would require 

three 24-hour periods (e.g., the duration 

between defrosts is 3.5 days, and 

introducing a fourth 24-hour period 

would result in the test period capturing 

two defrosts). Additionally, the 24-hour 

increment approach would continue to 

overestimate energy consumption 

associated with defrosts, albeit to a 

lesser extent, for defrost intervals that 

are not exact multiples of 24 hours (as 

is the case with the basic models 

covered by the May 2017 Interim 

Waiver). The two-part test approach 

eliminates the need for multiple door 

opening periods and may allow for 

much shorter overall test durations 

while accounting for defrost 

occurrences based on actual defrost 

interval durations. 

Also consistent with the May 2017 

Interim Waiver, DOE is proposing that 

the two-part test would be optional 

because it would increase test duration 

compared to the existing approach (by 

requiring both a 24-hour test plus a 

defrost test), and manufacturers may 

determine that the existing test 

procedure may be more appropriate 

their models, even if the models 

incorporate defrost intervals longer than 

24 hours. 

Specifically, DOE is proposing to 

allow for testing equipment with defrost 

intervals greater than 24 hours using a 

two-part test in which the first part is a 

24-hour period of stable operation, 

including door openings as specified in 

ASHRAE 72–2018R, but without any 

defrost operation. Stability for the first 

part of the test would be determined 

according to Section 7.5 in ASHRAE 

72–2018R, by comparing temperatures 

determined during Test A and Test B 

(and a defrost may occur during the test 

alignment period, as defined in Section 

7.4 of ASHRAE 72–2018R, between Test 

A and Test B). The second part of the 

test would capture a defrost cycle, 

including any pre-cooling and 

temperature recovery associated with a 

defrost. Rather than referencing the 

consumer refrigeration product test 

procedures (as done in the May 2017 

Interim Waiver approach), DOE is 

proposing to require that the start and 

end of the test period be determined as 

the last time before and first time after 

a defrost occurrence, when the 

measured average simulator temperature 

(i.e., the instantaneous average of all test 

simulator temperature measurements) is 

within 0.5 °F of the IAT as measured 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39207 

during the first part of the test. This 

would ensure that the defrost part of the 

test captures any pre-cooling operation 

and temperature recovery following a 

defrost while limiting the overall 

duration of the second part of the test. 

The May 2017 Interim Waiver 

includes certain parameters specific to 

the models covered by the waiver, 

namely the duration between defrosts. 

DOE granted the interim waiver based 

on the minimum defrost interval 

possible for the equipment; i.e., 3.5 

days. To generalize the May 2017 

Interim Waiver approach for other CRE 

models, DOE is proposing that the twopart calculation be applied based on the 

minimum duration between defrosts 

permitted by the unit’s controls as 

shown in the following equation. 

Where DEC is the daily energy 

consumption in kWh/day; ET1 is the 

energy consumed during the first part of 

the test, in kWh/day; ET2 is the energy 

consumed during the second part of the 

test, in kWh; tNDI is the normalized 

length of defrosting time per day, in 

minutes; tDI is the length of time of the 

defrosting test period, in minutes; tDC is 

the minimum time between defrost 

occurrences, in days; and 1,440 is a 

conversion factor, in minutes per day. 

DOE recognizes that the two-part test 

approach could result in slightly less 

door-opening energy contribution as the 

first part of the test, with no defrost and 

8 hours of door openings, would be 

combined with the defrost portion of the 

test by a calculation. To investigate this 

impact, DOE conducted testing on 

equipment with defrost intervals longer 

than 24 hours and compared results of 

the existing test procedure (24-hour test 

period, starting with a defrost), the May 

2017 Interim Waiver approach (two-part 

test, as proposed in this NOPR), and a 

full-duration approach (multiple 24- 

hour periods, each with door opening 

periods, through a complete defrost 

cycle) as illustrated in Table III.5. 

TABLE III.5—THE MAY 2017 INTERIM WAIVER APPROACH INVESTIGATIVE TESTING

HCT.SC.I 

Total display 

area 

(ft2) 

Current DOE 

CRE test 

procedure 

(kWh/day) 

May 2017 

interim waiver 

approach (kWh/ 

day) 

Full defrost 

cycle 

duration 

approach 

(kWh/day) 

Unit #1 ........................................................................................................... 12.72 7.12 6.66 6.66 

Unit #2 ........................................................................................................... 14.84 6.12 5.61 5.62 

DOE’s testing showed that the twopart waiver test approach provides an 

accurate representation of energy 

consumption when measured over a full 

defrost cycle (and therefore 

representative of average use). 

Additionally, the testing showed that 

the existing test procedure approach can 

overestimate measured energy use for 

CRE with defrost cycles longer than 24 

hours. 

Based on DOE’s investigative testing, 

DOE has tentatively determined that the 

May 2017 Interim Waiver approach, and 

the approach proposed in this NOPR, is 

representative of a full defrost cycle 

duration approach for equipment with 

defrost intervals greater than 24 hours. 

With regard to CRE models with 

multiple evaporators (and therefore, 

potentially multiple defrosts) connected 

to a single or multi-stage condensing 

unit, ASHRAE 72–2005 does not specify 

which evaporator should be used to 

determine the defrost cycle that initiates 

the test. Additionally, if the defrost 

cycles for multiple evaporators do not 

activate at the same time during the test, 

ASHRAE 72–2005 does not specify 

which defrost cycle should be used to 

determine the start of the 24-hour test 

period. ASHRAE 72–2005 also does not 

explicitly address the treatment of 

defrost cycles for multi-compartment 

CRE models (i.e., hybrid CRE) with 

different evaporator temperatures and 

defrost sequences. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

information regarding the types of 

defrost systems that exist in CRE 

available on the market and how 

manufacturers currently select test 

periods for models with multiple 

evaporators with non-synchronous 

defrost cycles. 86 FR 31182, 31192. DOE 

requested comment on any potential 

modifications that could be made to the 

CRE test procedure in order to increase 

representativeness and provide 

additional detail for testing these units, 

including whether the two-part 

approach, as described earlier in this 

section, would be appropriate. Id. 

AHRI and Hussmann commented that 

self-contained units with differing 

defrost systems would have no impact 

on the measured energy use. (AHRI, No. 

3, p. 14; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 16) AHRI 

and Hussmann commented that remote 

hybrid systems, for which there could 

be a self-service case and a storage/ 

service area with differing defrost 

systems, the two defrost systems would 

be tested to the current test procedure 

individually and would be required to 

meet the current DOE energy 

consumption requirements. (Id.) ITW 

commented the ASHRAE 72–2018 

evaluation for hybrid equipment should 

start with the defrost cycle of the storage 

compartment experiencing the greatest 

time interval between defrosts. (ITW, 

No. 2, p. 10) 

ITW commented that some controls 

may be able to interlock the initial 

defrost at the start of the energy 

evaluation with subsequent defrost 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30JN22.000</GPH>
39208 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

cycles occurring at intervals determined 

by the control’s operation strategy. 

(ITW, No. 2, p. 10) ITW suggested 

increasing the evaluation period from 24 

to 48 hours (or longer) but keeping the 

evaluation process simple to eliminate 

errors and confusion. (Id.) AHRI and 

Hussmann commented that 

modifications are not necessary for this 

situation. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 14; 

Hussmann, No. 14, p. 16) 

AHRI and Hussmann commented that 

if further clarification is needed, the 

discussion should be taken to the 

ASHRAE SSPC 72 committee. (AHRI, 

No. 3, p. 14; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 16) 

As discussed earlier in this section, 

CRE with automatic defrost typically 

include multiple defrost occurrences 

per day. DOE expects that any multievaporator CRE with multiple unique 

defrost cycle durations would similarly 

defrost multiple times per day, and 

therefore no change to the existing test 

procedure is necessary. However, to 

ensure that the 24-hour test period 

captures a representative number of 

defrosts for each evaporator’s defrost, 

DOE is proposing to specify that for CRE 

with multiple unique defrost intervals 

for multiple evaporators, the test period 

as specified in ASHRAE 72–2018R 

would start with a defrost occurrence 

for the evaporator defrost having the 

longest interval between defrosts. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed approach to account for long 

duration defrost cycles using an 

optional two-part test procedure 

consistent with the existing waiver 

approach granted for such models. DOE 

also requests comment on whether any 

additional provisions are necessary to 

account for different defrost operation 

or controls, and on DOE’s proposed 

approach in which the test period 

would start with the defrost occurrence 

having the longest interval between 

defrosts. 

2. Total Display Area 

Section 3.2 of appendix B provides 

instructions regarding the measurement 

of TDA. That section specifies that TDA 

is the sum of the projected area(s) of 

visible product, expressed in square feet 

(‘‘ft2’’) (i.e., portions through which 

product can be viewed from an angle 

normal, or perpendicular, to the 

transparent area). 

For certain CRE configurations, 

merchandise is not necessarily located 

at an angle directly normal, or 

perpendicular, to the transparent area 

despite the transparent area being 

intended for customer viewing. For 

example, for service over counter icecream freezers, the ice cream containers 

may be placed within the chest portion 

of the refrigerated case, with a glass 

display panel on the front and glass rear 

doors located above the merchandise 

storage area. If the glass display areas 

are nearly vertical, the ice cream 

containers may be positioned low 

enough in the case that they are not at 

a viewing angle perpendicular to the 

glass. However, during typical use, 

customers would stand close enough to 

the display glass that the ice cream 

would be visible from other angles not 

perpendicular to the glass. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

feedback on whether the TDA definition 

and test instructions should account for 

display areas in which the merchandise 

is not at a location normal to the display 

surface. 86 FR 31182, 31192. If so, DOE 

requested information on how to define 

the revised display area. Id. DOE also 

requested comment on other CRE 

applications or configurations for which 

the TDA, as currently defined, may not 

adequately represent the display 

functionality of the equipment. Id. 

Arneg commented that an amended 

TDA definition is needed because 

merchandise is not always at a location 

normal to the display, such as service 

over counter cases. (Arneg, No. 12, p. 2) 

True commented that TDA should not 

account for display areas in which the 

merchandise is not at a location normal 

to the display surface, and that the 

testing standard should only use the 

display visibility as defined in AHRI 

1200–2013. (True, No. 4, p. 21) 

AHRI and Hussmann asked DOE to 

further clarify the units being described 

by ‘‘display areas in which the 

merchandise is not at a location normal 

to the display surface,’’ specifically, if 

DOE is referring to deli counter type 

cases with display areas outside the 

doors themselves. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 15; 

Hussmann, No. 14, p. 17) 

DOE participated in the committee 

discussions to consider updates to AHRI 

1200–2013. These discussions included 

TDA and whether any additional 

updates would be appropriate. The 

industry committee determined to 

maintain the existing definition and 

approach, which is based on the 

visibility of merchandise at a location 

normal to the display surface, but to 

include additional diagrams to clarify 

the determination of TDA. See 

Appendix D to AHRI 1200–202X. Figure 

10 in AHRI 1200–202X appendix D 

shows a service over counter unit 

similar to the example described earlier 

in this section. The food load is 

included only in the lowest portion of 

the refrigerated cabinet, and as a result, 

only portions of the transparent areas 

are considered for the TDA (i.e., the 

portions through which the food load is 

visible at an angle normal to the 

transparent area). 

Consistent with the updated version 

of AHRI 1200–202X, DOE is not 

proposing revisions to the current TDA. 

As discussed, DOE is proposing to 

incorporate by reference AHRI 1200– 

202X, which includes the new 

Appendix D to provide clarification on 

how to apply the current TDA approach 

to different CRE configurations. 

DOE is aware that the current DOE 

test procedure includes conflicting 

instructions regarding the calculation of 

TDA for CRE with transparent and nontransparent areas over the length of the 

case. The instructions in section 3.1 of 

appendix B specify determining the 

length of the display area as the interior 

length of the CRE model, provided no 

more than 5 inches of that length 

consists of non-transparent material, or, 

for those cases with greater than 5 

inches of non-transparent area, the 

length shall be determined as the 

projected linear dimension(s) of visible 

product plus 5 inches. Figures A3.4 and 

A3.5 of appendix B show a similar 

approach, but instead reference 10 

percent of the total length as the 

threshold of non-transparent area rather 

than 5 inches. The captions for these 

figures reference 5 inches, consistent 

with section 3.1. The April 2014 Final 

Rule established these TDA provisions 

in appendix B. 79 FR 22277, 22300– 

22301. In the final rule, DOE stated that 

the 10-percent approach rather than the 

5-inch approach would allow for more 

consistent application of the TDA 

requirements across CRE models. Id. 

In addition, DOE incorrectly applied 

the 10-percent threshold approach as 

shown in Figures A3.4 and A3.5 of 

appendix B. As discussed, DOE 

intended to provide a consistent TDA 

approach for cases with transparent and 

non-transparent area. The equation for 

length shown in Figure A3.5 shows that 

length equals the total transparent 

dimension, multiplied by 1.10. As a 

result, the non-transparent area would 

represent 10 percent of the transparent 

dimension, not 10 percent of the total 

length. The correct application would 

have length equal to the transparent 

dimension divided by 0.9—resulting in 

a non-transparent area representing 10 

percent of the total length. 

Section D.1.1.1 of AHRI 1200–202X 

appendix D includes correct equations 

regarding TDA and case length as 

intended in the April 2014 Final Rule. 

Specifically, AHRI 1200–202X applies 

the 10 percent threshold approach for 

non-transparent area and correctly 

calculates the length of the CRE for 

cases with non-transparent areas greater 

than 10 percent of the length of the case. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39209 

33NREL ‘‘Refrigeration Playbook: Natural 

Refrigerants. Selecting and Designing Energy 

Efficient Commercial Refrigeration Systems That 

Use Low Global Warming Potential Refrigerants’’. 

As discussed, DOE is proposing to 

incorporate by reference AHRI 1200– 

202X, which would correct these errors 

regarding TDA calculations currently 

included in appendix B. 

G. Alternative Refrigerants 

DOE’s current test procedure for 

remote condensing CRE requires the 

estimation of compressor EER from 

Table 1 of AHRI 1200–2010. The EER 

ratings in the table are based on 

performance of reciprocating 

compressors and were developed based 

on refrigerants that historically have 

been commonly used for CRE (i.e., R– 

404A). 

Certain remote CRE installations can 

use carbon dioxide (‘‘CO2’’) as the 

refrigerant; however, the existing remote 

CRE test procedure does not address the 

unique operation for these systems. For 

example, the current DOE test 

procedure requires an inlet refrigerant 

liquid temperature of 80 °F with a 

saturated liquid pressure corresponding 

to a condensing temperature of 89.6 °F 

to 120.2 80 °F. See ASHRAE 72–2005, 

Sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3. CO2 has a 

critical point of 87.8 °F and 1,070 

pounds per square inch (‘‘psi’’), above 

which it is a supercritical fluid. 

Accordingly, CO2 cannot be a liquid at 

the specified condensing temperature 

conditions (i.e., it would either be a gas 

or supercritical fluid, depending on 

pressure). Additionally, CO2 systems 

typically include multiple stages of 

compression and cooling, resulting in 

liquid supplied to the refrigerant cases 

at conditions not necessarily defined by 

the typical condensing unit conditions. 

DOE has recently granted a waiver for 

specific models of CRE to address CO2

operating conditions for testing walk-in 

cooler and walk-in freezer unit coolers. 

86 FR 14887 (March 19, 2021; ‘‘March 

2021 Waiver’’). The March 2021 Waiver 

requires for testing of the specified basic 

models liquid inlet saturation 

temperature and liquid inlet subcooling 

of 38 °F and 5 °F, respectively. 86 FR 

14887, 14889. The March 2021 Waiver 

also maintains the existing compressor 

energy consumption determination 

based on an approach consistent with 

the CRE remote calculations using AHRI 

1200–2010 (the walk-in requirements 

instead refer to the walk-ins rating 

standard, AHRI 1250–2009, which 

includes the same EER table as AHRI 

1200–2010). Id. 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

information on the typical conditions 

for remote CRE intended for use with 

CO2 refrigerant. 86 FR 31182, 31192. 

DOE requested comment and data on 

the applicability of the EER values in 

Table 1 of AHRI 1200–2010 to the 

typical compressor EERs for CO2

refrigerant systems. Id. DOE also 

requested information and supporting 

data on whether the existing test 

procedure is appropriate for any other 

alternative refrigerants that may be used 

for remote CRE. Id. DOE requested 

feedback on whether the operating 

conditions specified in ASHRAE 72– 

2005 or the standardized EER values in 

Table 1 of AHRI 1200–2010 should be 

revised to account for operation with 

any other alternative refrigerants. Id. 

DOE also requested usage data regarding 

the range of refrigerants in the remote 

CRE market. Id. 

Hussmann and AHRI commented that 

OEMs with CO2 systems use the EER 

values in AHRI 1200–2013 to provide 

comparison of products and energy 

consumption based on typical operating 

conditions, and as the use of CO2

systems evolve the industry test 

standard organizers will research 

whether changes are necessary to the 

EER tables. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 17; 

AHRI, No. 3, p. 15) Regarding the use 

of other refrigerants, AHRI and 

Hussmann commented that the EER 

values in Table 1 of AHRI 1200–2013 

are representative of use agnostic to the 

refrigerant because the values would 

vary little for specific alternative 

refrigerants. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 15; 

Hussmann, No. 14, p. 18) AHRI and 

Hussmann commented that AHRI 1200– 

202X provides additional clarifications 

to address the glide of the newer 

alternative refrigerants. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 

15; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 18) 

Arneg commented that DOE should 

wait for an update to ASHRAE 72 to 

address CO2 because the ASHRAE 72 

committee will be considering the issue 

of typical conditions for CO2 remote 

CRE. (Arneg, No. 12, p. 2) 

NEEA asserted that Table 1 of AHRI 

1200–2013 is not representative of CO2

refrigeration systems, and recommended 

that DOE adopt representative EER 

tables for natural refrigerants. (NEEA, 

No. 5, p. 5–6) 

NEEA commented that DOE should 

review current test procedures to ensure 

applicability to CRE with natural 

refrigerants. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 5) NEEA 

commented that the American 

Innovation and Manufacturing Act 

would reduce the use of 

hydrofluorocarbons (‘‘HFCs’’) by 85 

percent by 2035, and that natural 

refrigerants such as CO2 and propane 

(R–290) are already widely used in 

commercial refrigeration. (Id.) 

NEEA commented that DOE should 

consider establishing test procedures 

that account for the unique operation 

and energy use of systems that use 

natural refrigerants, such as secondary 

refrigerant loops and trans critical 

booster systems typical of CO2 based 

systems. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 5) NEEA 

commented that DOE could use 

documentation such as the National 

Renewable Energy Lab’s (‘‘NREL’’) 

Refrigeration Playbook 33 as a resource. 

