This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

31182 

Vol. 86, No. 111 

Friday, June 11, 2021 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[EERE–2017–BT–TP–0008] 

RIN 1904–AD83 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for Commercial 

Equipment; Early Assessment Review: 

Commercial Refrigerators, 

Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is undertaking an early 

assessment review to determine whether 

amendments are warranted for the test 

procedure for commercial refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers 

(‘‘CRE’’). DOE has identified certain 

issues associated with the currently 

applicable test procedure on which DOE 

is interested in receiving comment. The 

issues identified in this document 

concern scope and definitions, industry 

test standards, test conditions for 

specific CRE categories, test procedure 

clarifications and modifications, 

alternative refrigerants, certification of 

volumes, and test procedure waivers. 

DOE welcomes written comments from 

the public on any subject within the 

scope of this document, including 

topics not raised in this request for 

information (‘‘RFI’’). 

DATES: Written comments and 

information are requested and will be 

accepted on or before July 26, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2017–BT–TP–0008 

and/or RIN 1904–AD83, by any of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

httsp://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: To CRE2017TP0008@

ee.doe.gov. Include docket number 

EERE–2017–BT–TP–0008 and/or RIN 

1904–AD83 in the subject line of the 

message. 

No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

III of this document (Submission of 

Comments). 

Although DOE has routinely accepted 

public comment submissions through a 

variety of mechanism, including the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal, email, 

postal mail, or hand delivery/courier, 

the Department has found it necessary 

to make temporary modifications to the 

comment submission process in light of 

the ongoing Covid–19 pandemic. DOE is 

currently suspending receipt of public 

comments via postal mail and hand 

delivery/courier. If a commenter finds 

that this change poses an undue 

hardship, please contact Appliance 

Standards Program staff at (202) 586– 

1445 to discuss the need for alternative 

arrangements. Once the Covid–19 

pandemic health emergency is resolved, 

DOE anticipates resuming all of its 

regular options for public comment 

submission, including postal mail and 

hand delivery/courier. 

Docket: The docket for this activity, 

which includes Federal Register 

notices, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at https://

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the https://

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: 

https://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 III of this document for 

information on how to submit 

comments through https://

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–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287– 

1943. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9496. Email: 

Peter.Cochran@Hq.Doe.Gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment or review other 

public comments and the docket, 

contact the Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 

1445 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Rulemaking History 

II. Request for Information 

A. Scope and Definitions 

B. Updates to Industry Test Standards 

C. Test Conditions for Specific CRE 

Categories 

D. Harmonization of Efficiency Standards 

and Testing With NSF 7–2019 Food 

Safety Provisions 

E. Dedicated Remote Condensing Units 

F. Test Procedure Clarifications and 

Modifications 

G. Alternative Refrigerants 

H. Certification of Compartment Volume 

I. Test Procedure Waivers 

III. Submission of Comments 

I. Introduction 

DOE established an early assessment 

review process to conduct a more 

focused analysis that would allow DOE 

to determine, based on statutory criteria, 

whether an amended test procedure is 

warranted. 10 CFR part 430 subpart C 

appendix A section 8(a). This RFI 

requests information and data regarding 

whether an amended test would more 

accurately and fully comply with the 

requirement that the test procedure 

produce results that measure energy use 

during a representative average use 

cycle for the equipment, and not be 

unduly burdensome to conduct. To 

inform interested parties and to 

facilitate this process, DOE has 

identified several issues associated with 

the currently applicable test procedures 

on which DOE is interested in receiving 

comment. Based on the information 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 31183 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 

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

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

received in response to the RFI and 

DOE’s own analysis, DOE will 

determine whether to proceed with a 

rulemaking for an amended test 

procedure. 

If DOE makes an initial determination 

that an amended test procedure would 

more accurately or fully comply with 

statutory requirements, or DOE’s 

analysis is inconclusive, DOE would 

undertake a rulemaking to issue an 

amended test procedure. If DOE makes 

an initial determination based upon 

available evidence that an amended test 

procedure would not meet the 

applicable statutory criteria, DOE would 

engage in notice and comment 

rulemaking before issuing a final 

determination that an amended test 

procedure is not warranted. 

