[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 125 (Thursday, June 30, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39164-39231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13225]



[[Page 39163]]

Vol. 87

Thursday,

No. 125

June 30, 2022

Part II





 Department of Energy





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





10 CFR Parts 429 and 431





Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Commercial 
Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 39164]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#793a2b3c4b49484e2d2949494941391c1c571d161c571e160f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9bd8c9dea9abaaaccfcbabababa3dbfefeb5fff4feb5fcf4ed">[email protected]</span></a>. 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/EERE-2017-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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#622312120e0b030c01073116030c060310061133170711160b0d0c112207074c060d074c050d14"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6f2e1f1f03060e010c0a3c1b0e010b0e1d0b1c3e1a0a1c1b0600011c2f0a0a410b000a41080019">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6e3e0b1a0b1c402d010d061c0f002e261f402a010b40290118"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1f4f7a6b7a6d315c707c776d7e715f576e315b707a31587069">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e8a99898848189868b8dbb9c89868c899a8c9bb99d8d9b9c8187869ba88d8dc68c878dc68f879e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5a1b2a2a36333b34393f092e3b343e3b283e290b2f3f292e333534291a3f3f743e353f743d352c">[email protected]</span></a>.

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/EERE-2017-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

[[Page 39165]]

    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, refrigerator-freezers, 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))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All 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.
    \2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Air-Conditioning 
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 39166]]

    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 Refrigerator-Freezers'').
    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, Refrigerator-Freezers, 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           AHRI........................  Trade Association.
 Institute.
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  CA IOUs.....................  Energy Utilities.
 Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric; collectively,
 the California Investor-Owned Utilities.
Arneg USA............................................  Arneg.......................  Manufacturer.
Hoshizaki America, Inc...............................  Hoshizaki...................  Manufacturer.
Hussmann Corporation.................................  Hussmann....................  Manufacturer.
Appliance Standards Awareness Program, American        Joint Commenters............  Efficiency Organizations.
 Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, and Natural
 Resource Defense Council.
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 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 high-temperature refrigerator, 
medium-temperature refrigerator, low-temperature 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 
(``CO<INF>2</INF>'') 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Proposed test
  Current DOE test procedure           procedure           Attribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defines commercial              Defines high-           Improves
 refrigerator without            temperature             representativen
 delineating between units       refrigerator and        ess.
 that operate at medium and      medium-temperature
 high temperatures.              refrigerator to
                                 account for new high-
                                 temperature rating
                                 point.
Defines ice-cream freezer as a  Defines low-            Improves
 type of commercial freezer.     temperature freezer     representativen
                                 to delineate between    ess.
                                 ice-cream freezers
                                 and other commercial
                                 freezers.
Ice-cream freezer definition    Ice-cream definition    Improves
 refers only to ``ice cream''.   refers more broadly     representativen
                                 to ``frozen             ess.
                                 desserts''.
References AHRI 1200-2010 for   References AHRI 1200-   Harmonizes with
 rating requirements.            202X for rating         most recent
                                 requirements.           industry
                                                         standard.
References ASHRAE 72-2005 for   References ASHRAE 72-   Harmonizes with
 test requirements.              2018R for test          most recent
                                 requirements.           industry
                                                         standard.
References AHAM HRF-1-2008 for  References AHRI 1200-   Harmonizes with
 volume measurement.             202X for volume         most recent
                                 requirements.           industry
                                                         standard.
Includes a single 38 [deg]F     Specifies 38 [deg]F     Improves
 rating point for commercial     rating point for        representativen
 refrigerators.                  medium-temperature      ess; harmonizes
                                 refrigerators and 55    with industry
                                 [deg]F rating point     standard.
                                 for high-temperature
                                 refrigerators.
Does not specify a method for   References AHRI 1320-   Improves
 testing CRE with secondary      2011 for CRE used       representativen
 coolants.                       with secondary          ess; harmonizes
                                 coolants.               with industry
                                                         standard.
Does not specify definitions    Defines buffet table    Improves
 or test procedures for buffet   and preparation table   representativen
 tables and preparation tables.  and establishes test    ess; harmonizes
                                 procedures based on     with industry
                                 ASTM F2143-16.          standard.
Does not specify definitions    Defines blast chiller   Improves
 or test procedures for blast    and blast freezer and   representativen
 chillers and blast freezers.    establishes test        ess; harmonizes
                                 procedures based on     with industry
                                 expected industry       standard.
                                 test method.
Chef bases and griddle stands   Clarifies chef base     Improves
 definition does not refer to    and griddle stand       representativen
 a maximum height.               definition by           ess.
                                 specifying a maximum
                                 height of 32 inches
                                 for this equipment.
Does not provide procedures     References ASHRAE 72-   Addresses
 for CRE with no automatic       2018R for test          existing
 defrost or with long duration   instructions for        waiver;
 defrost cycles.                 units with no           harmonizes with
                                 automatic defrost and   industry
                                 adopts optional two-    standard.
                                 part test for CRE
                                 with defrost cycles
                                 longer than 24 hours.
Includes conflicting            Corrects errors in      Improves
 instructions regarding TDA      current test            representativen
 calculation.                    procedure by            ess,
                                 reference to AHRI       repeatability,
                                 1200-202X.              and
                                                         reproducibility
                                                         ; harmonizes
                                                         with industry
                                                         standard.
Provides refrigerant            Specifies refrigerant   Improves
 conditions that applicable to   conditions to allow     representativen
 common refrigerants.            for testing with        ess; harmonizes
                                 carbon dioxide          with existing
                                 refrigerant.            waiver.
Requires determining volume     Allows the use of       Reduces test
 based on testing.               computer-aided design   burden.
                                 (``CAD'') models to
                                 certify volume.
Specifies a single door         Defines customer order  Improves
 opening sequence.               storage cabinet         representativen
                                 equipment category      ess; harmonizes
                                 and specifies an        with existing
                                 alternate door          waiver.
                                 opening sequence for
                                 this equipment.
Does not specify product-       Includes product-       Improves
 enforcement provisions.         enforcement             clarity.
                                 provisions for
                                 determining volume
                                 and TDA.