(Id.) NEEA commented that ASHRAE 

has discussed technical challenges 

related to natural refrigerants and 

encouraged DOE to explore ASHRAE 

15–2019 to determine appropriate 

testing considerations. (Id.) NEEA 

commented to refer to case studies 

suggesting that CO2 refrigerants can 

increase the efficiency of CRE systems 

up to 27 percent. (Id.) NEEA commented 

that DOE’s test procedures should 

reflect actual energy use, even in cases 

where energy usage increases. (Id.) 

For all remote CRE, the DOE test 

procedure requires measuring energy 

consumption of the refrigerated case 

and the heat gain of the refrigerant 

providing cooling to the remote case. 

AHRI 1200–2010 specifies a calculation 

of compressor energy consumption 

based on the heat gain measured for the 

test refrigerant. DOE is aware that 

manufacturers may specify the use of 

multiple refrigerants for a single remote 

CRE cabinet and that the current test 

procedure allows for consistent testing 

of such equipment regardless of 

refrigerant used for testing. As indicated 

by Hussmann and AHRI, manufacturers 

are already testing and rating systems 

that can use CO2, likely by testing with 

non-CO2 refrigerants under the existing 

test conditions, according to the existing 

approach, which references AHRI 1200– 

2010. DOE expects that any ratings for 

current CO2 systems are based on testing 

with another refrigerant capable of 

maintaining the conditions specified in 

ASHRAE 72–2005. 

Based on a review of CRE that are 

capable of using CO2 refrigerant, DOE 

has observed that many of these models 

also may be installed for use with other 

refrigerants that can be tested under the 

existing approach. However, any remote 

CRE that are intended for use only with 

CO2 refrigerant would not be able to be 

tested according to the current DOE test 

procedure due to the specified liquid 

conditions specified in ASHRAE 72– 

2005. To allow for testing remote CRE 

with CO2 refrigerant, DOE is proposing 

to adopt alternate refrigerant conditions 

consistent with those granted in the 

March 2021 Waiver for walk-in cooler 

and walk-in freezer unit coolers with 

CO2 refrigerant. DOE is proposing that 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39210 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

for remote CRE tested with direct 

expansion CO2, the liquid inlet 

saturation temperature be 38 °F with 

liquid inlet subcooling of 5 °F. 

DOE research into the performance of 

different configurations of CO2 booster 

systems indicates that enhanced CO2

cycles can match conventional 

refrigerants in average efficiency. Even 

though the EER values included in 

AHRI 1200–202X for remote 

compressors were initially established 

for conventional refrigerants, DOE has 

tentatively determined that they are also 

appropriate for determining compressor 

energy consumption of CO2 remote 

systems. DOE recognizes that the actual 

compressor energy consumption of a 

specific remote system will vary based 

on a number of parameters (ambient 

conditions, refrigerant conditions 

necessary for the remote cases, etc.), but 

has tentatively determined that the 

values included in AHRI 1200–202X are 

appropriate for determining the energy 

consumption of an average use cycle for 

all remote CRE as tested under the 

proposed test procedure. 

In addition to CO2, DOE has 

tentatively determined that the EER 

table in AHRI 1200–202X is appropriate 

for other alternative refrigerants. DOE 

similarly researched compressor EERs at 

a range of operating conditions for 

refrigerants other than R–404A, 

including R–407A, R–407F, and R– 

507A, and found the existing EERs to be 

representative based on expected 

operating conditions. Additionally, 

AHRI 1200–202X further improves the 

consistency of the EER approach by 

including additional instructions 

regarding the use of high-glide 

refrigerants, as discussed in section 

III.B.1.a of this NOPR. DOE is not 

proposing additional amendments to 

address alternative refrigerants other 

than CO2 in this NOPR. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed alternate refrigerant 

conditions to be used for testing remote 

CRE with CO2 refrigerant. DOE requests 

comment on whether any other aspects 

of the current test procedure require 

amendment to allow for testing with 

CO2 or any other alternative refrigerants. 

H. Certification of Compartment 

Volume 

DOE’s current test procedure 

incorporates by reference AHAM HRF– 

1–2008 to measure compartment 

volume. DOE acknowledges that 

manufacturers often use computer aided 

designs (‘‘CAD’’) in designing their 

equipment. However, the current test 

procedure and certification provisions 

for CRE do not provide for using CAD 

drawings to determine compartment 

volume. Using the CAD as the basis for 

determining compartment volumes may 

be particularly helpful when the 

geometric designs of the CRE make 

physical measurements in accordance 

with AHAM HRF–1–2008 difficult. 

Currently, DOE’s certification 

requirements in 10 CFR part 429 

include provisions for certifying volume 

for basic models of consumer 

refrigeration products, commercial gasfired and oil-fired instantaneous water 

heaters, and hot water supply boilers 

using CAD drawings. 10 CFR 429.72(c), 

(d), and (e). 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on whether allowing 

manufacturers to certify compartment 

volumes for CRE basic models using 

CAD drawings would introduce any 

testing or certification issues. 86 FR 

31182, 31192. DOE also requested 

information on the extent to which the 

use of CAD drawings may reduce 

manufacturer test burden. Id. 

ITW, AHRI, Arneg, True, and 

Hussmann commented in support of 

using CAD drawings to ensure 

appropriate volume measurements and 

minimize any errors. (ITW, No. 2, p. 11; 

AHRI, No. 3, p. 15; Arneg, No. 12, p. 2; 

True, No. 4, p. 22; Hussmann, No. 14, 

p. 18) AHRI and Hussmann commented 

that AHRI Standard 1200–202X has 

allowances for CAD drawings to 

illustrate volumes. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 15; 

Hussmann, No. 14, p. 18) Arneg 

commented that CRE cases can be 

manufactured to have curvature, such 

that the only accurate way of calculating 

volume would be to use CAD software. 

(Arneg, No. 12, p. 2) True commented 

that there should be a validation or 

verification process since this type of 

measurement depends on the CAD 

application user. (True, No. 4, p. 22) 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

calculating volume according to CAD 

drawings would reduce manufacturer 

test burden and may allow for more 

accurate measurements of volume for 

complicated cabinet designs. DOE is 

proposing to adopt provisions in 10 CFR 

part 429 to allow for certifying volume 

for basic models of CRE using CAD 

drawings. To ensure that volumes 

determined based on CAD drawings are 

consistent with testing actual 

production models, DOE proposes 

certain enforcement provisions in 

section III.J of this NOPR. 

I. Test Procedure Waivers 

A person may seek a waiver from the 

test procedure requirements for a 

particular basic model of a type of 

covered equipment when the basic 

model for which the petition for waiver 

is submitted contains one or more 

design characteristics that: (1) Prevent 

testing according to the prescribed test 

procedure, or (2) cause the prescribed 

test procedures to evaluate the basic 

model in a manner so unrepresentative 

of its true energy consumption 

characteristics as to provide materially 

inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 

431.401(a)(1). 

In addition to the test procedure 

waivers discussed, DOE has granted test 

procedures waivers to address certain 

CRE designed for specialized 

applications. Specifically, on September 

12, 2018, DOE published a test 

procedure waiver for ITW for testing 

specified basic models of grocery and 

general merchandise system (i.e., 

refrigerated storage allowing for order 

storage and customer pickup). 83 FR 

46148 (‘‘September 2018 Waiver’’). The 

specified basic models have 

characteristics that include floating 

suction temperatures for individual 

compartments, different typical dooropening cycles, and a high-temperature 

‘‘ambient’’ compartment. 83 FR 46148, 

46149. DOE has similarly granted 

Hussmann an interim waiver for testing 

CRE intended for short-term storage and 

designed for loading and retrieving 

product a limited number of times per 

day. 86 FR 40548 (July 28, 2021; ‘‘July 

2021 Interim Waiver’’). 

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested 

feedback on whether the test procedure 

waiver approach required under the 

September 2018 Waiver, which includes 

the same door opening approach as 

required in the July 2021 Interim 

Waiver, is generally appropriate for 

testing basic models with these features. 

86 FR 31182, 31193. 

AHRI, Hussmann, and ITW 

commented that the test procedure 

waivers are appropriate for testing basic 

models of CRE addressed by the 

waivers. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 16; Hussmann, 

No. 14, p. 19; ITW, No. 2, p. 11) ITW 

commented that the basic models 

outlined have little market penetration, 

availability, and appear to be single 

sourced, such that further effort is 

unwarranted. (ITW, No. 2, p. 11) 

The CA IOUs commented that several 

petitions for test procedure waivers 

have been submitted by manufactures 

and support the door opening 

methodology granted in those waivers. 

The CA IOUs asserted that an 8-second 

door opening cycle once every two 

hours for 10 hours seems more 

representative of real-world operation 

than door opening cycles once every 10 

minutes for eight hours in ASHRAE 72– 

2018). (CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 6–7) 

The CA IOUs review of product data 

for these units found these units are 

designed to operate in outdoor 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39211 

conditions or have configurations 

designed for outdoor environments and 

referenced the ASHRAE standard for 

testing beverage vending machines, 

which includes a test condition at 90 °F 

and 65 percent relative humidity to 

account for outdoor installations. (CA 

IOUs, No. 10, p. 6–7) 

DOE is proposing to adopt test 

procedure provisions to address the 

equipment characteristics at issue in the 

September 2018 Waiver and the July 

2021 Interim Waiver. For both waiver 

cases, the subject basic models are 

intended for short-term storage of 

refrigerated merchandise and limited 

door opening cycles per day; e.g., for 

holding customer orders and 

maintaining refrigerated temperatures 

until customer pickup. DOE 

understands that this equipment 

includes individual secured 

compartments that are accessible only to 

the customer for order retrieval—e.g., by 

providing the customer with a unique 

unlocking function to access the 

compartment. DOE also conducted a 

review of the market of this type of 

equipment and found similar 

characteristics and features in currently 

available models (e.g., contactless pickup of customer orders using digital 

locks). Therefore, DOE is proposing to 

define this equipment as ‘‘customer 

order storage cabinets’’ to differentiate it 

from other CRE. DOE is proposing to 

define ‘‘customer order storage 

cabinets’’ as CRE that store customer 

orders and include individual, secured 

compartments with doors that are 

accessible to customers for order 

retrieval. 

Consistent with the waiver and 

interim waiver, DOE is proposing that 

customer order storage cabinets be 

tested according to the conventional 

CRE test procedure, except that the door 

openings be conducted by opening each 

door to the fully open position for 8 

seconds, once every 2 hours, for 6 dooropening cycles. DOE has tentatively 

determined that this proposed 

approach, which is consistent with the 

September 2018 Waiver and the July 

2021 Interim Waiver, is representative 

of typical use of this equipment. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definition and term ‘‘customer 

order storage cabinet’’ to describe the 

equipment currently addressed in the 

September 2018 Waiver and the July 

2021 Interim Waiver. DOE requests 

comment on the proposal to test such 

equipment with reduced door openings, 

consistent with the waiver and interim 

waiver approach. 

In addition to the door opening 

cycles, the September 2018 Waiver 

specifies testing provisions for other 

characteristics of the specified basic 

models, including floating suction 

temperatures for individual 

compartments and the presence of a 

high-temperature ‘‘ambient’’ 

compartment. 83 FR 46148, 46149– 

46152. 

To address the floating suction 

temperature aspect of the basic models 

subject to the September 2018 Waiver, 

DOE requires the use of an alternate test 

approach for testing and rating the 

equipment in a manner similar to the 

remote CRE test procedure. 83 FR 

46148, 46151. Specifically, DOE 

requires that this equipment be tested 

using an inverse refrigeration load test 

(i.e., a reverse heat leak method). Id. 

This test allows for determining the 

thermal load of the cabinet at the 

specified storage temperatures without 

requiring refrigerant to be supplied to 

the unit (as refrigerant is supplied from 

an integral condensing unit). The 

September 2018 Waiver specifies 

calculating energy consumption 

associated with the thermal load based 

on assumed EERs, consistent with those 

specified in AHRI 1200–2010. 83 FR 

46148, 46151–46152. The calculations 

also account for component energy 

consumption and heat loads. Id. DOE is 

proposing to adopt this alternate test 

procedure for any customer order 

storage cabinets that supply refrigerant 

to multiple individual secured 

compartments and that allow the 

suction pressure from the evaporator in 

each individual secured compartment to 

float based on the temperature required 

to store the customer order in that 

individual secured compartment. 

For the high-temperature ‘‘ambient’’ 

compartments in the basic models 

specified in the September 2018 Waiver, 

DOE requires that testing be based on a 

75 °F storage temperature for these 

compartments and that the ambient 

compartment be treated as a medium 

temperature compartment at 75 °F. 83 

FR 46148, 46150. The September 2018 

Waiver also requires that all volume and 

energy consumption calculations be 

included within the medium 

temperature category and summed with 

other medium temperature 

compartment(s) calculations. Id. The 

September 2018 Waiver further requires 

that compartments that are convertible 

between ambient and refrigerator 

temperature ranges be tested at the 

refrigerator temperature (38 °F) and that 

compartments that are convertible 

between refrigerator and freezer (0 °F) 

temperature ranges be tested at both 

temperatures. Id. DOE is proposing to 

adopt the existing waiver instructions 

for customer order storage cabinets that 

have at least one individual secured 

compartment that is not capable of 

maintaining an IAT below the ambient 

dry-bulb temperature (i.e., the 

individual secured compartments may 

include refrigeration systems to ensure 

proper storage temperatures but are only 

intended to operate at an IAT of 75 °F 

± 2 °F and not at a LAPT or the specified 

refrigerator or freezer temperatures). 

Additionally, with the proposed 

introduction of high-temperature 

refrigerators, as discussed in sections 

III.A.1 and III.B.1.b of this NOPR, DOE 

is proposing that such compartments 

would be treated as high-temperature 

refrigerators rather than refrigerators 

upon the compliance date of any new 

energy conservation standards for hightemperature refrigerators. 

DOE requests comment on the 

additional proposed test procedure 

amendments that would allow for 

reverse heat leak testing of customer 

order storage cabinets with floating 

suction pressures for multiple different 

temperature compartments. 

J. Enforcement Provisions 

Subpart C of 10 CFR part 429 

establishes enforcement provisions 

applicable to covered products and 

covered equipment, including CRE. 

Product-specific enforcement provisions 

are established in 10 CFR 429.134. 

Various provisions in 10 CFR 429.134 

specify which ratings or measurements 

DOE will use to determine compliance 

with applicable energy or water 

conservation standards. Generally, DOE 

provides that the certified metric is used 

for enforcement purposes (e.g., 

calculation of the applicable energy 

conservation standard) if the average 

value measured during assessment and 

enforcement testing is within a specified 

percent of the rated value. Otherwise, 

the average measured value would be 

used. 

Section 10 CFR 429.134 currently 

does not contain product-specific 

enforcement provisions for CRE. 

However, DOE does currently provide 

product-specific enforcement provisions 

for refrigerated bottled or canned 

beverage vending machines, specifying 

that the certified refrigerated volume 

will be considered valid only if the 

measurement(s) (either the measured 

refrigerated volume for a single unit 

sample or the average of the measured 

refrigerated volumes for a multiple unit 

sample) is within five percent of the 

certified refrigerated volume. 10 CFR 

429.134(j)(1). The test procedure for 

measuring volume of beverage vending 

machines is consistent with the 

procedure required for CRE, and 

vending machines typically have 

volumes similar to those for CRE. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39212 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

34Available at www.regulations.doe.gov/ 

certification-data. 

Because of the same test methods and 

similar equipment sizes, DOE is 

proposing consistent product-specific 

enforcement provisions for CRE. 

Specifically, DOE proposes to add a new 

product-specific enforcement provision 

section stating that the certified volume 

for CRE will be considered valid only if 

the measurement(s) (either the 

measured volume for a single unit 

sample or the average of the measured 

volumes for a multiple unit sample) is 

within five percent of the certified 

volume; otherwise, the measured 

volume would be used as the basis for 

determining the applicable energy 

conservation standard. 

DOE has also established productspecific enforcement provisions for 

transparent areas of beverage vending 

machines. 10 CFR 429.134(j)(2). 

However, display area is only used to 

determine equipment class for beverage 

vending machines and TDA is not a 

metric used to determine applicable 

energy conservation standards. For 

consistency with the volume approach, 

DOE is proposing for CRE that the 

certified TDA for CRE will be 

considered valid only if the 

measurement(s) (either the measured 

TDA for a single unit sample or the 

average of the measured TDAs for a 

multiple unit sample) is within five 

percent of the certified TDA. If the 

certified TDA is found to not be valid, 

the measured TDA would be used to 

determine the applicable energy 

conservation standard. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed product-specific enforcement 

provisions for CRE. 

K. Lowest Application Product 

Temperature 

Section 2.2 of appendix B specifies 

that if a unit is not able to be operated 

at the specified IAT, the unit is tested 

at the LAPT, which is defined in 10 CFR 

431.62 as the lowest IAT at which a 

given basic model is capable of 

consistently operating (i.e., maintaining 

so as to comply with the steady-state 

stabilization requirements specified in 

ASHRAE 72–2005 for the purposes of 

testing under the DOE test procedure). 

Section 2.2 of appendix B specifies that 

for units equipped with a thermostat, 

LAPT is the lowest thermostat setting; 

for remote condensing equipment 

without a thermostat or other means of 

controlling temperature at the case, the 

LAPT is the temperature achieved with 

the dew point temperature (as defined 

in AHRI Standard 1200–2010) set to 5 

degrees colder than that required to 

maintain the manufacturer’s lowest 

specified application temperature. 

DOE’s compliance certification 

database 34 lists all CRE models certified 

to DOE, including the LAPT used for 

rating each model, if applicable. Of the 

28,478 single-compartment individual 

models included in the compliance 

certification database at the time of this 

analysis, 460 individual models are 

rated at LAPTs. Of these individual 

models, 77 are rated at LAPTs below the 

required test IAT. For example, multiple 

refrigerator models are rated at an IAT 

of 34 °F (instead of 38 °F ± 2 °F), and 

multiple freezer models are rated at an 

IAT of –7 °F (instead of 0 °F ± 2 °F). 

DOE is proposing to maintain the 

current LAPT provisions and add an 

additional provision for testing CRE that 

are only capable of maintaining 

temperatures below the specified IAT 

(or for buffet tables or preparation 

tables, the average pan temperature of 

all measurements taken during the test) 

range. For these units, DOE proposes to 

test at the highest thermostat setting. 

This would allow for testing the CRE 

under the setting closest to the required 

IAT (or for buffet tables or preparation 

tables, the average pan temperature of 

all measurements taken during the test). 

DOE proposes to amend the definition 

of LAPT in 10 CFR 431.62 to the 

following: 

‘‘Lowest application product 

temperature’’ means the integrated 

average temperature (or for buffet tables 

or preparation tables, the average pan 

temperature of all measurements taken 

during the test) at which a given basic 

model is capable of consistently 

operating that is closest to the integrated 

average temperature (or for buffet tables 

or preparation tables, the average pan 

temperature of all measurements taken 

during the test) specified for testing 

under the DOE test procedure. 

For testing, DOE is proposing to 

specify that if a unit is not able to 

operate at the integrated average 

temperature specified for testing, or 

average pan temperature, as applicable, 

test the unit at the LAPT, as defined in 

§ 431.62. DOE is proposing that for units 

equipped with a thermostat, LAPT is the 

lowest thermostat setting (for units that 

are only able to operate at temperatures 

above the specified integrated average 

temperature or average pan temperature) 

or the highest thermostat setting (for 

units that are only able to operate at 

temperatures below the specified 

integrated average temperature or 

average pan temperature). DOE is 

proposing that for remote condensing 

equipment without a thermostat or other 

means of controlling temperature at the 

case, the LAPT is the temperature 

achieved with the dew point 

temperature, or mid-point evaporator 

temperature for high-glide refrigerants 

(as defined in AHRI Standard 1200– 

202X), set to 5 degrees colder than that 

required to maintain the manufacturer’s 

specified application temperature 

closest to the specified integrated 

average temperature or average pan 

temperature. 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

this proposal would not affect current 

CRE ratings or testing costs because the 

models currently available on the 

market that would be tested under the 

newly proposed provision are already 

and testing and rating in accordance 

with the proposed approach. 

L. Removal of Obsolete Provisions 

The DOE test procedure in appendix 

B is required for testing CRE 

manufactured on or after March 28, 

2017, and appendix A applies to CRE 

manufactured prior to that date. As 

such, appendix A is now obsolete for 

new units being manufactured. 

Therefore, DOE is proposing to remove 

appendix A. DOE is not proposing to 

redesignate appendix B as appendix A 

in order to avoid confusion regarding 

the appropriate version of the test 

procedure required for use. 

Additionally, the title to appendix B 

is currently ‘‘Amended Uniform Test 

Method for the Measurement of Energy 

Consumption of Commercial 

Refrigerators, Freezers, and RefrigeratorFreezers.’’ To avoid confusion with the 

other test procedure amendments 

proposed in this NOPR, DOE is 

proposing to amend the title to 

appendix B to remove the word 

‘‘amended.’’ 

DOE is also proposing to remove 

outdated standards incorporated by 

reference in 10 CFR 431.63 that would 

no longer be referenced under the 

proposed test procedure. Specifically, 

DOE proposes to remove reference to 

ANSI/AHAM HRF–1–2004, AHAM 

HRF–1–2008, and ASHRAE 72–2005. 

DOE would maintain the listing of 

standards referenced in 10 CFR 431.66 

(‘‘Energy conservation standards and 

their effective dates’’) and would 

consider removing those referenced 

standards when proposing any 

amendments to that section of the CFR 

as part of any future amended energy 

conservation standards. 

M. Additional Topics Raised in 

Comments From Interested Parties 

In response to the June 2021 RFI, DOE 

received comments from interested 

parties on topics not raised in the RFI 

and not specifically related to the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39213 

35 Values calculated using the California Air 

Resources Board’s (‘‘CARB’’) Refrigerant Calculator. 

36See www.epa.gov/section608/refrigerantrecovery-and-recycling-equipment-certification. 

37 DOE has published a Federal Register notice 

undertaking an early assessment review for 

amended energy conservation standards for CRE to 

determine whether to amend applicable energy 

conservation standards for this equipment. 86 FR 

37708 (July 16, 2021). Documents related to this 

action are available in docket ID EERE–2017–BT– 

STD–0007, available at www.regulations.gov/ 

docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007. 

proposals presented in this NOPR. DOE 

summarizes and addresses these 

comments in the following sections. 

1. Refrigerant Leakages and Life Cycle 

Performance 

IGSD commented that the CRE test 

procedure should account for the energy 

performance impact of refrigerant 

leakages. (IGSD, No. 7, p. 1) IGSD 

commented that a typical supermarket 

refrigeration system has an average 

annual leak rate of 25 percent, according 

to the EPA. (Id.) IGSD commented that 

these leak rates must be known to 

accurately estimate the performance of 

CRE, since high leak rates result in 

undercharged refrigerant systems that 

significantly deteriorate energy 

efficiency. (Id.) IGSD asserted that this 

can result in up to 138 percent 

efficiency impact of annual energy 

consumption over a 15-year lifespan, 

increasing electricity use and electricity 

related emissions. (Id.) IGSD 

commented that use of leak detection 

and energy monitoring in one 

supermarket chain reduced electricity 

use by 23 million kWh per year. (Id.) 

IGSD commented that DOE should 

account for the greenhouse gas 

emissions associated with refrigerant 

leaks and that large commercial 

refrigeration units using common 

refrigerants (e.g., R–404A) have lifetime 

emissions over 22,000 tonnes of CO2

equivalent using 100-year GWPs and 

35,000 tonnes using 20-year GWPs.35

(IGSD, No. 7 at p. 2) IGSD commented 

that this inclusion would encourage the 

adoption of leak reduction strategies, 

thus improving energy efficiency and 

presents potential to capture large 

electricity savings and electricity-related 

GHG emissions. (Id.) 

IGSD further commented that the CRE 

test procedure should inform the 

lifecycle energy and climate 

performance of regulated equipment as 

sustainable procurement practices are 

becoming more widespread and 

information on CRE energy and climate 

performance is increasingly in demand. 

(IGSD, No. 7, p. 2) 

IGSD commented that in 2016, the 

International Institute for Refrigeration 

(‘‘IIR’’) released guidelines to harmonize 

life-cycle climate performance (‘‘LCCP’’) 

calculations for refrigeration systems 

and under these guidelines, emissions 

in LCCP assessments account for 

refrigerant charge, the average unit 

lifetimes, the annual leakage rates, and 

the end-of-life leakage rates, annual 

energy consumption, and the amount of 

CO2 emitted per kWh. IGSD commented 

the test requirements in the AHRI 1320– 

2011 or AHRI 1200–2010 should be 

collected to inform LCCP assessments 

that can be made using the IIR 

guidelines by DOE and its partner 

laboratories. (Id.) 

IGSD further commented that the CRE 

test procedure should inform 

refrigeration design requirements 

similar to those found in the European 

Union’s Eco-Design Directive (Directive 

2009/1255/EC), which recognizes the 

larger environmental impact of CRE, 

especially during servicing activities 

where refrigerant leakages are most 

likely to occur and should be developed 

in the US as well. (IGSD, No. 7 at p. 3) 

As discussed previously in this 

NOPR, the DOE test procedure for 

remote CRE assesses the thermal load of 

a refrigerated unit and estimates the 

compressor energy consumption 

associated with that thermal load based 

on Table 1 in AHRI 1200–2010. 

Refrigerant leakage is an aspect of 

refrigeration system design outside of 

the individual CRE model performance. 

Refrigerant charging, leak mitigation, 

and the associated energy consumption 

impacts are aspects of the overall 

refrigeration system based on 

installation, rather than metrics that can 

be quantified for basic models of CRE. 

DOE is not proposing to account for 

remote refrigerant leakages in its CRE 

test procedure. However, to the extent 

that refrigerant leakage could impact 

compressor efficiencies as specified in 

Table 1 in AHRI 1200–2010 and AHRI 

1200–202X, DOE welcomes additional 

information on whether different EER 

values would better represent actual 

operation for remote CRE. 

2. Refrigerant Collection for Remote 

Testing 

King commented, regarding remote 

testing, that DOE should establish a 

listing for non-profit organization 

recollection and distribution of 

refrigerants used during applicable 

testing and for finalized system sealant. 

(King, No. 9, p. 1) Refrigerant recovery 

and recycling requirements are 

established by EPA,36 not DOE. To the 

extent that third-party or manufacturer 

test facilities require the use of 

refrigerants to test remote CRE, it is the 

responsibility of the test facility to 

ensure proper use and collection of the 

refrigerants. 

3. Energy Conservation Standards 

In response to the June 2021 RFI, DOE 

received multiple comments from 

interested parties on topics related to 

the CRE test procedures, but more 

directly applicable to the consideration 

of new or amended energy conservation 

standards for CRE. Specifically, DOE 

received comments regarding topics 

related to energy conservation standards 

from the Joint Commenters, ITW, True, 

NEEA, AHRI, Hussmann, IGSD, CA 

IOUs, and Continental. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 8, p. 1–2; ITW, No. 2, 

p. 1–6; True, No. 4, p. 3–23; NEEA, No. 

5, p. 2–7; AHRI, No. 3, p. 3–15; 

Hussmann, No. 14, p. 5–10; IGSD, No. 

7, p. 3; CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 3–9; 

Continental, No. 6, p. 2) DOE will 

consider those comments as part of any 

subsequent rulemaking document 

related to energy conservation standards 

for CRE.37

N. Sampling Plan 

DOE’s current certification 

requirements mandate reporting of the 

chilled or frozen compartment volume 

in cubic feet, the adjusted volume in 

cubic feet, or the TDA (as appropriate 

for the equipment class). 10 CFR 

429.42(b)(2)(iii). However, the sampling 

plan requirements in 10 CFR 429.42(a) 

do not specify how to determine the 

represented value of volume or TDA for 

each basic model based on the test 

results from the sample of individual 

models tested. Similar to the 

requirements for other covered products 

and commercial equipment, DOE is 

proposing that any represented value of 

volume or TDA for the basic model be 

determined as the mean of the measured 

volumes or TDAs for the units in the 

test sample, based on the same tests 

used to determine the reported energy 

consumption. Although not currently 

specified in 10 CFR 429.42, DOE 

expects manufacturers are currently 

certifying CRE performance based on 

the tested volume and TDA. Therefore, 

this proposed amendment would clarify 

the certification requirements but not 

impose any additional burden on 

manufacturers. 

DOE seeks comment on the proposed 

sampling plan for CRE volume and 

TDA. 

O. Test Procedure Costs and 

Harmonization 

1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend 

the existing test procedure for CRE to: 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39214 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

(1) Establish new definitions for hightemperature refrigerator, mediumtemperature refrigerator, lowtemperature freezer, and amend the 

definition for ice-cream freezer. 

(2) Incorporate by reference the most 

current versions of industry standards 

AHRI 1200, ASHRAE 72, and AHRI 

1320–2011. 

(3) Establish definitions and test 

procedures for buffet tables and 

preparation tables. 

(4) Establish definitions and test 

procedures for blast chillers and blast 

freezers. 

(5) Amend the definition for chef base 

or griddle stand. 

(6) Specify alternate conditions for 

alternative refrigerants. 

(7) Allow for certification of 

compartment volumes based on CAD 

drawings. 

(8) Incorporate provisions for defrosts 

and customer order storage cabinets 

currently specified in waivers and 

interim waivers. 

(9) Adopt product-specific 

enforcement provisions. 

(10) Clarify use of the LAPT 

provisions. 

(11) Remove the obsolete test 

procedure in appendix A. 

(12) Specify a sampling plan for 

volume and TDA. 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

the proposed amendments to the test 

procedure for CRE currently subject to 

testing would not impact testing costs 

and manufacturers would be able to rely 

on data generated under the current test 

procedure should any of these 

additional proposed amendments be 

finalized. 

DOE is proposing to establish test 

procedures for additional categories of 

CRE not currently subject to the DOE 

test procedure: buffet tables or 

preparation tables, and blast chillers 

and blast freezers. If a manufacturer 

chooses to make representations of the 

energy consumption of this equipment, 

beginning 360 days after a final rule, 

were DOE to finalize the proposal, 

manufacturers would be required to test 

according to the proposed test 

procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). DOE 

discusses the costs associated with 

testing this equipment, if a 

manufacturer chooses to make 

representations of the energy 

consumption, in the following 

paragraphs. 

In a 2010 NOPR, DOE estimated CRE 

testing costs to be approximately $5,000 

per unit. 75 FR 71596, 71607 (November 

24, 2010). Based on testing at third-party 

test facilities, DOE has tentatively 

determined that $5,000 is still a 

representative CRE test cost based on 

the existing DOE test procedure. DOE 

has also tentatively determined that 

$5,000 is a representative per-test cost 

for the new test procedures proposed for 

the additional CRE categories (i.e., 

buffet tables or preparation tables, blast 

chillers, and blast freezers). 

For buffet tables and preparation 

tables, the overall test duration would 

be similar to the test duration for CRE 

currently subject to the test procedure. 

The test would be a 24-hour test and 

DOE is proposing stabilization 

requirements consistent with CRE 

currently subject to the test procedure. 

The proposed test setup would not 

require the use of test simulators or test 

filler materials loaded in any 

refrigerated compartments, but would 

require loading pans with distilled 

water and identifying the appropriate 

control setting to maintain the specified 

average temperatures. DOE expects the 

overall test burden associated with 

loading and determining appropriate 

control settings to be similar for testing 

buffet tables and preparation tables, as 

proposed, and other CRE currently 

subject to the test procedure. While DOE 

has not quantified the differences in test 

burden, DOE has initially determined 

that the test burden and duration for 

buffet and preparation tables is similar 

to CRE currently subject to the test 

procedure, and therefore the $5,000 pertest cost is appropriate. 

For blast chillers and blast freezers, 

the overall duration of a test as 

proposed would be shorter than the 24- 

hour test period and stabilization period 

required for CRE currently subject to the 

test procedure. As proposed, blast 

chiller and blast freezer testing would 

require the preparation of food 

simulator material, heating of that 

material to the specified temperature, 

loading of the heated test pans, and then 

conducting the test procedure as 

specified (DOE estimates approximately 

an 8-hour test duration per test). While 

DOE has not quantified the differences 

in test burden, DOE expects the 

increased test burden and decreased test 

burden to be comparable. Therefore, 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

$5,000 is a representative per-unit test 

cost for blast chillers and blast chillers, 

based on the test procedure proposed in 

this NOPR. 

Under the proposed test procedures, 

were a manufacturer to choose to make 

representations of the energy 

consumption of buffet tables or 

preparation tables, blast chillers, or blast 

freezers beginning 360 days after a final 

rule, were DOE to finalize the proposal, 

manufacturers would be required to 

base such representations on the DOE 

test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) 

Based on a review of blast chillers and 

blast freezers available on the market, 

DOE has determined that manufacturers 

make no claims regarding the energy 

consumption of their models. 

After establishing any test procedure 

for blast chillers and blast freezers, DOE 

expects that the manufacturers currently 

electing to make no claims regarding 

energy consumption would continue to 

do so. Therefore, DOE has tentatively 

determined that the proposed test 

procedure for blast chillers and blast 

freezers would not impact testing costs 

should the proposed test procedure be 

finalized. 

Buffet tables and preparation tables 

are currently subject to test procedures 

under the California Code of 

Regulations. DOE observed that to the 

extent that buffet table and preparation 

table manufacturers make 

representations regarding the energy 

consumption of their models, they do so 

in accordance with the California Code 

of Regulations. EPCA prescribes that, if 

DOE amends a test procedure, all 

representations of energy efficiency and 

energy use, including those made on 

marketing materials and product labels, 

must be made in accordance with that 

amended test procedure, beginning 360 

days after publication of such a test 

procedure final rule in the Federal 

Register. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)) 

Therefore, the manufacturers currently 

making representations of the energy 

consumption of buffet tables and 

preparation tables would be required to 

re-test according to the proposed test 

procedure beginning 360 days after the 

final rule, should DOE finalize the 

proposal, and may incur some re-testing 

costs associated with their buffet table 

and preparation table models. 

For any manufacturers not currently 

making representations of the energy 

use of buffet tables or preparation tables, 

blast chillers, or blast freezers, testing 

according to the proposed test 

procedure would not be required (other 

than if making voluntary 

representations of energy consumption) 

until the compliance date of any energy 

conservation standards for that 

equipment, should DOE adopt such 

standards. 

2. Harmonization With Industry 

Standards 

DOE’s established practice is to adopt 

relevant industry standards as DOE test 

procedures unless such methodology 

would be unduly burdensome to 

conduct or would not produce test 

results that reflect the energy efficiency, 

energy use, water use (as specified in 

EPCA) or estimated operating costs of 

that product during a representative 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39215 

38 In response to the June 2021 RFI, interested 

parties commented in reference to NSF 7–2019. 

NSF 7–2021 was published after the June 2021 RFI 

comment period ended. DOE did not observe any 

changes from the 2019 to 2021 version that would 

impact the comments received or DOE’s proposal to 

reference other industry standards rather than NSF 

7–2019 or NSF 7–2021. 

average use cycle. 10 CFR 431.4; Section 

8(c) of appendix A 10 CFR part 430 

subpart C. In cases where the industry 

standard does not meet EPCA statutory 

criteria for test procedures DOE will 

make modifications through the 

rulemaking process to these standards 

as the DOE test procedure. 

The test procedures for CRE at 10 CFR 

431.63 incorporates by reference AHRI 

1200–2010 for definitions, test rating 

conditions, and calculations; ASHRAE 

72–2005 for test conditions, equipment, 

measurements, and test conduct; and 

AHAM HRF–1–2008 for the volume 

measurement method. 

The industry standards DOE proposes 

to incorporate by reference via 

amendments described in this notice are 

discussed in further detail in section 

IV.N. DOE requests comments on the 

benefits and burdens of the proposed 

updates and additions to industry 

standards referenced in the test 

procedure for CRE. 

AHRI 1200–2010 has been updated to 

AHRI 1200–202X to provide additional 

direction regarding application of the 

standard and to provide volume 

measurement instructions (eliminating 

the need to reference AHAM HRF–1– 

2008). ASHRAE 72–2005 has similarly 

been updated in ASHRAE 72–2018R to 

reorganize the standard, provide 

updated setup instructions, revise the 

test sequence, and provide additional 

instructions for some test 

measurements. DOE has tentatively 

determined that these updates provide 

additional detail for testing but would 

otherwise not impact energy 

consumption measurements compared 

to the current approach. DOE is also 

proposing to incorporate by refence an 

existing industry standard for testing 

buffet tables and preparation tables: 

ASTM F2143–16. This standard 

provides instructions regarding setup 

and test conduct. 

DOE is also aware of the CRE industry 

standard NSF/ANSI 7–2021,38 which 

establishes minimum food protection 

and sanitation requirements for the 

materials, design, manufacture, 

construction, and performance of CRE 

and CRE components. 