[[Page 39168]]

 
Specifies LAPT instructions     Clarifies use of LAPT   Improves
 for temperatures above target   provisions for          clarity.
 test temperature.               operating
                                 temperatures below
                                 the target test
                                 temperature.
Includes obsolete appendix A    Removes obsolete        Improves
 and current appendix B test     appendix A; adds new    readability.
 procedures.                     appendix C for
                                 testing buffet tables
                                 and preparation
                                 tables, and new
                                 appendix D for
                                 testing blast
                                 chillers and blast
                                 freezers.
Does not specify a sampling     Specifies that volume   Improves
 plan for volume and TDA.        and TDA be determined   representativen
                                 based on the mean of    ess,
                                 the test sample.        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 self-contained 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 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2 
[deg]F) (-21 [deg]C <plus-minus> 1.1 [deg]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 [deg]F. 86 FR 31182, 31184.
    ITW commented that in general, ice-cream 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 [deg]F and one that is only designed to maintain an IAT of 0 [deg]F. 
(True, No. 4, p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Integrated average temperature means the average temperature 
of all test package measurements taken during the test. 10 CFR 
431.62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 ice-cream 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 ice-cream 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 ice-
cream 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

[[Page 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 [deg]F to 5 [deg]F, 
equipment designed to hold ice cream for immediate consumption; (2) -10 
[deg]F to -15 [deg]F, equipment designed to hold ice cream for short 
term storage or retail sale; (3) -20 [deg]F to -40 [deg]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 
[deg]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 [deg]F to -5 [deg]F range that are not designed 
to operate at -15 [deg]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 ice-cream 
and ice-cream like products, and that more generic terms should be used 
such as ``commercial low temperature freezer'' (IAT of 0 [deg]F) and 
``commercial lower temperature freezer'' (IAT of -15 [deg]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 
[deg]F) together classify a unit as an ice-cream 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 ice-
cream freezer, and on whether any additional characteristics may better 
differentiate this equipment from other commercial freezers.
    Appendix B requires testing all ice-cream freezers to an IAT of -15 
[deg]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 [deg]F (sometimes referred to as ``hardening'' 
cabinets and specifically designed for ice cream storage), while other 
ice-cream freezers are designed to operate closer to 0 [deg]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 [deg]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 
[deg]F should instead be tested at an IAT of 0 [deg]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 [deg]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 [deg]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 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]F should be tested at an 
IAT of 0 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]F instead of the LAPT. 86 FR 31182, 
31184. DOE additionally requested comment on whether the ice-cream 
freezer definition should refer only to equipment that is capable of 
achieving an IAT of -15 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]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 [deg]F or 0 [deg]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 [deg]F and -15 [deg]F, is acceptable. True also 
commented that CRE capable of maintaining an IAT of -15 [deg]F should 
have a greater energy allowance than CRE only capable of maintaining an 
IAT of 0 [deg]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 [deg]F could be tested at an IAT of 0 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]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 [deg]F <plus-
minus> 2 [deg]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 
ice-cream freezers listed in DOE's compliance certification database, 
with 410 rated for operation at either -10 [deg]F or -15 [deg]F, and 
the remaining 24 units with an LAPT of -5 [deg]F. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 4) 
NEEA added that the 24 units rated at -5 [deg]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;

[[Page 39170]]

however, they noted that 88 percent (382 units) of models were tested 
at -15 [deg]F, with the remaining 12 percent (52 units) tested at -5 
[deg]F or -10 [deg]F. (CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 5)
    NEEA commented that DOE should define ice-cream freezers as those 
able to operate at -10 [deg]F, and that -10 [deg]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 ice-cream freezers as designed to operate 
at or below -5 [deg]F, further supporting a temperature higher than -15 
[deg]F for testing, and that this higher temperature (i.e., -10 [deg]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 [deg]F) and ice cream dipping cabinets (which 
provide malleable ice cream serving at -5 [deg]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 [deg]F) 
occurred primarily in horizontal closed solid (``HCS'') equipment, of 
which 30 percent of products were tested at -10 [deg]F; and service 
over counter equipment, of which 51 percent of products were tested at 
-5 [deg]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 ice-cream freezer to ``glass door 
ice cream dipping cabinet'' to better align with industry terms and 
differentiate between products tested at -15 [deg]F. (Id.) The CA IOUs 
suggested testing these two equipment classes for ice cream dipping 
applications at -5 [deg]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 ice-cream freezer applications. The committee 
determined that the existing rating points for commercial freezers 
(i.e., -15 [deg]F for ice-cream freezers and 0 [deg]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 [deg]F, including 24 models with a 
rating temperature of -5 [deg]F. Many of these models have a horizontal 
or service over counter configuration and are intended to hold ice 
cream for immediate consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Based on review of DOE's Compliance Certification Database, 
available at www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data (accessed 
February 1, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE recognizes that testing and rating certain commercial freezers 
to 0 [deg]F may be more appropriate than testing and rating to -15 
[deg]F. DOE already requires a 0 [deg]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 [deg]F <plus-
minus> 2 [deg]F can be tested at an IAT of 0 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 
[deg]F. Therefore, DOE is proposing to amend the ice-cream freezer 
definition in this NOPR to specify that the designed operating 
temperature is required to be at or below -15.0 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2.0 
[deg]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 [deg]F according to appendix B, DOE is proposing to define the 
term ``low-temperature freezer'' to mean a commercial freezer that is 
not an ice-cream freezer.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed amended definition for ice-
cream 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 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2 
[deg]F). 10 CFR 431.62.
    Section 2.1 of appendix B requires testing commercial refrigerators 
to an IAT of 38 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]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 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 
[deg]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 [deg]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 high-temperature 
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 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]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 [deg]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 high-temperature category 
would allow DOE to consider test procedures for this

[[Page 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 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2.0 [deg]F). DOE 
recognizes that certain commercial refrigerators may be capable of 
operating with IAT of 38.0 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2.0 [deg]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 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2.0 [deg]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 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2.0 [deg]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 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2.0 
[deg]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 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2.0 
[deg]F)) or as a high-temperature refrigerator (if not capable of 
operating with an IAT as low as 38.0 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2.0 [deg]F)).
    DOE recognizes that certain commercial refrigerators may be capable 
of operating at both IATs of 38 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2.0 [deg]F) and 55 
[deg]F (<plus-minus>2.0 [deg]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 high-temperature refrigerator would exclude 
CRE capable of operating at medium temperatures (i.e., an IAT of 38 
[deg]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 [deg]F and 55 [deg]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 [deg]F (<plus-
minus>2.0 [deg]F). Under such an alternate approach, a unit of CRE 
capable of operating at both IATs of 38 [deg]F and 55 [deg]F would meet 
the definition of both a medium-temperature refrigerator and a high-
temperature refrigerator.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for high-
temperature refrigerator and medium-temperature 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 self-contained 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

[[Page 39172]]

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.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ On 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 39173]]

    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 [deg]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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See ASHRAE's glossary of defined terms at xp20.ashrae.org/terminology/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 mid-point 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 
[deg]F.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether an IAT of 55 
[deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]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 
[deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]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 higher-temperature CRE are sometimes 
designed to have a highly specific end use such as the following: high 
humidity floral cabinets (~35 [deg]F), wine chillers (~55 [deg]F), low 
humidity chocolate cabinets (~65 [deg]F), higher humidity (~70 percent 
relative humidity) cigar cabinets (~70 [deg]F). (NEEA, No. 5, p. 7) 
NEEA commented in support of the 55 [deg]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 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2.0 [deg]F. As stated, DOE 
requires testing high-temperature consumer refrigeration products 
(i.e., ``coolers'') at a standardized cabinet temperature of 55 [deg]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

[[Page 39174]]

to require testing high-temperature refrigerators according to AHRI 
1200-202X, which requires an integrated average temperature of 55 
[deg]F <plus-minus> 2.0 [deg]F.
    As noted by commenters, high-temperature 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 high-temperature 
refrigerator operating conditions overall because the high-temperature 
refrigerators that DOE identified have operating temperature ranges 
which include 55 [deg]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 
high-temperature 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 
[deg]F <plus-minus> 2.0 [deg]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 high-temperature 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 high-temperature 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 
[deg]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 [deg]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

[[Page 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 roll-in 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

[[Page 39176]]

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, medium-temperature, 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 self-contained 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 CO<INF>2</INF>. (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 
CO<INF>2</INF> 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 self-
contained 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

[[Page 39177]]

contain information of interest to DOE. (IGSD, No. 7, p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Available at united4efficiency.org/resources/model-regulation-guidelines-for-energy-efficient-and-climate-friendly-commercial-refrigeration-equipment/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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., high-temperature 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ EPA'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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ While 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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:
    <bullet> Refrigerated buffet and preparation table--equipment 
designed with a refrigerated open top or open condiment rail.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ California'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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> ``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
    <bullet> ``Preparation table'' means a commercial refrigerator with 
a countertop refrigerated compartment with or without cabinets below, 
and with self-contained refrigeration equipment. 20 CCR Sec.  1602.