P. Compliance Date and Waivers 

EPCA prescribes that, if DOE amends 

a test procedure, all representations of 

energy efficiency and energy use, 

including those made on marketing 

materials and product labels, must be 

made in accordance with that amended 

test procedure, beginning 360 days after 

publication of such a test procedure 

final rule in the Federal Register. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)) To the extent the 

modified test procedure proposed in 

this document is required only for the 

evaluation and issuance of updated 

efficiency standards, use of the modified 

test procedure, if finalized, would not 

be required until the compliance date of 

updated standards. 10 CFR 431.4; 

Section 8(d) of appendix A 10 CFR part 

430 subpart C. 

Upon the compliance date of test 

procedure provisions of an amended 

test procedure, should DOE issue a such 

an amendment, any waivers that had 

been previously issued and are in effect 

that pertain to issues addressed by such 

provisions are terminated. 10 CFR 

431.401(h)(3). Recipients of any such 

waivers would be required to test the 

products subject to the waiver according 

to the amended test procedure as of the 

compliance date of the amended test 

procedure. The amendments proposed 

in this document pertain to issues 

addressed by waivers and interim 

waivers granted to AHT (Case Nos. CR– 

006, 2017–007, 2020–023, 2020–025, 

2022–001, and 2022–002), ITW (Case 

No. CR–007), and Hussmann (Case No. 

2020–003). See sections III.F.1 and III.I 

of this NOPR for a discussion of the 

proposals to address the issues in the 

existing waivers and interim waivers. 

Were DOE to finalize the amendments 

pertaining to these waivers and interim 

waivers, at such time as testing were 

required according to the amended test 

procedure, the waivers and interim 

waivers granted to AHT, ITW, and 

Hussmann would terminate and they 

would be required to make 

representations based on the amended 

test procedure. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’)12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ as 

supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 

13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 

2011), requires agencies, to the extent 

permitted by law, to (1) propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that its benefits justify its 

costs (recognizing that some benefits 

and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) 

tailor regulations to impose the least 

burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives, taking 

into account, among other things, and to 

the extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. DOE emphasizes as 

well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to 

use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(‘‘OIRA’’) in the Office of Management 

and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) has emphasized 

that such techniques may include 

identifying changing future compliance 

costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, this proposed 

regulatory action is consistent with 

these principles. 

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also 

requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant 

regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review. 

OIRA has determined that this proposed 

regulatory action does not constitute a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, 

this action was not submitted to OIRA 

for review under E.O. 12866. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) for any rule that by 

law must be proposed for public 

comment, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule, if promulgated, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

As required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the DOE 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39216 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

39All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through Energy Act of 

2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020). 40 In 2005, ASHRAE combined Standard 72–1998, 

‘‘Method of Testing Open Refrigerators,’’ and 

Standard 117–2002 and published the test method 

as ASHRAE Standard 72–2005, ‘‘Method of Testing 

Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers,’’ which was 

approved by ANSI on July 29, 2005. 

41Available at: www.sba.gov/document/supporttable-size-standards. 

42 DOE’s CCD is available at 

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data (Last 

accessed January 26, 2022). 

43California Energy Commission’s MAEDbS is 

available at cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/ 

Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx (Last accessed 

January 26, 2022). 

44Panjiva Supply Chain Intelligence is available 

at: panjiva.com/import-export/United-States. 

45The Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers subscription 

login is available online at app.dnbhoovers.com/. 

Counsel’s website: www.energy.gov/gc/ 

office-general-counsel. 

DOE reviewed this proposed rule to 

amend the test procedures for CRE 

under the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the policies and 

procedures published on February 19, 

2003. 

1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is 

Being Considered 

DOE is proposing to amend the 

existing DOE test procedures for 

Commercial Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers (‘‘CRE’’). EPCA, 

as amended,39 requires that, at least 

once every 7 years, DOE evaluate test 

procedures for each type of covered 

equipment, including CRE, to determine 

whether amended test procedures 

would more accurately or fully comply 

with the requirements for the test 

procedures to not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct and be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results that reflect energy efficiency, 

energy use, and estimated operating 

costs during a representative average 

use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)) DOE is 

publishing this NOPR in satisfaction of 

the 7-year review requirement specified 

in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii)) 

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, 

Rule 

With respect to CRE, EPCA requires 

DOE to use the test procedure 

determined by the Secretary to be 

generally accepted industry standard, or 

industry standards developed or 

recognized by American Society of 

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

American National Standards Institute 

(‘‘ANSI’’), and the initial test procedures 

for self-contained CRE shall be the 

ASHRAE 117 test procedure that is in 

effect on January 1, 2005. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(6)(A)) Additionally, EPCA 

requires DOE to address whether to 

amend its test procedures if ASHRAE 

amends this standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(6)(E)–(F)) Finally, EPCA states if 

a test procedure other than the ASHRAE 

117 test procedure is approved by ANSI, 

a review of the relative strengths and 

weaknesses of the new test procedure 

relative to the ASHRAE 117 test 

procedure and adopt one new test 

procedure for use in the standards 

program. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(F)(i)) 40

EPCA also requires that, at least once 

every 7 years, DOE evaluate test 

procedures for each type of covered 

equipment, including CRE, to determine 

whether amended test procedures 

would more accurately or fully comply 

with the requirements for the test 

procedures to be reasonably designed to 

produce test results that reflect energy 

efficiency, energy use, and estimated 

operating costs during a representative 

average use cycle and not be unduly 

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

6314(a)(1)) 

DOE is publishing this NOPR in 

satisfaction of the 7-year review 

requirement specified in EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii)) 

3. Description and Estimate of Small 

Entities Regulated 

DOE uses the Small Business 

Administration (‘‘SBA’’) small business 

size standards to determine whether 

manufacturers qualify as ‘‘small 

businesses,’’ which are listed by the 

North American Industry Classification 

System (‘‘NAICS’’).41 The SBA 

considers a business entity to be small 

business if, together with its affiliates, it 

employs less than a threshold number of 

workers specified in 13 CFR part 121. 

CRE manufacturers, who produce the 

equipment covered by this proposed 

rule, are classified under NAICS code 

333415, ‘‘Air-conditioning and Warm 

Air Heating Equipment and Commercial 

and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a 

threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer 

for an entity to be considered a small 

business for this category. This 

employee threshold includes all 

employees in a business’s parent 

company and any other subsidiaries. 

DOE conducted a focused inquiry into 

manufacturers of equipment covered by 

this rulemaking. DOE accessed its 

Compliance Certification Database 

(‘‘CCD’’),42 California Energy 

Commission’s Modernized Appliance 

Efficiency Database System 

(‘‘MAEDbS’’),43 and other public 

sources, including manufacturer 

websites, to create a list of companies 

that produce, manufacture, import, or 

private label the CRE covered by this 

rulemaking. DOE then consulted other 

publicly available data, such as 

manufacturer specifications and product 

literature, import/export logs (e.g., bills 

of lading from Panjiva 44), and basic 

model numbers, to identify original 

equipment manufacturers (‘‘OEMs’’) of 

the equipment covered by this 

rulemaking. DOE further relied on 

public sources and subscription-based 

market research tools (e.g., Dun & 

Bradstreet reports 45) to determine 

company location, headcount, and 

annual revenue. DOE screened out 

companies that do not offer equipment 

covered by this proposed rulemaking, 

do not meet the SBA’s definition of a 

‘‘small business,’’ or are foreign-owned 

and operated. 

DOE initially identified 85 OEMs of 

CRE for the U.S. market. Of the 85 

OEMs identified, DOE estimates that 30 

qualify as small OEMs and are not 

foreign-owned and operated. 

4. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend 

the existing test procedure for CRE to: 

(1) Establish new definitions for hightemperature refrigerator, mediumtemperature refrigerator, lowtemperature freezer, and amend the 

definition for ice-cream freezer. 

(2) Incorporate by reference the most 

current versions of industry standards 

AHRI 1200, ASHRAE 72, and AHRI 

1320–2011. 

(3) Establish definitions and test 

procedures for buffet tables and 

preparation tables. 

(4) Establish definitions and test 

procedures for blast chillers and blast 

freezers. 

(5) Amend the definition for chef base 

or griddle stand. 

(6) Specify alternate conditions for 

alternative refrigerants. 

(7) Allow for certification of 

compartment volumes based on 

computer aided design (‘‘CAD’’) models. 

(8) Incorporate provisions for defrosts 

and customer order storage cabinets 

currently specified in waivers and 

interim waivers. 

(9) Adopt product-specific 

enforcement provisions. 

(10) Clarify use of the lowest 

application product temperature 

(‘‘LAPT’’) provisions. 

(11) Remove the obsolete test 

procedure in appendix A. 

(12) Specify a sampling plan for 

volume and total display area (‘‘TDA’’). 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

the proposed amendments to the test 

procedure for CRE currently subject to 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39217 

testing would not increase third-party 

lab testing costs per unit relative to the 

current DOE test procedure, which DOE 

estimates to be $5,000. Furthermore, 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

manufacturers would be able to rely on 

data generated under the current test 

procedure should any of these 

additional proposed amendments be 

finalized. Accordingly, DOE does not 

expect that manufacturers would be 

required to re-test or re-certify existing 

CRE models as a result of the proposals 

in this NOPR. 

For the proposed new test procedures 

for additional categories of CRE not 

currently subject to testing according to 

the DOE test procedure (i.e., buffet 

tables or preparation tables, blast 

chillers, or blast freezers), testing would 

not be required (other than making 

voluntary representations of energy 

consumption) until the compliance date 

of any energy conservation standards for 

equipment in these categories. DOE has 

initially determined that $5,000 is a 

representative per-unit test cost for blast 

chillers, blast freezers and buffet and 

preparation tables. Based on a review of 

commercially available blast chillers 

and blast freezers, DOE has determined 

that manufacturers make no claims 

regarding the energy consumption of 

their models. To the extent that buffet 

table and preparation table 

manufacturers make claims regarding 

the energy consumption of their models, 

DOE observed that they do so in 

accordance with the California Code of 

Regulations. The manufacturers 

currently making representations of the 

energy consumption of buffet tables and 

preparation tables would be required to 

test according to the proposed test 

procedure beginning 360 days after the 

final rule, should DOE finalize the 

proposal. 

DOE reviewed California Energy 

Commission’s MAEDbS and identified 

two small domestic OEMs currently 

making representations of the energy 

consumption of buffet table or 

preparation table models. According to 

MAEDbS, one small OEM makes claims 

regarding the energy consumption of 26 

buffet table or preparation table models 

and the other small OEM makes claims 

regarding the energy consumption of 20 

buffet table or preparation table models. 

Based on Dun & Bradstreet reports, both 

small OEMs have an estimated annual 

revenue of over $100 million. As 

previously discussed, DOE estimates a 

per-unit test cost of $5,000. Therefore, 

DOE estimates that the potential costs 

associated with re-testing would be 

minimal, accounting for approximately 

0.1 percent of annual revenue for both 

small businesses. 

DOE does not anticipate that the 

proposed test procedure amendments 

would result in increased testing costs 

for the vast majority of manufacturers, 

including small manufacturers. DOE 

estimates that two small businesses may 

incur some re-testing costs associated 

with their buffet table and preparation 

table models, should DOE adopt the 

proposed rule. However, DOE’s research 

indicates these costs would account for 

approximately 0.1 percent of annual 

revenue for both small OEMs identified. 

Therefore, DOE tentatively concludes 

that the proposed rule would not have 

a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

DOE requests comment on its initial 

conclusion that the amendments 

detailed in this NOPR would not have 

a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

5. Identification of Duplication, 

Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules 

and Regulations 

DOE is not aware of any rules or 

regulations that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the rule being considered 

in this action. 

6. A Description of Significant 

Alternatives to the Rule 

DOE does not expect that the 

proposals detailed in this NOPR will 

increase the test burden on 

manufacturers, including small 

businesses. Under EPCA, DOE is 

required to adopt generally accepted 

industry test standards, or industry test 

standards developed or recognized by 

the American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (‘‘ASHRAE’’) or American 

National Standards Institute (‘‘ANSI’’). 

(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(A)(i)) It is also 

DOE’s established practice to adopt 

relevant industry standards as DOE test 

procedures unless such methodology 

would be unduly burdensome to 

conduct or would not produce test 

results that reflect the energy efficiency, 

energy use, water use (as specified in 

EPCA) or estimated operating costs of 

that product during a representative 

average use cycle. 10 CFR 431.4; Section 

8(c) of appendix A 10 CFR part 430 

subpart C. DOE examined relevant 

industry test standards, and the 

Department incorporated these 

standards in the proposed test 

procedures whenever appropriate to 

reduce test burden to manufacturers. 

Specifically, this NOPR incorporates by 

reference the most current versions of 

industry standards AHRI 1200, 

ASHRAE 72, and AHRI 1320–2011. 

Additionally, manufacturers subject 

to DOE’s energy efficiency standards 

may apply to DOE’s Office of Hearings 

and Appeals for exception relief under 

certain circumstances. Manufacturers 

should refer to 10 CFR part 1003 for 

additional details. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

Manufacturers of CRE must certify to 

DOE that their products comply with 

any applicable energy conservation 

standards. To certify compliance, 

manufacturers must first obtain test data 

for their products according to the DOE 

test procedures, including any 

amendments adopted for those test 

procedures. DOE has established 

regulations for the certification and 

recordkeeping requirements for all 

covered consumer products and 

commercial equipment, including CRE. 

(See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The 

collection-of-information requirement 

for the certification and recordkeeping 

is subject to review and approval by 

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (‘‘PRA’’). This requirement has been 

approved by OMB under OMB control 

number 1910–1400. Public reporting 

burden for the certification is estimated 

to average 35 hours per response, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

DOE is not proposing to amend the 

certification or reporting requirements 

for CRE in this NOPR. Further, 

certification data will be required for 

buffet tables and preparation tables, and 

blast chillers and blast freezers; 

however, DOE is not proposing 

certification or reporting requirements 

for these categories of CRE in this 

NOPR. Instead, DOE may consider 

proposals to establish certification 

requirements and reporting for these 

equipment categories under a separate 

rulemaking regarding appliance and 

equipment certification. DOE will 

address changes to OMB Control 

Number 1910–1400 at that time, as 

necessary. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes test 

procedure amendments that it expects 

will be used to develop and implement 

future energy conservation standards for 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39218 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

CRE. DOE has determined that this rule 

falls into a class of actions that are 

categorically excluded from review 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) and DOE’s implementing 

regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. 

Specifically, DOE has determined that 

adopting test procedures for measuring 

energy efficiency of consumer products 

and industrial equipment is consistent 

with activities identified in 10 CFR part 

1021, appendix A to subpart D, A5 and 

A6. Accordingly, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have federalism implications. The 

Executive order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive order also requires agencies to 

have an accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 

published a statement of policy 

describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. DOE has examined this proposed 

rule and has determined that it would 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the products that are the subject of this 

proposed rule. States can petition DOE 

for exemption from such preemption to 

the extent, and based on criteria, set 

forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No 

further action is required by Executive 

Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity, (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation, (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard, and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation (1) clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation, (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction, (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately 

defines key terms, and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

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

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, the proposed 

rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at 

www.energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel. DOE examined this proposed 

rule according to UMRA and its 

statement of policy and determined that 

the rule contains neither an 

intergovernmental mandate, nor a 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

any year, so these requirements do not 

apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

proposed rule would not have any 

impact on the autonomy or integrity of 

the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this proposed 

regulation would not result in any 

takings that might require compensation 

under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

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

for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB 

Memorandum M–19–15, Improving 

Implementation of the Information 

Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE 

published updated guidelines which are 

available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/ 

files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final% 

20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines

%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has 

reviewed this proposed rule under the 

OMB and DOE guidelines and has 

concluded that it is consistent with 

applicable policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39219 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgated or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) 

is a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866, or any successor 

order; and (2) is likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is 

designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

The proposed regulatory action to 

amend the test procedure for measuring 

the energy efficiency of CRE is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it 

would not have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, nor has it been designated as 

a significant energy action by the 

Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is 

not a significant energy action, and, 

accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply 

with section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974, as amended 

by the Federal Energy Administration 

Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 

788; ‘‘FEAA’’) Section 32 essentially 

provides in relevant part that, where a 

proposed rule authorizes or requires use 

of commercial standards, the notice of 

proposed rulemaking must inform the 

public of the use and background of 

such standards. In addition, section 

32(c) requires DOE to consult with the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’) 

concerning the impact of the 

commercial or industry standards on 

competition. 

The proposed modifications to the 

test procedure for CRE would 

incorporate testing methods contained 

in certain sections of the following 

commercial standards: AHRI 1200– 

202X, AHRI 1320–2011, ASHRAE 72– 

2018R, and ASTM F2143–16. DOE has 

evaluated these standards and is unable 

to conclude whether they fully comply 

with the requirements of section 32(b) of 

the FEAA (i.e., whether it was 

developed in a manner that fully 

provides for public participation, 

comment, and review.) DOE will 

consult with both the Attorney General 

and the Chairman of the FTC 

concerning the impact of these test 

procedures on competition, prior to 

prescribing a final rule. 

M. Description of Materials 

Incorporated by Reference 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to 

incorporate by reference the test 

standard published by AHRI titled 

‘‘Performance Rating of Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 

Storage Cabinets.’’ AHRI 1200–202X is 

an industry-accepted test procedure that 

provides rating instructs, calculations, 

and methods for CRE. The test 

procedure proposed in this NOPR 

references AHRI 1200–202X for specific 

rating instructions, calculations, and 

rating methods for CRE. AHRI 1200– 

202X is a draft version of standard AHRI 

1200 that has not reached final 

publication, but the version discussed 

in this NOPR is available at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2017-BT-TP-0008. 

DOE also proposes to incorporate by 

reference the test standard published by 

AHRI titled ‘‘Performance Rating of 

Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets for 

Use With Secondary Refrigerants.’’ 

AHRI 1320–2011 is an industryaccepted test procedure that provides 

rating instructs, calculations, and 

methods for CRE used with secondary 

coolants. The test procedure proposed 

in this NOPR references AHRI 1320– 

2011 regarding specific provisions 

regarding secondary coolants, but 

otherwise references AHRI 1200–202X 

as discussed. AHRI 1320–2011 is 

available at ahri.net.org/searchstandards. 

DOE also proposes to incorporate by 

reference the test standard published by 

ASHRAE titled ‘‘Method of Testing 

Open and Closed Commercial 

Refrigerators and Freezers.’’ ASHRAE 

72–2018R is an industry-accepted test 

procedure that provides setup, 

instrumentation, measurement, and test 

conduct instructions for testing CRE. 