[[Page 39178]]

    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.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Founded in 1944 as the National Sanitation Foundation, the 
organization changed its name to NSF International in 1990.
    \17\ Hoshizaki 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ A 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 39179]]

commented that the food safety temperature is between 33 [deg]F and 41 
[deg]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 ``multi-zone'' 
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 open-top 
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 
self-service 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

[[Page 39180]]

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 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2 [deg]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 
open-top 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)

[[Page 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 self-contained 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Wet bulb
                                                  Test room  dry bulb      temperature     Moisture content (lb/
        Equipment type           Test standard        temperature           (relative           lb dry air)
                                                                            humidity)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Covered CRE........  ASHRAE 72 (2005   75.2 [deg]F <plus-     64.4 [deg]F       0.009-0.011.
                                and 2018R).       minus> 1.8 [deg]F.     <plus-minus>
                                                                         1.8 [deg]F (49-
                                                                         62 percent).
Buffet and Preparation Tables  ASTM F2143-16...  86 [deg]F <plus-       66.2 [deg]F       0.008-0.010.
                                                  minus> 2 [deg]F.       <plus-minus>
                                                                         1.8 [deg]F (30-
                                                                         40 percent).
Buffet and Preparation Tables  NSF 7-2019......  86 [deg]F <plus-       Max 72 [deg]F     Max 0.013.
                                                  minus> 2 [deg]F.       (based on max
                                                                         50 percent).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 39182]]

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 [deg]F and dry bulb temperatures 
average 72 [deg]F. (Id.)
    Hoshizaki commented that ambient temperature, moisture content, and 
elevation vary across the country, with ambient temperatures ranging 
from 70 to 100 [deg]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 [deg]F (dry bulb) and 55 [deg]F (wet bulb) condition; and 
convenience stores usually have higher ambient conditions (i.e., 80 
[deg]F dry bulb). (Arneg, No. 12, p. 1)
    True and AHRI commented in support of the NSF 7-2019 test 
conditions (86 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]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 [deg]F 
ambient temperature, 55 percent relative humidity), but that commercial 
kitchens operate at 90-100 [deg]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

[[Page 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, <plus-
minus>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 <plus-minus> 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 space-constrained 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

[[Page 39184]]

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 
[deg]F, depending on the type of food, the intended product temperature 
could be below 32 [deg]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 [deg]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 [deg]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 (<plus-minus>2%) of 
distilled water and propylene glycol, or wood blocks with an overall 
density not less than 480 kg/m\3\ (30 lb/ft\3\). 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 [deg]F. However, ASTM F2143-16 specifies pan 
temperature to be within 33 [deg]F and 41 [deg]F for a valid test. As 
discussed later in this section, DOE is proposing that the integrated 
average pan temperature be 38 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]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 [deg]F when tested with an 
integrated average pan temperature of 38 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]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 weight-based 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 
<plus-minus> 0.07 lb. ASTM F2143-16 allows for manufacturer-specified 
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

[[Page 39185]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ ASHRAE 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 off-cycle 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

[[Page 39186]]

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 thermally-
separated 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 open-top 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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 39188]]

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 door-openings 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 [deg]F to 41 [deg]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 steady-state 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 self-contained 
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 [deg]F and 41 [deg]F. Likewise, the 
water temperature in each of the pans placed in the display area also 
is to be between 33 [deg]F and 41 [deg]F. The DOE test procedure for 
other CRE requires IATs of 38 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2.0 [deg]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

[[Page 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 
[deg]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 [deg]F 
in the open-top 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 [deg]F in bulk is used in filling 
empty food pans already placed in the open-top 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 [deg]F to 41 [deg]F for testing. 
The current DOE test procedure for CRE requires testing to an IAT 
within 2 [deg]F of the specified target temperature. DOE expects that 
this smaller allowable temperature range would limit test variability 
as compared to the 8 [deg]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 re-tests 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 [deg]F <plus-minus> 
2 [deg]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 [deg]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 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]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 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]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 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]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

[[Page 39190]]

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 [deg]F, can cool those 
beverages to an average stable temperature of 38 [deg]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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 [deg]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 pull-down 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 pull-down 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

[[Page 39191]]

chillers and freezers given the unique application. (Id.)
    True commented that 75 [deg]F ambient temperature, 55 percent 
relative humidity, and pull down of 90 [deg]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 ``pull-down 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Based on DOE's Compliance Certification Database (accessed 
January 23, 2022), available at www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/#q=Product_Group_s%3A*.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 [deg]F to an average stable temperature of 38 
[deg]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 [deg]F <plus-minus> 
1.8 [deg]F dry-bulb temperature) and at the control setting necessary 
to achieve a stable integrated average temperature of 38 [deg]F, prior 
to loading;
    (3) fully loading the commercial refrigerator with 12-ounce 
beverage cans maintained at 90 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]F;
    (4) determining the duration of pull-down (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 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]F; and
    (5) determining an average stable temperature of 38 [deg]F by 
operating the commercial refrigerator for an additional 12 hours after 
initially reaching 38 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]F with no changes to 
control settings, and determining an integrated average temperature of 
38 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]F at the end of the 12 hour stability 
period.
    The proposed product-specific enforcement provisions are consistent 
with the existing definition of pull-down 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 hot-food 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 [deg]F for blast chillers 
and -28 [deg]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 
[deg]F for blast chillers and 0 [deg]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, Chiller-Freezers, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/standards-and-guidelines/project-committee-interim-meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Definitions
    DOE does not define blast chiller or blast freezer. The California 
Code of

[[Page 39192]]

Regulations provides the following definition for a blast chiller:
    <bullet> Blast chiller--a refrigerator designed to cool food 
products from 140 [deg]F to 40 [deg]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:
    <bullet> Blast chiller--a rapid pull down cooler designed to cool 
food to a safe refrigerated temperature (typically between 32 [deg]F 
and 41 [deg]F), but not freeze it.
    <bullet> Blast freezer--a rapid pull down cooler designed to freeze 
food.
    <bullet> 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:
    <bullet> Rapid pull-down refrigerators and freezers--capable of 
reducing the internal temperature of their contents from 135 [deg]F to 
40 [deg]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 pull-down 
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 [deg]F \23\ for blast chillers and 
blast freezers versus 90 [deg]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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See NSF/ANSI 7--2019, ``Commercial Refrigerators and 
Freezers''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 [deg]F to 40 [deg]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 [deg]F to 40 [deg]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 pull-down 
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 [deg]F to 40 [deg]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 [deg]F to 40 [deg]F within a period of four hours and capable of 
achieving a final product temperature of less than 32 [deg]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 ft\3\. 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

[[Page 39193]]

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 pull-down 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 [deg]F rather than 50 [deg]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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 ft\3\. 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 
self-contained commercial blast chillers and blast freezers that have a 
refrigerated volume of up to 500 ft\3\.
    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  Measurements from
                               calibrated            the instruments
                               traceable to          shall be traceable
                               National Institute    to primary or
                               of Standards and      secondary standards
                               Technology            calibrated by NIST
                               (``NIST'')            (or other rating
                               standards annually.   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           Required Accuracy:
                               temperature           <plus-minus>1.4
                               measurements shall    [deg]F. Temperature
                               be within <plus-      measurement methods
                               minus>1.4 [deg]F.     and instruments
                               Accuracy of           shall be applied
                               temperature-          and used in
                               difference            accordance with
                               measurements shall    ASHRAE Standard
                               be within <plus-      41.1-2020.
                               minus>0.2 [deg]F.
                               Temperature
                               measurements not
                               specified shall be
                               made per ANSI/
                               ASHRAE Standard
                               41.1.2.
Time........................  Time measurements     Required Accuracy:
                               shall be made with    <plus-minus>0.5% of
                               an accuracy of        time period
                               <plus-minus>0.5% of   measured.
                               the time period
                               being measured.
Energy......................  Electrical energy     Required Accuracy:
                               measurements shall    must be measured
                               be made with          with an integrating
                               instruments           watt-hour meter
                               accurate to <plus-    with accuracy <plus-
                               minus>2% of the       minus>2.0% of the
                               quantity measured.    quantity measured
                                                     and graduated to
                                                     0.01 kWh.
Electrical supply potential   None specified......  Required Accuracy:
 and supply frequency.                               <plus-minus>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

[[Page 39194]]

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      DOE's current CRE
                                   ASHRAE 220          test procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dry Bulb....................  Measured at point     Measured at point TA
                               TA; Average: 86.0     for open; CRE and
                               [deg]F <plus-minus>   TB for closed CRE;
                               1.8 [deg]F;           Average: 75.2
                               Individual: 86.0      [deg]F <plus-minus>
                               [deg]F <plus-minus>   1.8 [deg]F;
                               3.6 [deg]F.           Individual: 75.2
                                                     [deg]F <plus-minus>
                                                     3.6 [deg]F.
Humidity....................  No test condition     Wet Bulb measured at
                               specified.            point TA for open
                                                     CRE and TB for
                                                     closed CRE;
                                                     Average: 64.4
                                                     [deg]F <plus-minus>
                                                     1.8 [deg]F;
                                                     Individual: 64.4
                                                     [deg]F <plus-minus>
                                                     3.6 [deg]F.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The dry-bulb is required to be measured in ASHRAE 220 at the same 
point (T<INF>A</INF>) 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 [deg]F to 79 [deg]F, 
while the average temperature in cooking areas ranged from 79 [deg]F to 
93 [deg]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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ ASHRAE RP-1469, ``Thermal Comfort in Commercial Kitchens,'' 
Final Report, January 6, 2012, page 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 T<INF>A</INF> 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 T<INF>A</INF> 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 <plus-
minus> 2.0 percent over the duration of the test and individual 
recorded voltages be within <plus-minus> 4.0 percent of the rated 
voltage. ASHRAE 220 specifies that the rated frequency be maintained 
within <plus-minus>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