The test procedure proposed in this 

NOPR references ASHRAE 72–2018R as 

the basis for test setup and test conduct 

requirements. ASHRAE 72–2018R is a 

draft version of the standard that has not 

reached final publication, but the 

version discussed in this NOPR is 

available at www.regulations.gov/ 

docket/EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008. 

DOE also proposes to incorporate by 

reference the test standard published by 

ASTM titled ‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Performance of Refrigerated Buffet and 

Preparation Tables.’’ ASTM F2143–16 is 

an industry-accepted test procedure that 

provides setup, instrumentation, 

conditions, measurement, and test 

conduct instructions for testing buffet 

tables and preparation tables. The test 

procedure proposed in this NOPR 

references ASTM F2143–16 as the basis 

for test setup and test conduct for buffet 

tables and preparation tables. Copies of 

ASTM F2143–16 can be purchased at 

www.astm.org/f2143-16.html. 

ASTM E1084–86 (Reapproved 2009), 

which appears in the proposed 

regulatory text, has already been 

incorporated by reference for that text; 

no change is proposed. 

V. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

The time and date for the webinar 

meeting are listed in the DATES section 

at the beginning of this document. 

Webinar registration information, 

participant instructions, and 

information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants will be 

published at www.regulations.gov/ 

docket/EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008. 

Participants are responsible for ensuring 

their systems are compatible with the 

webinar software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

Any person who has an interest in the 

topics addressed in this notice, or who 

is representative of a group or class of 

persons that has an interest in these 

issues, may request an opportunity to 

make an oral presentation at the 

webinar. Such persons may submit to 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. Persons who wish to speak 

should include with their request a 

computer file in WordPerfect, Microsoft 

Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format 

that briefly describes the nature of their 

interest in this proposed rulemaking 

and the topics they wish to discuss. 

Such persons should also provide a 

daytime telephone number where they 

can be reached. 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the webinar and may also use 

a professional facilitator to aid 

discussion. The meeting will not be a 

judicial or evidentiary-type public 

hearing, but DOE will conduct it in 

accordance with section 336 of EPCA 

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

be present to record the proceedings and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39220 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

46 DOE has historically provided a 75-day 

comment period for test procedure NOPRs pursuant 

to the North American Free Trade Agreement, U.S.- 

Canada-Mexico (‘‘NAFTA’’), Dec. 17, 1992, 32 

I.L.M. 289 (1993); the North American Free Trade 

Agreement Implementation Act, Public Law 103– 

182, 107 Stat. 2057 (1993) (codified as amended at 

10 U.S.C.A. 2576) (1993) (‘‘NAFTA Implementation 

Act’’); and Executive Order 12889, ‘‘Implementation 

of the North American Free Trade Agreement,’’ 58 

FR 69681 (Dec. 30, 1993). However, on July 1, 2020, 

the Agreement between the United States of 

America, the United Mexican States, and the United 

Canadian States (‘‘USMCA’’), Nov. 30, 2018, 134 

Stat. 11 (i.e., the successor to NAFTA), went into 

effect, and Congress’s action in replacing NAFTA 

through the USMCA Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C. 

4501 et seq. (2020), implies the repeal of E.O. 12889 

and its 75-day comment period requirement for 

technical regulations. Thus, the controlling laws are 

EPCA and the USMCA Implementation Act. 

Consistent with EPCA’s public comment period 

requirements for consumer products, the USMCA 

only requires a minimum comment period of 60 

days. Consequently, DOE now provides a 60-day 

public comment period for test procedure NOPRs. 

prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the 

right to schedule the order of 

presentations and to establish the 

procedures governing the conduct of the 

webinar. There shall not be discussion 

of proprietary information, costs or 

prices, market share, or other 

commercial matters regulated by U.S. 

anti-trust laws. After the webinar and 

until the end of the comment period, 

interested parties may submit further 

comments on the proceedings and any 

aspect of the proposed rulemaking. 

The webinar will be conducted in an 

informal, conference style. DOE will 

present a general overview of the topics 

addressed in this proposed rulemaking, 

allow time for prepared general 

statements by participants, and 

encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this 

rulemaking. Each participant will be 

allowed to make a general statement 

(within time limits determined by DOE), 

before the discussion of specific topics. 

DOE will permit, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this proposed 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

webinar/public meeting will accept 

additional comments or questions from 

those attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

webinar. 

A transcript of the webinar will be 

included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the docket 

section at the beginning of this proposed 

rulemaking. In addition, any person 

may buy a copy of the transcript from 

the transcribing reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule.46 Interested parties 

may submit comments using any of the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this 

document. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies staff only. Your 

contact information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment or in any documents 

attached to your comment. Any 

information that you do not want to be 

publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Persons viewing comments will see only 

first and last names, organization 

names, correspondence containing 

comments, and any documents 

submitted with the comments. 

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(‘‘CBI’’)). Comments submitted through 

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

website will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through www.regulations.gov before 

posting. Normally, comments will be 

posted within a few days of being 

submitted. However, if large volumes of 

comments are being processed 

simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. 

Please keep the comment tracking 

number that www.regulations.gov 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via email also will be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information on a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. No faxes 

will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, written in English and free of 

any defects or viruses. Documents 

should not contain special characters or 

any form of encryption and, if possible, 

they should carry the electronic 

signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email two well-marked 

copies: one copy of the document 

marked confidential including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

non-confidential with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. DOE 

will make its own determination about 

the confidential status of the 

information and treat it according to its 

determination. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39221 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

(1) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed amended definition of icecream freezer, and on whether any 

additional characteristics may better 

differentiate this equipment from other 

commercial freezers. 

(2) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed amended definition for icecream freezer and the proposed 

definition for low-temperature freezer. 

(3) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definitions for hightemperature refrigerator and mediumtemperature refrigerator, including 

whether the terms should be mutually 

exclusive or constructed such that 

equipment could be considered to meet 

both definitions. 

(4) DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to specify the requirements 

from the April 2014 Final Rule 

regarding basic models of CRE that 

operate in multiple equipment classes. 

(5) DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to incorporate by reference 

AHRI 1200–202X and on whether the 

use of the updated test method would 

impact CRE ratings based on the current 

DOE test procedure. 

(6) DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to incorporate by reference 

AHRI 1200–202X, including the new 

provisions regarding high glide 

refrigerants. DOE also requests 

information on whether any remote 

condensing CRE are currently tested and 

rated using high glide refrigerants and 

whether the proposed test procedure 

would impact the rated energy 

consumption for such models. 

(7) DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to adopt a rating point of 55 °F 

± 2.0 °F for high-temperature 

refrigerators by adopting through 

reference certain provisions of AHRI 

1200–202X. 

(8) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to incorporate by reference 

ASHRAE 72–2018R, including on 

whether the updates included in the 

industry test standard would impact the 

measured energy consumption of any 

CRE currently available. 

(9) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed additional instructions 

regarding loading drawers. DOE 

requests information on whether the 

proposed approach is consistent with 

any future industry standard revisions 

to address this issue. DOE requests 

comment on whether other instructions 

for CRE with drawers should be revised 

(e.g., fully open definition for drawers) 

or if additional instructions are needed. 

(10) DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to incorporate by reference 

AHRI 1320–2011 for CRE used with 

secondary coolants, including the 

proposal to only reference the industry 

standard for provisions specific to 

secondary coolants and to otherwise 

reference AHRI 1200–202X, as proposed 

for other CRE. 

(11) DOE requests comment on the 

model regulation guidelines and on 

whether there are opportunities for DOE 

to harmonize its regulations with other 

regulations in place for CRE. 

(12) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definition for buffet table or 

preparation table. DOE requests 

information on whether any additional 

definitions are necessary for the 

purposes of testing this equipment, or 

whether any additional equipment 

characteristics are necessary to 

differentiate this equipment from other 

categories of CRE. 

(13) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to adopt through reference 

certain provisions of ASTM F2143–16 

as the basis for testing buffet tables and 

preparation tables. DOE also seeks 

comment on the proposal to specify test 

procedures only for self-contained 

buffet tables and preparation tables, 

consistent with ASTM F2143–16. 

(14) DOE requests comment on the 

proposal for testing buffet tables and 

preparation tables with test conditions 

(i.e., test chamber conditions, 

measurement location, and electric 

supply conditions) consistent with 

ASHRAE 72–2018R, with additional 

detail specific to buffet tables and 

preparation tables. 

(15) DOE requests comment on the 

proposal for testing buffet tables and 

preparation tables with test setup 

instructions consistent with ASHRAE 

72–2018R rather than ASTM F2143–16. 

(16) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed test loads and temperature 

measurement locations for buffet tables 

and preparation tables—i.e., distilled 

water in pans for the open-top 

refrigerated area and no load in any 

refrigerated compartment—consistent 

with the approach in ASTM F2143–16. 

(17) DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to account for defrosts when 

testing buffet tables and preparation 

tables, consistent with the approach in 

ASHRAE 72–2018R. 

(18) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to require loading pans in the 

open-top refrigerated area and not 

moving them to a refrigerated 

compartment, if applicable, during 

testing. 

(19) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed 24-hour test period, which is 

consistent with the approach in ASTM 

F2143–16. 

(20) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed door and cover opening 

procedures, which are consistent with 

the approach specified in ASTM F2143– 

16. DOE requests data and information 

on representative usage of buffet tables 

and preparation tables, including door 

and cover openings. 

(21) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed stabilization approach for 

buffet table and preparation table 

testing, which would reference the 

approach specified in ASHRAE 72– 

2018R. 

(22) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed approach for testing buffet 

tables and preparation tables based on 

separate pan and compartment average 

temperatures. DOE also requests 

feedback on the proposed target 

temperature of 38 °F ± 2 °F for each 

average temperature. 

(23) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed capacity metrics of pan 

storage volume, compartment volume, 

and pan display area. DOE requests 

feedback on the proposed methods for 

measuring each and the extent to which 

these metrics are relevant capacity 

metrics for buffet tables and preparation 

tables. 

(24) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed product-specific enforcement 

provisions regarding how DOE would 

determine whether a model meets the 

pull-down temperature application 

definition. DOE also requests data and 

comment on whether the proposed 

product-specific enforcement provisions 

sufficiently differentiate pull-down 

temperature applications from holding 

temperature applications. 

(25) DOE seeks comment on the 

proposed definitions of ‘‘blast chiller’’ 

and ‘‘blast freezer.’’ 

(26) DOE seeks comment on the 

proposal to establish test procedures for 

self-contained commercial blast chillers 

and blast freezers that have a 

refrigerated volume of up to 500 ft3. 

(27) DOE seeks comment on the 

proposal to incorporate certain 

provisions from the draft ASHRAE 220 

and certain deviations for the blast 

chillers and blast freezers test 

procedures. 

(28) DOE seeks comment on the 

proposal to reference section 4 and the 

relevant portions of Appendix A of 

ASHRAE 72–2018R for instrumentation 

requirements for the blast chiller and 

blast freezer test procedures. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39222 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

(29) DOE seeks comment on the 

proposal to require the dry-bulb 

temperatures specified in the tentative 

ASHRAE 220 draft and incorporate 

section 6.1 and Figure 6 of ASHRAE 72– 

2018R to specify the point TA where the 

dry-bulb temperatures are to be 

measured and the type of thermocouple 

to use when measuring dry-bulb in the 

blast chillers and blast freezers test 

procedures. 

(30) DOE seeks comment on the 

proposal to incorporate the portions of 

Appendix A in ASHRAE 72–2018R 

which specify the requirements for 

voltage and frequency in the blast 

chillers and blast freezers test 

procedures. 

(31) DOE seeks comment on whether 

any additional test conditions are 

appropriate for blast chiller and blast 

freezer testing, including those specified 

in Sections 6.2, 6.3, and Appendix A in 

ASHRAE 72–2018R. 

(32) DOE seeks comment on the 

proposal to incorporate Sections 5.1, 

5.2, 5.3 (including sub-sections 5.3.1 to 

5.3.17), and the relevant portions of 

Appendix A of ASHRAE 72–2018R, 

with the proposed deviations, for the 

blast chillers and blast freezers test 

procedures. 

(33) DOE seeks comment on the 

proposal to incorporate the relevant 

portions of Appendix A of ASHRAE 72– 

2018R for the electrical measurement 

locations for the blast chillers and blast 

freezers test procedures. 

(34) DOE seeks comment on the 

proposal to reference AHRI 1200–202X 

for measuring the refrigerated volume of 

blast chillers and blast freezers. 

(35) DOE seeks comment on the 

proposal to incorporate the standard 

product pan specifications in ASHRAE 

220 for the blast chillers and blast 

freezers test procedures. 

(36) DOE seeks comment on the 

proposed method to determine the 

number of pans required for testing blast 

chillers and blast freezers. 

(37) DOE seeks comment on the 

proposal to determine the tested 

product capacity for the blast chillers 

and blast freezers test procedures. 

(38) DOE seeks comment on the 

proposed method for distributing the 

pans within the test unit’s cabinet for 

testing blast chillers and blast freezers. 

(39) DOE seeks comment on the 

proposed method to determine which 

standard product pans would include 

temperature measurement sensors for 

the blast chillers and blast freezers test 

procedures. 

(40) DOE seeks comment on the 

proposed method of measuring the 

product temperature in the measured 

pans for the blast chillers and blast 

freezers test procedures. 

(41) DOE seeks comment on the 

proposed method for preparing the 

product medium mixture to be placed in 

the standard product pans for the blast 

chillers and blast freezers test 

procedures. 

(42) DOE seeks comment on the 

proposal to include pre-cooling and 

pull-down operating in the blast chiller 

and blast freezer test procedure and to 

not include any holding periods during 

testing. 

(43) DOE seeks comment on the 

proposed data recording rate for the 

blast chillers and blast freezers test 

procedures. 

(44) DOE seeks comment on the 

proposed data collection periods for the 

blast chillers and blast freezers test 

procedures. 

(45) DOE seeks comment on the 

proposed method to conduct the precool cycle for the blast chillers and blast 

freezers test procedures. 

(46) DOE seeks comment on the 

proposed method to load the prepared 

standard product pans into the test unit 

for the blast chillers and blast freezers 

test procedures. 

(47) DOE seeks comment on the 

proposed method to conduct the blast 

chilling or blast freezing test. 

(48) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed amendment to the definition 

for chef base or griddle stand, which 

specifies a maximum height of 32 

inches for this equipment. DOE requests 

information on any other identifiable 

equipment characteristics that may 

differentiate chef bases and griddle 

stands from other similar CRE. 

(49) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to test chef bases and griddle 

stands according to the test procedure 

used for other CRE. 

(50) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definition for mobile 

refrigerated cabinet. DOE also requests 

comment on the proposal to not 

establish test procedures for mobile 

refrigerated cabinets. 

(51) DOE requests comment on its 

tentative determination to not propose 

amended test procedures for dedicated 

remote condensing units. 

(52) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed approach to account for long 

duration defrost cycles using an 

optional two-part test procedure 

consistent with the existing waiver 

approach granted for such models. DOE 

also requests comment on whether any 

additional provisions are necessary to 

account for different defrost operation 

or controls, and on DOE’s proposed 

approach in which the test period 

would start with the defrost occurrence 

having the longest interval between 

defrosts. 

(53) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed alternate refrigerant 

conditions to be used for testing remote 

CRE with CO2 refrigerant. DOE requests 

comment on whether any other aspects 

of the current test procedure require 

amendment to allow for testing with 

CO2 or any other alternative 

refrigerants. 

(54) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definition and term ‘‘customer 

order storage cabinet’’ to describe the 

equipment currently addressed in the 

September 2018 Waiver and the July 

2021 Interim Waiver. DOE requests 

comment on the proposal to test such 

equipment with reduced door openings, 

consistent with the waiver and interim 

waiver approach. 

(55) DOE requests comment on the 

additional proposed test procedure 

amendments that would allow for 

reverse heat leak testing of customer 

order storage cabinets with floating 

suction pressures for multiple different 

temperature compartments. 

(56) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed product-specific enforcement 

provisions for CRE. 

(57) DOE seeks comment on the 

proposed sampling plan for CRE volume 

and TDA. 

(58) DOE requests comment on its 

initial conclusion that the amendments 

detailed in this NOPR would not have 

a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Small 

businesses. 

10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation test 

procedures, Incorporation by reference, 

and Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on June 15, 2022, by 

Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39223 

pursuant to delegated authority from the 

Secretary of Energy. That document 

with the original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on June 15, 

2022. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE is proposing to amend 

parts 429 and 431 of Chapter II of Title 

10, Code of Federal Regulations as set 

forth below: 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. Section 429.42 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) to read 

as follows: 

§ 429.42 Commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers. 

(a) * * * 

(3) Represented value calculations. 

The volume and total display area 

(TDA) of a basic model, as applicable, 

is the mean of the measured volumes 

and the mean of the measured TDAs, as 

applicable, for the tested units of the 

basic model, based on the same tests 

used to determine energy consumption. 

(4) Convertible equipment. Each basic 

model of commercial refrigerator, 

freezer, or refrigerator-freezer that is 

capable of operating at integrated 

average temperatures that span the 

operating temperature range of multiple 

equipment classes, either by adjusting a 

thermostat for a basic model or by the 

marketed, designed, or intended 

operation for a basic model with a 

remote condensing unit but without a 

thermostat, must determine the 

represented values, which includes the 

certified ratings, either by testing, in 

conjunction with the applicable 

sampling provisions, or by applying an 

AEDM to comply with the requirements 

necessary to certify to each equipment 

class that the basic model is capable of 

operating within. 

(i) Customer order storage cabinets. 

For customer order storage cabinets that 

have individual secured compartments 

that are convertible between the ≥32 °F 

and <32 °F operating temperatures, the 

customer order storage cabinets must 

determine the represented values, 

which includes the certified ratings, 

either by testing, in conjunction with 

the applicable sampling provisions, or 

by applying an AEDM with all 

convertible compartments either as 

medium temperature refrigerators or all 

convertible compartments as lowtemperature freezers, or at the lowest 

application product temperature for 

each equipment class as specified in 

§ 431.64 of this chapter, to comply with 

the requirements necessary to certify to 

each equipment class that the basic 

model is capable of operating within. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 429.72 is amended by 

adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 429.72 Alternative methods for 

determining non-energy ratings. 

* * * * * 

(f) Commercial refrigerators, freezers, 

and refrigerator-freezers. The volume of 

a basic model of a commercial 

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or 

freezer may be determined by 

performing a calculation of the volume 

based upon computer-aided design 

(CAD) models of the basic model in lieu 

of physical measurements of a 

production unit of the basic model. If 

volume is determined by performing a 

calculation of volume based on CAD 

drawings, any value of volume of the 

basic model reported to DOE in a 

certification of compliance in 

accordance with § 429.42(b)(2)(iii) must 

be calculated using the CAD-derived 

volume(s) and the applicable provisions 

in the test procedures in 10 CFR part 

431.64 for measuring volume. 