[[Page 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 <plus-minus> 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, <plus-minus> 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 <plus-minus> 0.5 inches 
from the sides or rear of the cabinet and extend at least 12 <plus-
minus> 0.5 inches beyond each side of the cabinet from the floor to not 
less than 12 <plus-minus> 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:
    <bullet> The term ``refrigerator'' shall instead refer to ``blast 
chiller'' or ``blast freezer,'' as applicable.
    <bullet> 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.''
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 39196]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See ISO 22042:2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 [deg]F to 40 [deg]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 <plus-minus>5 percent or 
<plus-minus>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

[[Page 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 
pull-down 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 <plus-minus> 5 percent or <plus-
minus> 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 pre-cooling 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

[[Page 39198]]

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 one-minute 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 pre-cooling 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, pre-cool 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 pre-cool 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 pre-cooling 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 pre-cool 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 [deg]F or 2 [deg]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 [deg]F or 2 
[deg]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 pre-cool 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 <plus-minus> 1.8 [deg]F 
and an individual pan temperature tolerance of 160 <plus-minus> 10 
[deg]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 <plus-minus> 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 <plus-minus> 
1.0 minutes. DOE is proposing that the total door open period for 
loading pans would have a tolerance of <plus-minus> 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

[[Page 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 set-point 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 [deg]F and 2 [deg]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 [deg]F and a blast freezing cycle with a target 
temperature of 0 [deg]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 [deg]F or 2.0 
[deg]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 [deg]F or 2.0 
[deg]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 [deg]F 
until all individual measured pan temperatures are at or below 40.0 
[deg]F or 2.0 [deg]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 kilowatt-hours) 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.

[[Page 39200]]

    As discussed in the April 2014 Final Rule, the explicit 
categorization of griddle stands covers equipment that experiences 
temperatures exceeding 200 [deg]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 [deg]F 
and a broiler at 600 [deg]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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See www.caetrm.com/media/reference-documents/ET15SCE1010_Chef_Bases_Report_final2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]F 
and relative humidity of 35 percent <plus-minus> 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 [deg]F to 79 [deg]F, while the average temperature 
in cooking areas ranged from 79 [deg]F to 93 [deg]F. (Id.) The CA IOUs

[[Page 39201]]

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 [deg]F to 78 [deg]F 
during a cold month in February and between 82 [deg]F and 84 [deg]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 [deg]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 [deg]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 
[deg]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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ For information on the Version 5.0 specification 
development, see www.energystar.gov/products/spec/commercial_refrigerators_and_freezers_specification_version_5_0_pd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Undercounter: 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 [deg]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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Energy
                                                                      Energy        consumption
                                                   Refrigerated     consumption       without         Energy
                    Test unit                     volume (ft\3\)   with griddle       griddle       consumption
                                                                  installed (kWh/ installed (kWh/   difference
                                                                       day)       day) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

[[Page 39202]]

 
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

[[Page 39203]]

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-by-case 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 DOE-
prescribed 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Type I equipment is designed to operate in 75 [deg]F 
ambient conditions and Type II equipment is designed to operate in 
80 [deg]F ambient conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 39204]]

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 self-contained 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 multi-
compressor 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 
self-contained 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,

[[Page 39205]]

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 walk-in 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 [deg]F, 59 [deg]F, and 95 [deg]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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ ASHRAE 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 [deg]F from one 24-hour period or 
refrigeration cycle to the next.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 39206]]

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ On June 2, 2021, AHT sent a letter to DOE requesting that 
this interim waiver be withdrawn. See www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-WAV-0027-0015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 [deg]F of the IAT as measured

[[Page 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 
two-part calculation be applied based on the minimum duration between 
defrosts permitted by the unit's controls as shown in the following 
equation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JN22.000

    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; 
t<INF>NDI</INF> is the normalized length of defrosting time per day, in 
minutes; t<INF>DI</INF> is the length of time of the defrosting test 
period, in minutes; t<INF>DC</INF> 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Current DOE       May 2017      Full defrost
                                                  Total display     CRE test      interim waiver  cycle duration
                    HCT.SC.I                      area (ft\2\)   procedure (kWh/  approach (kWh/  approach (kWh/
                                                                      day)             day)            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 two-part 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

[[Page 39208]]

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 multi-evaporator 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 
(``ft\2\'') (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 ice-cream 
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 non-transparent 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.

[[Page 39209]]

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 
(``CO<INF>2</INF>'') 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 [deg]F with a saturated liquid 
pressure corresponding to a condensing temperature of 89.6 [deg]F to 
120.2 80 [deg]F. See ASHRAE 72-2005, Sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3. 
CO<INF>2</INF> has a critical point of 87.8 [deg]F and 1,070 pounds per 
square inch (``psi''), above which it is a supercritical fluid. 
Accordingly, CO<INF>2</INF> 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, 
CO<INF>2</INF> 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 CO<INF>2</INF> 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 [deg]F and 5 [deg]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 CO<INF>2</INF> 
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 CO<INF>2</INF> 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 CO<INF>2</INF> 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 CO<INF>2</INF> 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 CO<INF>2</INF> because the ASHRAE 72 committee will be 
considering the issue of typical conditions for CO<INF>2</INF> remote 
CRE. (Arneg, No. 12, p. 2)
    NEEA asserted that Table 1 of AHRI 1200-2013 is not representative 
of CO<INF>2</INF> 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 CO<INF>2</INF> 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 CO<INF>2</INF> 
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 CO<INF>2</INF> 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.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ NREL ``Refrigeration Playbook: Natural Refrigerants. 
Selecting and Designing Energy Efficient Commercial Refrigeration 
Systems That Use Low Global Warming Potential Refrigerants''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 CO<INF>2</INF>, likely by 
testing with non-CO<INF>2</INF> refrigerants under the existing test 
conditions, according to the existing approach, which references AHRI 
1200-2010. DOE expects that any ratings for current CO<INF>2</INF> 
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 CO<INF>2</INF> 
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 CO<INF>2</INF> 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 CO<INF>2</INF> 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 
CO<INF>2</INF> refrigerant. DOE is proposing that

[[Page 39210]]

for remote CRE tested with direct expansion CO<INF>2</INF>, the liquid 
inlet saturation temperature be 38 [deg]F with liquid inlet subcooling 
of 5 [deg]F.
    DOE research into the performance of different configurations of 
CO<INF>2</INF> booster systems indicates that enhanced CO<INF>2</INF> 
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 CO<INF>2</INF> 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 CO<INF>2</INF>, 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 CO<INF>2</INF> in this NOPR.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed alternate refrigerant 
conditions to be used for testing remote CRE with CO<INF>2</INF> 
refrigerant. DOE requests comment on whether any other aspects of the 
current test procedure require amendment to allow for testing with 
CO<INF>2</INF> 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 gas-fired 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 door-opening 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

[[Page 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 [deg]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 pick-up 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 door-opening 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 [deg]F storage temperature for these 
compartments and that the ambient compartment be treated as a medium 
temperature compartment at 75 [deg]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 [deg]F) and that 
compartments that are convertible between refrigerator and freezer (0 
[deg]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 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]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 
high-temperature 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.

[[Page 39212]]

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 product-specific 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 [deg]F (instead 
of 38 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]F), and multiple freezer models are 
rated at an IAT of -7 [deg]F (instead of 0 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 
[deg]F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Available at www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  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 Refrigerator-Freezers.'' 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

[[Page 39213]]

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 CO<INF>2</INF> 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.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Values calculated using the California Air Resources 
Board's (``CARB'') Refrigerant Calculator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 CO<INF>2</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See www.epa.gov/section608/refrigerant-recovery-and-recycling-equipment-certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:

[[Page 39214]]

    (1) Establish new definitions for high-temperature refrigerator, 
medium-temperature refrigerator, low-temperature 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 per-test 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

[[Page 39215]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 39216]]

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, Refrigerator-Freezers, 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))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the 
statute as amended through Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 
(Dec. 27, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Air-Conditioning 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Available at: www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ DOE's CCD is available at www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data (Last accessed January 26, 2022).
    \43\ California Energy Commission's MAEDbS is available at 
cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx 
(Last accessed January 26, 2022).
    \44\ Panjiva Supply Chain Intelligence is available at: 
panjiva.com/import-export/United-States.
    \45\ The Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers subscription login is 
available online at app.dnbhoovers.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 high-temperature refrigerator, 
medium-temperature refrigerator, low-temperature 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 39218]]

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-general-counsel. 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

[[Page 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/EERE-2017-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 industry-accepted 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/search-standards.
    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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#175667677b7e7679747244637679737665736446627264637e7879645772723973787239707861"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c180b1b1ada8a0afa2a492b5a0afa5a0b3a5b290b4a4b2b5a8aeafb281a4a4efa5aea4efa6aeb7">[email protected]</span></a>. 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

[[Page 39220]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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 ice-
cream 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 
ice-cream freezer and the proposed definition for low-temperature 
freezer.
    (3) DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for high-
temperature refrigerator and medium-temperature 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 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2.0 [deg]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 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]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.

[[Page 39222]]

    (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 pre-
cool 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,

[[Page 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

0
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.

0
2. Section 429.42 is amended by adding paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  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 [deg]F and <32 [deg]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 low-temperature freezers, or at the 
lowest application product temperature for each equipment class as 
specified in Sec.  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.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 429.72 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  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 
Sec.  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.
0
4. Section 429.134 is amended by adding paragraphs (s) and (t) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  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 pull-down temperature application 
will be considered valid only if a model meets the definition of pull-
down temperature application specified in Sec.  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 Sec.  431.64 of this chapter.
    (ii) The commercial refrigerator will be operated at ambient 
conditions consistent with those specified for commercial refrigerators 
in Sec.  431.64 of this chapter and at the control setting necessary to 
achieve a stable integrated average temperature of 38 [deg]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 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]F based on the average 
measured 12-ounce beverage

[[Page 39224]]

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 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]F.
    (v) An average stable temperature of 38 [deg]F will be determined 
by operating the commercial refrigerator for an additional 12 hours 
after initially reaching 38 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]F with no 
changes to control settings, and determining an integrated average 
temperature of 38 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]F at the end of the 12 
hour stability period.

PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND 
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
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.