■ 4. Section 429.134 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (s) and (t) to read as 

follows: 

§ 429.134 Product-specific enforcement 

provisions. 

* * * * * 

(s) Reserved. 

(t) Commercial refrigerators, freezers, 

and refrigerator-freezers—(1) 

Verification of volume. The volume will 

be measured pursuant to the test 

requirements of 10 CFR part 431 for 

each unit tested. The results of the 

measurement(s) will be averaged and 

compared to the value of the certified 

volume of the basic model. The certified 

volume will be considered valid only if 

the average measured volume is within 

five percent of the certified volume. 

(i) If the certified volume is found to 

be valid, the certified volume will be 

used as the basis for determining the 

maximum daily energy consumption 

allowed for the basic model. 

(ii) If the certified volume is found to 

be invalid, the average measured 

volume of the units in the sample will 

be used as the basis for determining the 

maximum daily energy consumption 

allowed for the basic model. 

(2) Verification of total display area. 

The total display area will be measured 

pursuant to the test requirements of 10 

CFR part 431 for each unit tested. The 

results of the measurement(s) will be 

averaged and compared to the value of 

the certified total display area of the 

basic model. The certified total display 

area will be considered valid only if the 

average measured total display area is 

within five percent of the certified total 

display area. 

(i) If the certified total display area is 

found to be valid, the certified total 

display area will be used as the basis for 

determining the maximum daily energy 

consumption allowed for the basic 

model. 

(ii) If the certified total display area is 

found to be invalid, the average 

measured total display area of the units 

in the sample will be used as the basis 

for determining the maximum daily 

energy consumption allowed for the 

basic model. 

(3) Determination of pull-down 

temperature application. A 

classification of a basic model as pulldown temperature application will be 

considered valid only if a model meets 

the definition of pull-down temperature 

application specified in § 431.62 of this 

chapter as follows. 

(i) 12-ounce beverage can 

temperatures will be measured for 12- 

ounce beverage cans loaded at the 

locations within the commercial 

refrigerator that are as close as possible 

to the locations that would be measured 

by test simulators according to the test 

procedure for commercial refrigerators 

specified in § 431.64 of this chapter. 

(ii) The commercial refrigerator will 

be operated at ambient conditions 

consistent with those specified for 

commercial refrigerators in § 431.64 of 

this chapter and at the control setting 

necessary to achieve a stable integrated 

average temperature of 38 °F, prior to 

loading. 

(iii) 12-ounce beverage cans to be 

fully loaded into the commercial 

refrigerator (with and without 

temperature measurements) will be 

maintained at 90 °F ± 2 °F based on the 

average measured 12-ounce beverage 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39224 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

can temperatures prior to loading into 

the commercial refrigerator. 

(iv) The duration of pull-down (which 

must be 12 hours or less) will be 

determined starting from closing the 

commercial refrigerator door after 

completing the 12-ounce beverage can 

loading until the integrated average 

temperature reaches 38 °F ± 2 °F. 

(v) An average stable temperature of 

38 °F will be determined by operating 

the commercial refrigerator for an 

additional 12 hours after initially 

reaching 38 °F ± 2 °F with no changes to 

control settings, and determining an 

integrated average temperature of 38 °F 

± 2 °F at the end of the 12 hour stability 

period. 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 6. Section 431.62 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.62 Definitions concerning 

commercial refrigerators, freezers and 

refrigerator-freezers. 

Air-curtain angle means: 

(1) For equipment without doors and 

without a discharge air grille or 

discharge air honeycomb, the angle 

between a vertical line extended down 

from the highest point on the 

manufacturer’s recommended load limit 

line and the load limit line itself, when 

the equipment is viewed in crosssection; and 

(2) For all other equipment without 

doors, the angle formed between a 

vertical line and the straight line drawn 

by connecting the point at the inside 

edge of the discharge air opening with 

the point at the inside edge of the return 

air opening, when the equipment is 

viewed in cross-section. 

Basic model means all commercial 

refrigeration equipment manufactured 

by one manufacturer within a single 

equipment class, having the same 

primary energy source, and that have 

essentially identical electrical, physical, 

and functional characteristics that affect 

energy consumption. 

Blast chiller means commercial 

refrigeration equipment, other than a 

blast freezer, that is capable of the rapid 

temperature pull-down of hot food 

products from 135 °F to 40 °F within a 

period of four hours, when measured 

according to the test procedure at 

appendix D to subpart C of part 431. 

Blast freezer means commercial 

refrigeration equipment that is capable 

of the rapid temperature pull-down of 

hot food products from 135 °F to 40 °F 

within a period of four hours and 

capable of achieving a final product 

temperature of less than 32 °F, when 

measured according to the test 

procedure at appendix D to subpart C of 

part 431. 

Buffet table or preparation table 

means a commercial refrigerator with an 

open-top refrigerated area, that may or 

may not include a lid, for displaying or 

storing merchandise and other 

perishable materials in pans or other 

removable containers for customer selfservice or food production and 

assembly. The unit may or may not be 

equipped with a refrigerated storage 

compartment underneath the pans or 

other removable containers that is not 

thermally separated from the open-top 

refrigerated area. 

Chef base or griddle stand means 

commercial refrigeration equipment that 

has a maximum height of 32 inches, 

including any legs or casters, and that 

is designed and marketed for the 

express purpose of having a griddle or 

other cooking appliance placed on top 

of it that is capable of reaching 

temperatures hot enough to cook food. 

Closed solid means equipment with 

doors, and in which more than 75 

percent of the outer surface area of all 

doors on a unit are not transparent. 

Closed transparent means equipment 

with doors, and in which 25 percent or 

more of the outer surface area of all 

doors on the unit are transparent. 

Commercial freezer means a unit of 

commercial refrigeration equipment in 

which all refrigerated compartments in 

the unit are capable of operating below 

32 °F (±2 °F). 

Commercial hybrid means a unit of 

commercial refrigeration equipment: 

(1) That consists of two or more 

thermally separated refrigerated 

compartments that are in two or more 

different equipment families, and 

(2) That is sold as a single unit. 

Commercial refrigerator means a unit 

of commercial refrigeration equipment 

in which all refrigerated compartments 

in the unit are capable of operating at or 

above 32 °F (±2 °F). 

Commercial refrigerator-freezer means 

a unit of commercial refrigeration 

equipment consisting of two or more 

refrigerated compartments where at 

least one refrigerated compartment is 

capable of operating at or above 32 °F 

(±2 °F) and at least one refrigerated 

compartment is capable of operating 

below 32 °F (±2 °F). 

Commercial refrigerator, freezer, and 

refrigerator-freezer means refrigeration 

equipment that - 

(1) Is not a consumer product (as 

defined in § 430.2); 

(2) Is not designed and marketed 

exclusively for medical, scientific, or 

research purposes; 

(3) Operates at a chilled, frozen, 

combination chilled and frozen, or 

variable temperature; 

(4) Displays or stores merchandise 

and other perishable materials 

horizontally, semi-vertically, or 

vertically; 

(5) Has transparent or solid doors, 

sliding or hinged doors, a combination 

of hinged, sliding, transparent, or solid 

doors, or no doors; 

(6) Is designed for pull-down 

temperature applications or holding 

temperature applications; and 

(7) Is connected to a self-contained 

condensing unit or to a remote 

condensing unit. 

Customer order storage cabinet means 

a commercial refrigerator, freezer, or 

refrigerator-freezer that stores customer 

orders and includes individual, secured 

compartments with doors that are 

accessible to customers for order 

retrieval. 

Door means a movable panel that 

separates the interior volume of a unit 

of commercial refrigeration equipment 

from the ambient environment and is 

designed to facilitate access to the 

refrigerated space for the purpose of 

loading and unloading product. This 

includes hinged doors, sliding doors, 

and drawers. This does not include 

night curtains. 

Door angle means: 

(1) For equipment with flat doors, the 

angle between a vertical line and the 

line formed by the plane of the door, 

when the equipment is viewed in crosssection; and 

(2) For equipment with curved doors, 

the angle formed between a vertical line 

and the straight line drawn by 

connecting the top and bottom points 

where the display area glass joins the 

cabinet, when the equipment is viewed 

in cross-section. 

High-temperature refrigerator means a 

commercial refrigerator that is not 

capable of operating with an integrated 

average temperature as low as 38.0 °F 

(±2.0 °F). 

Holding temperature application 

means a use of commercial refrigeration 

equipment other than a pull-down 

temperature application, except a blast 

chiller or freezer. 

Horizontal Closed means equipment 

with hinged or sliding doors and a door 

angle greater than or equal to 45°. 

Horizontal Open means equipment 

without doors and an air-curtain angle 

greater than or equal to 80° from the 

vertical. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39225 

Ice-cream freezer means: 

(1) Prior to the compliance date(s) of 

any amended energy conservation 

standard(s) for ice-cream freezers, a 

commercial freezer that is designed to 

operate at or below ¥5.0 °F (±2.0 °F) and 

that the manufacturer designs, markets, 

or intends for the storing, displaying, or 

dispensing of frozen desserts; or 

(2) Upon the compliance date(s) of 

any amended energy conservation 

standard(s) for ice-cream freezers, a 

commercial freezer that is designed for 

an operating temperature at or below 

¥15.0 °F (±2.0 °F) and that the 

manufacturer designs, markets, or 

intends for the storing, displaying, or 

dispensing of frozen desserts. 

Integrated average temperature means 

the average temperature of all test 

package measurements taken during the 

test. 

Lighting occupancy sensor means a 

device which uses passive infrared, 

ultrasonic, or other motion-sensing 

technology to automatically turn off or 

dim lights within the equipment when 

no motion is detected in the sensor’s 

coverage area for a certain preset period 

of time. 

Lowest application product 

temperature means the integrated 

average temperature (or for buffet tables 

or preparation tables, the average pan 

temperature of all measurements taken 

during the test) at which a given basic 

model is capable of consistently 

operating that is closest to the integrated 

average temperature (or for buffet tables 

or preparation tables, the average pan 

temperature of all measurements taken 

during the test) specified for testing 

under the DOE test procedure. 

Low-temperature freezer means a 

commercial freezer that is not an icecream freezer. 

Medium-temperature refrigerator 

means a commercial refrigerator that is 

capable of operating with an integrated 

average temperature of 38.0 °F (±2 °F), or 

lower. 

Mobile refrigerated cabinet means 

commercial refrigeration equipment that 

is designed and marketed to operate 

only without a continuous power 

supply. 

Night curtain means a device which is 

temporarily deployed to decrease air 

exchange and heat transfer between the 

refrigerated case and the surrounding 

environment. 

Operating temperature means the 

range of integrated average temperatures 

at which a self-contained commercial 

refrigeration unit or remote-condensing 

commercial refrigeration unit with a 

thermostat is capable of operating or, in 

the case of a remote-condensing 

commercial refrigeration unit without a 

thermostat, the range of integrated 

average temperatures at which the unit 

is marketed, designed, or intended to 

operate. 

Pull-down temperature application 

means a commercial refrigerator with 

doors that, when fully loaded with 12 

ounce beverage cans at 90 degrees F, can 

cool those beverages to an average stable 

temperature of 38 degrees F in 12 hours 

or less. 

Rating temperature means the 

integrated average temperature a unit 

must maintain during testing (i.e., either 

as listed in the table at § 431.66(d)(1) or 

the lowest application product 

temperature). 

Remote condensing unit means a 

factory-made assembly of refrigerating 

components designed to compress and 

liquefy a specific refrigerant that is 

remotely located from the refrigerated 

equipment and consists of 1 or more 

refrigerant compressors, refrigerant 

condensers, condenser fans and motors, 

and factory supplied accessories. 

Scheduled lighting control means a 

device which automatically shuts off or 

dims the lighting in a display case at 

scheduled times throughout the day. 

Self-contained condensing unit means 

a factory-made assembly of refrigerating 

components designed to compress and 

liquefy a specific refrigerant that is an 

integral part of the refrigerated 

equipment and consists of 1 or more 

refrigerant compressors, refrigerant 

condensers, condenser fans and motors, 

and factory supplied accessories. 

Semivertical Open means equipment 

without doors and an air-curtain angle 

greater than or equal to 10° and less 

than 80° from the vertical. 

Service over counter means 

equipment that has sliding or hinged 

doors in the back intended for use by 

sales personnel, with glass or other 

transparent material in the front for 

displaying merchandise, and that has a 

height not greater than 66 inches and is 

intended to serve as a counter for 

transactions between sales personnel 

and customers. 

Test package means a packaged 

material that is used as a standard 

product temperature-measuring device. 

Transparent means greater than or 

equal to 45 percent light transmittance, 

as determined in accordance with 

ASTM E1084–86 (Reapproved 2009), 

(incorporated by reference, see § 431.63) 

at normal incidence and in the intended 

direction of viewing. 

Vertical Closed means equipment 

with hinged or sliding doors and a door 

angle less than 45°. 

Vertical Open means equipment 

without doors and an air-curtain angle 

greater than or equal to 0° and less than 

10° from the vertical. 

Wedge case means a commercial 

refrigerator, freezer, or refrigeratorfreezer that forms the transition between 

two regularly shaped display cases. 

■ 7. Section 431.63 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.63 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this subpart with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce 

any edition other than that specified in 

this section, the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) must publish a document 

in the Federal Register and the material 

must be available to the public. All 

approved incorporation by reference 

(IBR) material is available for inspection 

at DOE and at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). 

Contact DOE at: the U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Sixth Floor, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 

20024, (202) 586–9127, Buildings@

ee.doe.gov, https://www.energy.gov/ 

eere/buildings/building-technologiesoffice. For information on the 

availability of this material at NARA, 

email: fr.inspection@nara.gov, or go to: 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ 

ibr-locations.html. The material may be 

obtained from the following sources: 

(a) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating, 

and Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson 

Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201; 

(703) 524–8800; ahri@ahrinet.org; 

www.ahrinet.org/Content/ 

StandardsProgram_20.aspx. 

(1) ARI Standard 1200–2006, 

Performance Rating of Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 

Storage Cabinets, 2006; IBR approved 

for § 431.66. 

(2) AHRI Standard 1200 (I–P)–2010, 

2010 Standard for Performance Rating 

of Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets, 

2010; IBR approved for § 431.66. 

(3) AHRI Standard 1200–202X (AHRI 

1200–202X), Performance Rating of 

Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets, 

[publication expected 2022]; IBR 

approved for the following appendices 

to this subpart: B; C; D. 

(4) AHRI Standard 1320 (I–P), (AHRI 

1320–2011) 2 Performance Rating of 

Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets for 

Use With Secondary Refrigerants, 2011 

IBR approved for the following 

appendices to this subpart: B. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39226 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

(b) ASHRAE. The American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning Engineers, Inc., 1971 

Tullie Circle NE, Atlanta, GA 30329; 

(404) 636–8400; www.ashrae.org/. (1) 

ASHRAE Standard 72–2018R (ASHRAE 

72–2018R), Method of Testing Open and 

Closed Commercial Refrigerators and 

Freezers, [publication expected 2022]; 

IBR approved for the following 

appendices to this subpart: B; C; D. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(c) ASTM. ASTM International, 100 

Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428; (877) 909– 

2786; www.astm.org/. 

(1) ASTM E1084–86 (Reapproved 

2009), Standard Test Method for Solar 

Transmittance (Terrestrial) of Sheet 

Materials Using Sunlight, approved 

April 1, 2009; IBR approved for 

§ 431.62. (2) ASTM F2143–16, Standard 

Test Method for Performance of 

Refrigerated Buffet and Preparation 

Tables, approved May 1, 2016; IBR 

approved for the following appendices 

to this subpart: C. 

■ 8. Section 431.64 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.64 Uniform test method for the 

measurement of energy consumption of 

commercial refrigerators, freezers, and 

refrigerator-freezers. 

(a) Scope. This section provides the 

test procedures for measuring, pursuant 

to EPCA, the energy consumption or 

energy efficiency for a given equipment 

category of commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers. 

(b) Testing and calculations. (1) 

Determine the daily energy 

consumption and volume or total 

display area of each covered commercial 

refrigerator, freezer, or refrigeratorfreezer by conducting the appropriate 

test procedure set forth in appendix B 

to this subpart. The daily energy 

consumption of commercial 

refrigeration equipment shall be 

calculated using raw measured values 

and the final test results shall be 

reported in increments of 0.01 kWh/day. 

(2) Determine the daily energy 

consumption and pan storage volume, 

pan display area, and refrigerated 

volume of each buffet table or 

preparation table by conducting the 

appropriate test procedure set forth in 

appendix C to this subpart. The daily 

energy consumption shall be calculated 

using raw measured values and the final 

test results shall be recorded in 

increments of 0.01 kWh/day. 

(3) Determine the energy consumption 

per weight of product and product 

capacity of each blast chiller and blast 

freezer by conducting the appropriate 

test procedure set forth in appendix D 

to this subpart. The energy consumption 

per weight of product shall be 

calculated using raw measured values 

and the final test results shall be 

recorded in increments of 0.01 kWh/lb. 

Appendix A [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 9. Appendix A to subpart C of part 

431is removed and reserved. 

■ 10. Appendix B to subpart C of part 

431 is revised to read as follows: 

Appendix B to Subpart C of Part 431— 

Uniform Test Method for the 

Measurement of Energy Consumption of 

Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, 

and Refrigerator-Freezers 

Note: Prior to [date 360 days after 

publication of final rule], any 

representations, including for certification of 

compliance, made with respect to the energy 

use or efficiency of commercial refrigeration 

equipment, except for buffet tables or 

preparation tables, blast chillers, blast 

freezers, or mobile refrigerated cabinets, must 

be made in accordance with the results of 

testing pursuant to this appendix that was in 

place on January 1, 2022. On and after [date 

360 days after publication of final rule], any 

representations, including for certification of 

compliance, made with respect to the energy 

use or efficiency of commercial refrigeration 

equipment, except for buffet tables or 

preparation tables, blast chillers, blast 

freezers, or mobile refrigerated cabinets, must 

be made in accordance with the results of 

testing pursuant to this appendix. 

The test procedure for equipment cooled 

only by secondary coolants in section 1.1.3 

of this appendix is not required for use until 

the compliance date(s) of any amended 

energy conservation standard(s) for such 

commercial refrigeration equipment. 

High-temperature refrigerators must be 

tested as medium-temperature refrigerators 

according to section 2.1.3 of this appendix 

based on the lowest application product 

temperature until the compliance date(s) of 

any amended energy conservation 

standard(s) established for high-temperature 

refrigerators. On and after the compliance 

date(s) of such energy conservation 

standard(s), high-temperature refrigerators 

must be tested pursuant to this appendix. 