0
6. Section 431.62 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  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 cross-section; 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 [deg]F to 40 [deg]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 [deg]F to 40 [deg]F within a period of four hours and capable of 
achieving a final product temperature of less than 32 [deg]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 self-service 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 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2 [deg]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 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2 [deg]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 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2 [deg]F) and at least one 
refrigerated compartment is capable of operating below 32 [deg]F 
(<plus-minus>2 [deg]F).
    Commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer means 
refrigeration equipment that -
    (1) Is not a consumer product (as defined in Sec.  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 cross-section; 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 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2.0 [deg]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[deg].
    Horizontal Open means equipment without doors and an air-curtain 
angle greater than or equal to 80[deg] from the vertical.

[[Page 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 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2.0 
[deg]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 [deg]F (<plus-
minus>2.0 [deg]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 
ice-cream freezer.
    Medium-temperature refrigerator means a commercial refrigerator 
that is capable of operating with an integrated average temperature of 
38.0 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2 [deg]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 
Sec.  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[deg] and less than 80[deg] 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 Sec.  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[deg].
    Vertical Open means equipment without doors and an air-curtain 
angle greater than or equal to 0[deg] and less than 10[deg] from the 
vertical.
    Wedge case means a commercial refrigerator, freezer, or 
refrigerator-freezer that forms the transition between two regularly 
shaped display cases.
0
7. Section 431.63 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  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, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1c5e6975707875727b6f5c797932787379327b736a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="692b1c00050d00070e1a290c0c470d060c470e061f">[email protected]</span></a>, https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/building-technologies-office. For information on the availability of this 
material at NARA, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c7a1b5e9aea9b4b7a2a4b3aea8a987a9a6b5a6e9a0a8b1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9ff9edb1f6f1eceffafcebf6f0f1dff1feedfeb1f8f0e9">[email protected]</span></a>, 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; 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8aebe2f8e3caebe2f8e3e4effea4e5f8ed"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="305158425970515842595e55441e5f4257">[email protected]</span></a>; 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 39226]]

    (b) ASHRAE. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and 
Air-Conditioning 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 Sec.  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.
0
8. Section 431.64 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  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 refrigerator-freezer 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]

0
9. Appendix A to subpart C of part 431is removed and reserved.
0
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 Sec.  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 self-contained 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 = [(Q<INF>rt</INF> + Q<INF>CP</INF>) [middot] (t--
t<INF>dt</INF>)]/(EER [middot] 1000)

Where CPEC and Q<INF>CP</INF> 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 [deg]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

[[Page 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 steady-state 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 [deg]F of 
the IAT as measured during the first part of the test. The energy 
consumed in this test, ET2, and duration, t<INF>DI</INF>, 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JN22.001

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;
t<INF>NDI</INF> = normalized length of defrosting time per day, in 
minutes;
t<INF>DI</INF> = length of time of defrosting test period, in 
minutes;
t<INF>DC</INF> = 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 door-opening 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 high-
temperature 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 
[deg]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 [Delta]T 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. Anti-sweat 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 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2.0 [deg]F. For low-temperature freezer 
compartments, the integrated average temperature shall be 150.4 
[deg]F <plus-minus> 2.0 [deg]F. For ambient compartments, the 
integrated average temperature shall be 75.4 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2.0 
[deg]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:

[[Page 39228]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JN22.002

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 [deg]F dry bulb/-20 [deg]F dew point for freezer 
compartment, 38 [deg]F dry bulb/20 [deg]F dew point for refrigerator 
compartment, 75 [deg]F dry bulb/20 [deg]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;
m<INF>a</INF> = 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 [deg]F per 
pound;
Wliner = weight of all liner parts, pounds; and
[Delta]Tliner = maximum temperature rise of all liner parts (e.g., 
4.5 [deg]F, 2.5 [deg]F, and 1 [deg]F for freezer, refrigerator, and 
ambient compartments, respectively), [deg]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 low-temperature 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 high-temperature 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 Sec.  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 [deg]F with 
liquid inlet subcooling of 5 [deg]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.''

0
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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 [deg]F 
<plus-minus> 2 [deg]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 Sec.  
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 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]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.

0
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 Sec.  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 ft\3\.
    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.''

[[Page 39230]]

    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 non-perforated 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[deg  Average over test
                                             ]F   period: <plus-
                                                  minus>1.8[deg]F.
                                                 Individual
                                                  measurements: <plus-
                                                  minus>3.6[deg]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 <plus-minus>5 percent or <plus-minus>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 [deg]F <plus-minus> 
1.8 [deg]F and individual pan temperatures shall be maintained at 
160 [deg]F <plus-minus> 10 [deg]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 [deg]F 
or 2 [deg]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 
[deg]F or 2 [deg]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 pre-cool 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 <plus-minus>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

[[Page 39231]]

chillers or blast freezers, respectively. The total door open period 
shall have a tolerance of <plus-minus>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 [deg]F and a blast freezing cycle shall have a 
target temperature of 0.0 [deg]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 [deg]F or 
2.0 [deg]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 [deg]F or 
2.0 [deg]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 [deg]F 
until all individual measured pan temperatures are at or below 40.0 
[deg]F or 2.0 [deg]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 kilowatt-
hours 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>