0. Incorporation by Reference 

DOE incorporated by reference in § 431.63 

the entire standard for AHRI 1200–202X; 

AHRI 1320–2011; and ASHRAE 72–2018R. 

However, only enumerated provisions of 

those documents are applicable to this 

appendix as follows: 

0.1. AHRI 1200–202X 

0.1.1. Section 3, ‘‘Definitions,’’ Section 4, 

‘‘Test Requirements,’’ and Section 7, 

‘‘Symbols and Subscripts’’ as referenced in 

section 1.1 of this appendix. 

0.1.2. Section 6, ‘‘Rating Requirements for 

Self-contained Commercial Refrigerated 

Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets’’ 

as referenced in section 1.1.1 of this 

appendix. 

0.1.3. Section 5, ‘‘Rating Requirements for 

Remote Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets’’ as 

referenced in section 1.1.2 of this appendix. 

0.1.4. Appendix C, ‘‘Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandiser and 

Storage Cabinet Refrigerated Volume 

Calculation—Normative’’ as referenced in 

section 3.1 of this appendix. 

0.2. AHRI 1320–2011 

0.2.1. Sections 5.2.7 and 5.2.8 as referenced 

in section 1.1.3 of this appendix. 

1. Test Procedure 

1.1. Determination of Daily Energy 

Consumption. Determine the daily energy 

consumption of each covered commercial 

refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-freezer by 

conducting the test procedure set forth in the 

AHRI 1200–202X, Section 3, ‘‘Definitions,’’ 

Section 4, ‘‘Test Requirements,’’ and Section 

7, ‘‘Symbols and Subscripts’’. References to 

ASHRAE Standard 72 refer to ASHRAE 72– 

2018R. 

1.1.1. For each commercial refrigerator, 

freezer, or refrigerator-freezer with a selfcontained condensing unit, also use AHRI 

1200–202X, Section 6, ‘‘Rating Requirements 

for Self-contained Commercial Refrigerated 

Display Merchandisers and Storage 

Cabinets.’’ 

1.1.2. For each commercial refrigerator, 

freezer, or refrigerator-freezer with a remote 

condensing unit, also use AHRI 1200–202X, 

Section 5, ‘‘Rating Requirements for Remote 

Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets.’’ 

1.1.3. For each commercial refrigerator, 

freezer, or refrigerator-freezer used with a 

secondary coolant, test according to section 

1.1.2 of this appendix, except in place of the 

equations for CDEC and CEC in Sections 5.2 

and 5.2.1 of AHRI 1200–202X, respectively, 

apply the following equations: 

CDEC = CEC + [FEC + LEC + AEC + DEC + 

PEC]* + CPEC 

CEC = [(Qrt + QCP) · (t—tdt)]/(EER · 1000) 

Where CPEC and QCP are as specified in 

Sections 5.2.7 and 5.2.8 of AHRI 1320–2011 

and EER is determined based on a 

temperature that is 6.0 °F lower than the 

secondary coolant cabinet inlet temperature. 

1.2. Methodology for Determining 

Applicability of Transparent Door Equipment 

Families. To determine if a door for a given 

model of commercial refrigeration equipment 

is transparent: (1) Calculate the outer door 

surface area including frames and mullions; 

(2) calculate the transparent surface area 

within the outer door surface area excluding 

frames and mullions; (3) calculate the ratio 

of (2) to (1) for each of the outer doors; and 

(4) the ratio for the transparent surface area 

of all outer doors must be greater than 0.25 

to qualify as a transparent equipment family. 

1.3. Drawers. Drawers shall be treated as 

identical to doors when conducting the DOE 

test procedure. Commercial refrigeration 

equipment with drawers shall be configured 

with Gastronorm food service pans, installed 

per the manufacturer’s instructions to the 

maximum size pan configuration specified. 

The net usable volume where test simulators 

are not required shall be filled with filler 

material so that between 60 percent and 80 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39227 

percent of the net usable volume is uniformly 

occupied by filler material. Packing of test 

simulators and filler packages shall be in 

accordance with the requirements for 

commercial refrigerators without shelves, as 

specified in Section 5.4.4 of ASHRAE 72– 

2018R. Specifically, the net usable volume is 

the storage volume of the pans up to the top 

edge of the pan. Test simulators shall be 

placed at the corner locations of each pan. 

For any pans not wide or deep enough to 

allow for test simulators at each corner (i.e., 

not enough space to have test simulators 

side-by-side), center the test simulators along 

the pan edge in that dimension. For any pans 

not tall enough to allow for test simulators 

at the top and bottom at each location (i.e., 

the pan is not tall enough to allow for two 

test simulators to be stacked within the 

height of the pan), load a test simulator only 

at the top edge of the pan in each required 

location. 

1.4. Long-time Automatic Defrost. For 

commercial refrigeration equipment not 

capable of operating with defrost intervals of 

24 hours or less, testing may be conducted 

using a two-part test method. 

1.4.1. First Part of Test. The first part of the 

test shall be a 24-hour test starting in steadystate conditions and including eight hours of 

door opening (according to ASHRAE 72– 

2018R). The energy consumed in this test, 

ET1, shall be recorded. 

1.4.2. Second Part of Test. The second part 

of the test shall be a defrost cycle, including 

any operation associated with a defrost. The 

start and end of the test period be determined 

as the last time before and first time after a 

defrost occurrence when the measured 

average simulator temperature (i.e., the 

instantaneous average of all test simulator 

temperature measurements) is within 0.5 °F 

of the IAT as measured during the first part 

of the test. The energy consumed in this test, 

ET2, and duration, tDI, shall be recorded. 

1.4.3. Daily Energy Consumption. Based on 

the measured energy consumption in these 

two tests, the daily energy consumption 

(DEC) in kWh shall be calculated as: 

Where: 

DEC = daily energy consumption, in kWh; 

ET 1 = energy consumed during the first part 

of the test, in kWh; 

ET 2 = energy consumed during the second 

part of the test, in kWh; 

tNDI = normalized length of defrosting time 

per day, in minutes; 

tDI = length of time of defrosting test period, 

in minutes; 

tDC = minimum time between defrost 

occurrences, in days; and 

1440 = conversion factor, minutes per day. 

1.5. Customer Order Storage Cabinets. 

Customer order storage cabinets shall 

conduct door openings according to ASHRAE 

72–2018R, except that each door shall be 

opened to the fully open position for 8 

seconds, once every 2 hours, for 6 dooropening cycles. 

1.5.1. Ambient Compartments. For 

customer order storage cabinets that have at 

least one individual secured compartment 

that is not capable of maintaining an 

integrated average temperature below the 

ambient dry-bulb temperature, the individual 

secured compartment(s) at ambient dry-bulb 

temperature shall be categorized as a hightemperature refrigerator compartment for the 

purpose of testing and rating. All volume, 

total display area, and energy consumption 

calculations shall be included within the 

high-temperature refrigerator category and 

summed with other high-temperature 

refrigerator category compartment(s) 

calculations. 

1.5.2. Convertible Compartments. For 

customer order storage cabinets that have 

individual secured compartments that are 

convertible between the ambient dry-bulb 

temperature and the ≥32 °F operating 

temperature, the convertible compartment 

shall be tested as a medium-temperature 

refrigerator compartment or at the lowest 

application product temperature as specified 

in section 2.2. of this appendix. 

1.5.3. Inverse Refrigeration Load Test. For 

customer order storage cabinets that supply 

refrigerant to multiple individual secured 

compartments and that allow the suction 

pressure from the evaporator in each 

individual secured compartment to float 

based on the temperature required to store 

the customer order in that individual secured 

compartment, test according to section 1.1.2 

of this appendix, except that energy (heat) 

loss shall be allowed at a rate and DT 

equivalent to the energy gains of a standard 

refrigerated cabinet as specified in sections 

1.5.3.1–1.5.3.3 of this appendix. 

1.5.3.1. Anti-sweat door heaters. Antisweat door heaters shall be de-energized for 

the inverse refrigeration load test specified in 

section 1.5.3. of this appendix. 

1.5.3.2. Integrated Average Temperature. 

For medium-temperature refrigerator 

compartments, the integrated average 

temperature shall be 112.4 °F ± 2.0 °F. For 

low-temperature freezer compartments, the 

integrated average temperature shall be 

150.4 °F ± 2.0 °F. For ambient compartments, 

the integrated average temperature shall be 

75.4 °F ± 2.0 °F. 

1.5.3.3. Daily Energy Consumption. 

Determine the calculated daily energy 

consumption (CDEC) and the EER based on 

AHRI 1200–202X, Section 5, ‘‘Rating 

Requirements for Remote Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 

Storage Cabinets,’’ except that the 

compressor energy consumption (CEC) shall 

be calculated by applying the following 

equations: 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30JN22.001</GPH>
39228 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Where: 

CEC = compressor energy consumption, kWh 

per day; 

Q = inverse refrigeration load (does not 

include waste heat from auxiliary 

components and moisture infiltration), 

in BTU per h; 

t = test duration, in h; 

ML = moisture load impacts, BTU per day; 

FEC = evaporator fan motor(s) energy 

consumption, Wh per day; 

AEC = anti-condensate heater(s) energy 

consumption, Wh per day; 

DEC = defrost heater(s) energy consumption, 

Wh per day; 

3.412 = conversion factor, BTU per Wh; 

EER = energy efficiency ratio, BTU per Wh; 

1000 = conversion factor, W per kW; 

Win = energy input measured over the test 

period for all energized components 

(heaters, controls, and fans) located in 

the refrigerated compartments, in Wh; 

Nd = number of door openings during test, 

unitless; 

Ae = enthalpy adjustment, BTU per day; 

Am = moisture/frost accumulation, BTU per 

day; 

Ha = ambient air enthalpy, BTU per pound; 

Hc = compartment air enthalpy based on air 

conditions during cold operation (e.g., 

0 °F dry bulb/-20 °F dew point for freezer 

compartment, 38 °F dry bulb/20 °F dew 

point for refrigerator compartment, 75 °F 

dry bulb/20 °F dew point for ambient 

compartment), BTU per pound; 

Ht = compartment air enthalpy during heat 

leak test based on dew point being equal 

to ambient air dew point, BTU per 

pound; 

ma = mass of compartment air exchanged 

(30% of total compartment volume) 

based density of air during cold 

operation, pounds; 

Cp,liner = specific heat of liner material, BTU 

per °F per pound; 

Wliner = weight of all liner parts, pounds; and 

DTliner = maximum temperature rise of all 

liner parts (e.g., 4.5 °F, 2.5 °F, and 1 °F for 

freezer, refrigerator, and ambient 

compartments, respectively), °F. 

2. Test Conditions 

2.1. Integrated Average Temperatures. 

Conduct the testing required in section 1 of 

this appendix, and determine the daily 

energy consumption at the applicable 

integrated average temperature as follows: 

2.1.1. Ice-cream Freezers. Test ice-cream 

freezers and ice-cream freezer compartments 

to the integrated average temperature 

specified in Section 3.14.1, ‘‘Ice Cream 

Applications’’ of AHRI 1200–202X. 

2.1.2. Low-temperature Freezers. Test lowtemperature freezers and low-temperature 

freezer compartments to the integrated 

average temperature specified in Section 

3.14.2, ‘‘Low Temperature Applications’’ of 

AHRI 1200–202X. 

2.1.3. Medium-temperature Refrigerators. 

Test medium-temperature refrigerators and 

medium-temperature refrigerator 

compartments to the integrated average 

temperature specified in Section 3.14.3, 

‘‘Medium Temperature Applications’’ of 

AHRI 1200–202X. 

2.1.4. High-temperature Refrigerators. Test 

high-temperature refrigerators and hightemperature refrigerator compartments to the 

integrated average temperature specified in 

section 3.14.4, ‘‘High Temperature 

Applications’’ of AHRI 1200–202X. 

2.2. Lowest Application Product 

Temperature. If a unit of commercial 

refrigeration equipment is not able to be 

operated at the integrated average 

temperature specified in paragraph 2.1 of this 

appendix, test the unit at the lowest 

application product temperature (LAPT), as 

defined in § 431.62. For units equipped with 

a thermostat, LAPT is the lowest thermostat 

setting (for units that are only able to operate 

at temperatures above the specified test 

temperature) or the highest thermostat setting 

(for units that are only able to operate at 

temperatures below the specified test 

temperature). For remote condensing 

equipment without a thermostat or other 

means of controlling temperature at the case, 

the lowest application product temperature is 

the temperature achieved with the dew point 

temperature or mid-point evaporator 

temperature (as defined in AHRI 1200–202X) 

set to 5 degrees colder than that required to 

maintain the manufacturer’s specified 

application temperature that is closest to the 

specified integrated average temperature. 

2.3. Testing at NSF Test Conditions. For 

commercial refrigeration equipment that is 

also tested in accordance with NSF test 

procedures (Type I and Type II), integrated 

average temperatures and ambient conditions 

used for NSF testing may be used in place 

of the DOE-prescribed integrated average 

temperatures and ambient conditions 

provided they result in a more stringent test. 

That is, the measured daily energy 

consumption of the same unit, when tested 

at the rating temperatures and/or ambient 

conditions specified in the DOE test 

procedure, must be lower than or equal to the 

measured daily energy consumption of the 

unit when tested with the rating 

temperatures or ambient conditions used for 

NSF testing. The integrated average 

temperature measured during the test may be 

lower than the range specified by the DOE 

applicable temperature specification 

provided in paragraph 2.1 of this appendix, 

but may not exceed the upper value of the 

specified range. Ambient temperatures and/ 

or humidity values may be higher than those 

specified in the DOE test procedure. 

2.4. Remote Condensing with Direct 

Expansion Carbon Dioxide. For remote 

condensing commercial refrigeration 

equipment used with direct expansion 

carbon dioxide refrigerant, instead of the 

liquid refrigerant conditions specified in 

appendix A to ASHRAE 72–2018R, the liquid 

inlet saturation temperature shall be 38 °F 

with liquid inlet subcooling of 5 °F. 

3. Volume and Total Display Area 

3.1. Determination of Volume. Determine 

the volume of a commercial refrigerator, 

freezer, and refrigerator-freezer using the 

method set forth in AHRI Standard 1200– 

202X, appendix C, ‘‘Commercial Refrigerated 

Display Merchandiser and Storage Cabinet 

Refrigerated Volume Calculation— 

Normative.’’ 

3.2. Determination of Total Display Area. 

Determine the total display area of a 

commercial refrigerator, freezer, and 

refrigerator-freezer using the method set forth 

in AHRI 1200–202X, section 3.18 and 

appendix C, ‘‘Commercial Refrigerated 

Display Merchandiser and Storage Cabinet 

Total Display Area (TDA) Calculation— 

Normative.’’ 

■ 11. Appendix C to subpart C of part 

431 is added to read as follows: 

Appendix C to Subpart C of Part 431— 

Uniform Test Method for the 

Measurement of Energy Consumption of 

Buffet Tables or Preparation Tables 

Note: After [date 360 days following 

publication of final rule], any 

representations, including for compliance 

certification purposes, made with respect to 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP30JN22.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39229 

the energy consumption of a buffet table or 

preparation table must be made in 

accordance with the results of testing 

pursuant to this appendix. 

0. Incorporation by Reference 

DOE incorporated by reference in § 431.63 

the entire standard for AHRI 1200–202X, 

ASHRAE 72–2018R, and ASTM F2143–16. 

However, only those provisions specifically 

referenced in this appendix are applicable to 

this appendix. 

1. Test Procedure 

1.1. Determination of Daily Energy 

Consumption. Determine the daily energy 

consumption of each buffet table or 

preparation table with a self-contained 

condensing unit by conducting the test 

procedure set forth in ASTM F2143–16, 

section 3, ‘‘Terminology,’’ section 6.1, 

‘‘Analytical Balance Scale,’’ section 6.2, 

‘‘Pans,’’ Section 7, ‘‘Reagents and Materials,’’ 

section 9, ‘‘Preparation of Apparatus’’ (only 

section 9.6), section 10.1, ‘‘General’’ (only 

section 10.1.1), section 10.2, ‘‘Pan 

Thermocouple Placement,’’ section 10.5, 

‘‘Test’’ (only sections 10.5.5 and 10.5.6), 

section 11.4, ‘‘Energy Consumption’’ (only 

section 11.4.1), and section 11.5, ‘‘Production 

Capacity’’, with additional instructions as 

described in the following sections. 

1.2. Test Conditions. Ambient conditions 

and instrumentation for testing shall be as 

specified in the ‘‘Chamber conditions’’ and 

‘‘Electricity supply and consumption of unit 

under test and components metered 

separately’’ portions of Appendix A to 

ASHRAE 72–2018R and measured according 

to Section 6.1 of ASHRAE 72–2018R and the 

specifications in Appendix A of ASHRAE 

72–2018R. The ‘‘highest point’’ of the buffet 

table or preparation table shall be determined 

as the highest point of the open-top 

refrigerated area of the buffet table or 

preparation table, without including the 

height of any lids or covers. The geometric 

center of the buffet table or preparation table 

is: for buffet tables or preparation tables 

without refrigerated compartments, the 

geometric center of the top surface of the 

open-top refrigerated area; and for buffet 

tables or preparation tables with refrigerated 

compartments, the geometric center of the 

door opening area for the refrigerated 

compartment. 

1.3. Test Setup. Install the buffet table or 

preparation table according to Sections 5.1, 

5.2, and 5.3 of ASHRAE 72–2018R. 

1.4. Test Load. 

1.4.1. Pan Loading. Fill pans with distilled 

water to within 0.5 inches of the top edge of 

the pan. For pans that are not configured in 

a horizontal orientation, only the lowest side 

of the pan is filled to within 0.5 inches of the 

top edge of the pan with distilled water. 

1.4.2. Refrigerated Compartments. Measure 

the temperature of any refrigerated 

compartment(s) as specified in Section 9.6 of 

ASTM F2143–16. The thermocouples for 

measuring compartment air temperature shall 

be in thermal contact with the center of a 1.6- 

oz (45-g) cylindrical brass slug with a 

diameter and height of 0.75 in. The brass 

slugs shall be placed at least 0.5 in from any 

heat-conducting surface. 

1.5. Stabilization and Test Period. Prepare 

the unit for testing and conduct two test 

periods to determine stability according to 

Sections 7.1 through 7.5 of ASHRAE 72– 

2018R, excluding sections 7.2.1, 7.2.2, 7.3.1, 

7.3.2, 7.3.3, and 7.3.4. The preparation period 

under Section 7.2 of ASHRAE 72–2018R 

includes loading the test unit pans with 

distilled water and adjusting the controls to 

maintain the desired performance. 

1.5.1. Test Periods A and B. Conduct two 

test periods, A and B, as specified in Section 

7.3 of ASHRAE 72–2018R (excluding 

sections 7.3.1, 7.3.2, 7.3.3, and 7.3.4). The 24- 

hour test periods shall begin with an 8 hour 

active period as specified in Section 10.5.5 of 

ASTM F2143–16. Following the active 

period, the remaining 16 hours of the test 

period shall be a standby period with the 

pans remaining in place, any pan covers in 

the closed position, and with no additional 

door openings. 

1.5.2. Stability. Average pan temperatures 

shall be used to determine stability, as 

specified in Section 7.5 of ASHRAE 72– 

2018R, rather than average test simulator 

temperatures. 

1.5.3. Data Recording. For each test period, 

record data as specified in Section 10.1.1 of 

ASTM F2143–16, except record wet-bulb 

temperature rather than relative humidity. 

Rather than voltage, current, and power as 

specified in Section 10.1.1 of ASTM F2143– 

16, record the electrical supply potential and 

frequency and energy consumption as 

specified in Appendix A of ASHRAE 72– 

2018R. 

1.6. Target Temperatures. 

1.6.1. Average Pan Temperature. The 

average of all pan temperature measurements 

during the test period shall be 38 °F ± 2 °F. 

If the unit under test is not able to be 

operated at this average temperature range, 

test the unit at the lowest application product 

temperature (LAPT), as defined in § 431.62. 

For units equipped with a thermostat, LAPT 

is the lowest thermostat setting (for units that 

are only able to operate at temperatures 

above the specified test temperature) or the 

highest thermostat setting (for units that are 

only able to operate at temperatures below 

the specified test temperature). 

1.6.2. Average Compartment Temperature. 

The average of all compartment temperature 

measurements during the test period shall be 

38 °F ± 2 °F. If the unit under test is not 

capable of maintaining both average pan 

temperature and average compartment 

temperature within the specified range, the 

average compartment temperature shall be 

the average temperature necessary to 

maintain average pan temperature within the 

specified range. If the unit is tested at the 

LAPT for the average pan temperature, as 

described in section 1.6.1 of this appendix, 

the average compartment temperature is the 

average of all compartment temperature 

measurements at that control setting. 

2. Capacity Metrics 

2.1. Pan Volume. Determine pan volume 

according to Section 11.5 of ASTM F2143– 

16. 

2.2. Refrigerated Volume. Determine the 

volume of any refrigerated compartments 

according to section 3.17 and Appendix C of 

AHRI 1200–202X . The refrigerated volume 

excludes the volume occupied by pans 

loaded in the open-top display area for 

testing. 

2.3. Pan Display Area. Determine the pan 

display area based on the total surface area 

of water in the test pans when filled to 

within 0.5 inches of the top edge of the pan, 

or for test pans that are not configured in a 

horizontal orientation, when the lowest side 

of the pan is filled to within 0.5 inches of the 

top edge of the pan with water. 

■ 12. Appendix D to subpart C of part 

431 is added to read as follows: 

Appendix D to Subpart C of Part 431— 

Uniform Test Method for the 

Measurement of Energy Consumption of 

Blast Chillers or Blast Freezers 

Note: After [date 360 days after publication 

of a final rule], any representations, 

including for compliance certification 

purposes, made with respect to the energy 

use or efficiency of blast chillers or blast 

freezers, must be made in accordance with 

the results of testing pursuant to this 

appendix. 

0. Incorporation by Reference 

DOE incorporated by reference in § 431.63 

the entire standard for AHRI 1200–202X and 

ASHRAE 72–2018R. However, only 

enumerated provisions of those documents 

are applicable to this appendix as follows: 

0.1. AHRI 1200–202X. 

0.1.1. Appendix C, ‘‘Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandiser and 

Storage Cabinet Refrigerated Volume 

Calculation—Normative,’’ as referenced in 

section 1.1.1. of this appendix. 

0.2. ASHRAE 72–2018R. 

0.2.1. Section 4, ‘‘Instruments,’’ as 

referenced in section 1.2. of this appendix. 

0.2.2. Section 5, ‘‘Preparation of Unit 

Under Test,’’ (except section 5.4, ‘‘Loading of 

Test Simulators and Filler Material’’) as 

referenced in section 1.2. of this appendix. 

0.2.3. Section 6.1, ‘‘Ambient Temperature 

and Humidity,’’ as referenced in sections 1.2. 

and 1.4. of this appendix. 

0.2.4. Figure 6, ‘‘Location of Ambient 

Temperature Indicators,’’ as referenced in 

sections 1.2. and 1.4. of this appendix. 

0.2.5. Normative Appendix A, 

‘‘Measurement Locations, Tolerances, 

Accuracies, and Other Characteristics,’’ (only 

the measured quantities specified in section 

1.2.1. of this appendix) as referenced in 

sections 1.2. and 1.4. of this appendix. 

1. Test Procedures 

1.1. Scope. This section provides the test 

procedures for measuring the energy 

consumption in kilowatt-hours per pound 

(kWh/lb) for self-contained commercial blast 

chillers and blast freezers that have a 

refrigerated volume of up to 500 ft3. 

1.1.1. Determination of Refrigerated 

Volume. Determine the refrigerated volume 

of a self-contained commercial blast chiller 

or blast freezer using the method set forth in 

AHRI 1200–202X, Appendix C, ‘‘Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandiser and 

Storage Cabinet Refrigerated Volume 

Calculation—Normative.’’ 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
39230 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1.2. Determination of Energy Consumption. 

Determine the energy consumption of each 

covered blast chiller or blast freezer by 

conducting the test procedure set forth in 

ASHRAE 72–2018R, Section 4, 

‘‘Instruments,’’ Section 5, ‘‘Preparation of 

Unit Under Test,’’ (except Section 5.4, 

‘‘Loading of Test Simulators and Filler 

Material’’) Section 6.1, ‘‘Ambient 

Temperature and Humidity,’’ Figure 6, 

‘‘Location of Ambient Temperature 

Indicators,’’ and normative Appendix A, 

‘‘Measurement Locations, Tolerances, 

Accuracies, and Other Characteristics,’’ (only 

the measured quantities specified in section 

1.2.1. of this appendix) as well as the 

requirements of this appendix. 

1.2.1. Measured Quantities in Normative 

Appendix A of ASHRAE 72–2018R. The 

following measured quantities shall be in 

accordance with the specifications of 

normative Appendix A of ASHRAE 72– 

2018R: dry bulb temperature (except for 

deviations specified in section 1.3 and 1.4. of 

this appendix), electrical supply frequency, 

electrical supply potential, energy consumed 

(except for deviations specified in section 

1.3. of this appendix), extent of nonperforated surface beyond edges of unit 

under test, front clearance, rear or side 

clearance, and time measurements. 

1.2.2. Additional Specifications for 

ASHRAE 72–2018R. The term ‘‘refrigerator’’ 

used in ASHRAE 72–2018R shall instead 

refer to ‘‘blast chiller’’ or ‘‘blast freezer,’’ as 

applicable. In Section 5.3 of ASHRAE 72– 

2018R, the phrase ‘‘all necessary components 

and accessories shall be installed prior to 

loading the storage and display areas with 

test simulators and filler material’’ shall be 

replaced with ‘‘all necessary components and 

accessories shall be installed prior to 

precooling the unit under test’’. Section 5.3.5 

shall also require that, prior to precooling the 

unit under test, the condensate pan shall be 

dry. 

1.3. Data Recording Measurement Intervals. 

Measurements shall be continuously 

recorded during the test in intervals no 

greater than 10 seconds. 

1.4. Test Conditions. The required test 

conditions shall have dry bulb temperature 

values according to Table D.1 when 

measured at point A in figure 6 of ASHRAE 

72–2018R and according to Section 6.1 of 

ASHRAE 72–2018R. 

TABLE D.1—TEST CONDITION VALUES

AND TOLERANCES

Test 

condition Value Tolerance 

Dry Bulb ...... 86.0°F Average over test period: 

±1.8°F. 

Individual measurements: 

±3.6°F. 

1.5. Product Pan. The product pan shall be 

a 12 inch by 20 inch by 2.5 inch, 22 gauge 

or heavier, and 300 series stainless steel pan. 

If the blast chiller or blast freezer is not 

capable of holding the 12 inch by 20 inch by 

2.5 inch product pan dimensions, the 

manufacturer’s recommended pan size shall 

be used, conforming as closely as possible to 

the 12 inch by 20 inch by 2.5 inch pan 

dimensions. 

1.6. Product Temperature Measurement. 

The product temperature shall be measured 

in the geometric center of the measured 

product pans using an unweighted 

thermocouple placed 5⁄8 of an inch above the 

bottom of the measured product pan. The 

thermocouple leads shall be secured to the 

bottom of the measured product pan while 

also allowing for the transfer of the measured 

product pan from the heating source into the 

blast chiller’s or blast freezer’s cabinet. 

1.7. Product Preparation. The product shall 

be made for each product pan and shall be 

loaded to 2 inches of product thickness (i.e., 

depth) within the product pan unless an 

additional product pan with a product 

thickness of less than 2 inches is needed to 

meet the product capacity determined in 

section 2.1 of this appendix. A 20 percent by 

volume propylene glycol (1,2-Propanediol) 

mixture in water shall be prepared. In each 

product pan, pour the propylene glycol 

mixture over #20 mesh southern yellow pine 

sawdust to create a 22 percent to 78 percent 

by mass slurry. An example of an acceptable 

sawdust specification is the American Wood 

Fibers brand, #20 Mesh Pine Sawdust. Mix 

until the sawdust becomes completely 

saturated and leave uncovered in the product 

pan. Verify that the product pan 

thermocouple is fully submerged in the 

product mixture and reposition the product 

pan thermocouple to the requirements of 

section 1.6. of this appendix if the product 

pan thermocouple is incorrectly positioned 

after mixing. Each product pan shall be 

weighed before and after the food product 

simulator is added and prior to heating the 

product. The weight of the product shall not 

include the weight of the pans, 

thermocouples, or wires. A cumulative total 

of the product weight shall be calculated and 

the product pans shall continue to be loaded 

with the product mixture until the 

cumulative total reaches, but not exceeds, the 

product capacity determined in section 2.1 of 

this appendix with a tolerance of ±5 percent 

or ±2 pounds, whichever is less. The 

cumulative total weight of product, the 

weight of product in each individual pan, 

and the number of pans shall be recorded. 

1.8. Product Pan Heating. Measured 

product pans shall be maintained at an 

average temperature of 160.0 °F ± 1.8 °F and 

individual pan temperatures shall be 

maintained at 160 °F ± 10 °F for a minimum 

of 8 hours prior to being loaded into the blast 

chiller or blast freezer. Non-measured 

product pans shall also be heated for a 

minimum of 8 hours prior to being loaded 

into the blast chiller or blast freezer and the 

non-measured product pans shall be placed 

in alternating positions with the measured 

product pans in the heating device. Data 

acquisition for the temperature of the 

measured product pans and time 

measurements shall begin to be recorded 

prior to the minimum of 8 hours heating 

period. 

1.9. Product Pan Distribution. The product 

pans shall be spaced evenly throughout each 

vertical column of rack positions in the blast 

chiller or blast freezer without the product 

pans touching any other product pans and 

without the product pans touching the top 

and the bottom of the blast chiller or blast 

freezer cabinet. For blast chillers or blast 

freezers that have an additional product pan 

with a product thickness of less than 2 

inches, the additional product pan shall be 

placed as close to the middle rack position 

as possible while maintaining an even 

distribution of all product pans. If not all 

rack positions are occupied by product pans, 

the product pan locations shall be recorded. 

1.10. Measured Product Pans. If multiple 

product pans are required per level of the 

blast chiller or blast freezer (i.e., product 

pans can be loaded side-by-side at the same 

level), only the product temperature of one 

product pan per level shall be measured and 

the product pans measured should alternate 

vertical columns of the blast chiller or blast 

freezer cabinet so that each vertical column 

does not have two measured product pans on 

sequential levels. If a blast chiller or blast 

freezer requires an additional product pan 

with a thickness less than 2 inches, the 

additional product pan shall not be measured 

for product temperature. 

1.11. Stabilization. The blast chiller or 

blast freezer shall stabilize at the test 

conditions specified in section 1.4. of this 

appendix for at least 24 hours without 

operating. 

1.12. Pre-cool Cycle. Data acquisition for 

the test condition temperatures specified in 

section 1.4. of this appendix and time 

measurements shall begin to be recorded 

prior to the pre-cool cycle. The pre-cool cycle 

shall be initiated on a blast chiller or blast 

freezer once the stabilization specified in 

section 1.11. of this appendix is complete. 

The fastest pre-cool cycle shall be selected. 

The pre-cool cycle shall be complete when 

the blast chiller or blast freezer notifies the 

user that the pre-cool is complete. If the blast 

chiller or blast freezer does not notify the 

user that the pre-cool cycle is complete, the 

pre-cool cycle shall be deemed complete 

when the blast chiller or blast freezer reaches 

40 °F or 2 °F based on the blast chiller’s or 

blast freezer’s sensing probe for blast chillers 

and blast freezers, respectively. For blast 

chillers or blast freezers without any defined 

pre-cool cycles, the fastest blast chilling or 

blast freezing cycle shall be run with an 

empty cabinet until the blast chiller or blast 

freezer reaches 40 °F or 2 °F based on the 

blast chiller’s or blast freezer’s sensing probe. 

During the pre-cool cycle, the blast chiller’s 

or blast freezer’s sensing probe shall remain 

in its default or holstered position. The precool test data to be recorded are the test 

condition temperatures specified in section 

1.4. of this appendix, pre-cool cycle selected, 

pre-cool duration, and final pre-cool cabinet 

temperature based on the blast chiller’s or 

blast freezer’s sensing probe. 

1.13. Loading. The blast chiller or blast 

freezer door shall be fully open to an angle 

of not less than 75 degrees for loading at 4.0 

±1.0 minutes after the blast chiller or blast 

freezer completes the pre-cool cycle as 

specified in section 1.12 of this appendix. 

The door shall remain open to load all of the 

product pans for the entirety of the loading 

procedure. The door shall remain open for 20 

seconds per roll-in rack and 15 seconds per 

product pan for roll-in and standard blast 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Proposed Rules 39231 

chillers or blast freezers, respectively. The 

total door open period shall have a tolerance 

of ±5 seconds. The blast chiller’s or blast 

freezer’s sensing probe shall be inserted into 

the geometric center of a product pan 

approximately 1 inch deep in the product 

mixture at the median pan level in the blast 

chiller or blast freezer. If the product pan at 

the median level is the additional product 

pan with less than 2 inches of product 

thickness, the closest product pan or product 

pan level that is farthest away from the 

evaporator fan shall be used to insert the 

blast chiller’s or blast freezer’s sensing probe. 

If the median pan level has capacity for 

multiple product pans, the probed product 

pan shall be the furthest away from the 

evaporator. The sensing probe shall not touch 

the bottom of the product pan or be exposed 

to the air. The location of the product pan 

with the sensing probe shall be recorded. The 

sensing probe shall be placed so that there is 

no interference with the product pan 

thermocouple. The product pan 

thermocouple wiring shall not affect the 

energy performance of the blast chiller or 

blast freezer. The door shall remain closed 

for the remainder of the test. 

1.14. Blast Chilling or Blast Freezing Cycle. 

Determine the blast chilling or blast freezing 

cycle that will conduct the most rapid 

product temperature pulldown that is 

designed for the densest food product, as 

stated in the blast chiller’s or blast freezer’s 

manufacturer literature. A blast chilling cycle 

shall have a target temperature of 38.0 °F and 

a blast freezing cycle shall have a target 

temperature of 0.0 °F. The test condition 

temperatures specified in section 1.4. of this 

appendix and the time measurements shall 

continue to be recorded from the pre-cool 

cycle. Measured product pan temperatures 

shall continue to be recorded from the 

minimum of 8-hour period of heating prior 

to the loading of the product pans into the 

blast chiller or blast freezer. Electrical supply 

frequency, electrical supply potential, and 

energy consumed shall start to be recorded as 

soon as the blast chiller or blast freezer door 

is opened to load the product pans. Once the 

blast chiller or blast freezer door is closed, 

the blast chilling cycle or blast freezing cycle 

shall be selected and initiated as soon as is 

practicable. The blast chilling cycle or blast 

freezing cycle selected shall be recorded. The 

blast chilling or blast freezing test period 

shall continue from the door opening until 

all individual measured pan temperatures are 

at or below 40.0 °F or 2.0 °F for blast chiller 

and blast freezer tests, respectively, 

regardless of whether the selected cycle 

program has terminated. If all individual 

measured pan temperatures do not reach 

40.0 °F or 2.0 °F for blast chiller and blast 

freezer tests, respectively, two hours after the 

selected cycle program has terminated, the 

test shall be repeated with the target 

temperature lowered by 1.0 °F until all 

individual measured pan temperatures are at 

or below 40.0 °F or 2.0 °F for blast chiller and 

blast freezer tests, respectively, at the 

conclusion of the test. The duration of the 

blast chiller or blast freezer test shall be 

recorded. 

1.15. Calculations. The measured energy 

consumption determined in section 1.14. of 

this appendix shall be reported in kilowatthours and shall be divided by the cumulative 

total weight of product determined in section 

1.7. of this appendix in pounds. 

2. Capacity Metric 

2.1. Product Capacity. Determine the 

product capacity by reviewing all 

manufacturer literature that is included with 

the blast chiller or blast freezer. The largest 

product capacity by weight that is stated in 

the manufacturer literature shall be the 

product capacity. If the blast chiller or blast 

freezer is able to operate as both a blast 

chiller and a blast freezer when set to 

different operating modes by the user and the 

manufacturer literature specifies different 

product capacities for blast chilling and blast 

freezing, the largest capacity by weight stated 

for the respective operating mode shall be the 

product capacity. If no product capacity is 

stated in the manufacturer literature, the 

product capacity shall be the product 

capacity that fills the maximum number of 12 

inch by 20 inch by 2.5 inch pans that can be 

loaded into the blast chiller or blast freezer 

according to section 1.7. of this appendix. If 

the blast chiller or blast freezer with no 

product capacity stated in the manufacturer 

literature is not capable of meeting the 

definition of a blast chiller or blast freezer 

according to § 431.62 upon testing according 

to section 1 of this appendix, one 12 inch by 

20 inch by 2.5 inch pan shall be removed 

from the blast chiller or blast freezer until the 

definition of a blast chiller or blast freezer is 

met according to § 431.62 when testing 

according to section 1 of this appendix. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13225 Filed 6–29–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2