A. Authority 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1 among 

other things, 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) (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317 as 

codified), 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)) 

Under EPCA, DOE’s energy 

conservation program consists 

essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) 

labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 

standards, and (4) certification and 

enforcement procedures. Relevant 

provisions of EPCA 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). 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered products 

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 in limited 

instances for particular State laws or 

regulations, in accordance with the 

procedures and other provisions set 

forth under 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (e) 

(applying the preemption waiver 

provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297)). 

EPCA also requires that, at least once 

every 7 years, DOE evaluate test 

procedures for each type of covered 

product, 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 RFI to collect data and 

information to inform its decision to 

satisfy the 7-year-lookback review 

requirement. 

B. Rulemaking History 

The current DOE test procedure for 

CRE is codified in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) at 10 CFR part 431, 

subpart C, appendix B (‘‘Appendix B’’). 

DOE last updated the test procedure 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. DOE’s current test procedure 

incorporates by reference the following 

industry standards: (1) AirConditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute (‘‘AHRI’’) Standard 1200 (I–P)- 

2010 (‘‘AHRI 1200–2010’’), 

‘‘Performance Rating of Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 

Storage Cabinets’’; (2) the American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and 

Air-Conditioning Engineers 

(‘‘ASHRAE’’) Standard 72–2005 

(‘‘ASHRAE 72–2005’’), ‘‘Method of 

Testing Commercial Refrigerators and 

Freezers,’’ which was approved by the 

American National Standards Institute 

(‘‘ANSI’’) on July 29, 2005; and (3) 

ANSI/Association of Home Appliances 

(‘‘AHAM’’) Standard HRF–1–2008 

(‘‘AHAM HRF–1–2008’’), ‘‘Energy, 

Performance, and Capacity of 

Household Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers,’’ for determining 

refrigerated volumes for CRE. 

II. Request for Information 

DOE is publishing this RFI to collect 

data and information during the early 

assessment review to inform its 

decision, consistent with its obligations 

under EPCA, as to whether the 

Department should proceed with an 

amended test procedure rulemaking, 

and if so, to assist in the development 

of proposed amendments. Accordingly, 

in the following sections, DOE has 

identified specific issues on which it 

seeks input to aid in its analysis of 

whether an amended test procedure for 

CRE would more accurately or fully 

comply with the requirement that the 

test procedure produces results that 

measure energy use during a 

representative average use cycle for the 

product, and not be unduly burdensome 

to conduct. DOE also welcomes 

comments on other issues relevant to its 

early assessment that may not 

specifically be identified in this 

document. 

A. Scope and Definitions 

CRE means refrigeration equipment 

that is not a consumer product (as 

defined in 10 CFR 430.2); is not 

designed and marketed exclusively for 

medical, scientific, or research 

purposes; operates at a chilled, frozen, 

combination chilled and frozen, or 

variable temperature; displays or stores 

merchandise and other perishable 

materials horizontally, semi-vertically, 

or vertically; has transparent or solid 

doors, sliding or hinged doors, a 

combination of hinged, sliding, 

transparent, or solid doors, or no doors; 

is designed for pull-down temperature 

applications or holding temperature 

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

remote condensing unit. 10 CFR 431.62. 

1. Ice-Cream Freezers 

DOE further defines categories of CRE, 

including ‘‘ice-cream freezer.’’ DOE 

defines an ice-cream freezer as a 

commercial freezer that is designed to 

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

°C ± 1.1 °C) and that the manufacturer 

designs, markets, or intends for the 

storing, displaying, or dispensing of ice 

cream. 10 CFR 431.62. As such, under 

this definition, equipment not designed, 

marketed, or intended specifically for 

the storage, display, or dispensing of ice 

cream, would not be considered an ‘‘icecream freezer,’’ regardless of operating 

temperature. 

A manufacturer’s design intent may 

not always be explicit for all CRE. For 

example, a manufacturer may design a 

model capable of storing, displaying, or 

dispensing of ice cream, and intend for 

that operation when in use, but only 

specify technical operating parameters 

in the manufacturer literature for that 

model with no explicit reference to ice 

cream. In such a case, the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
31184 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

3 Integrated average temperature means the 

average temperature of all test package 

measurements taken during the test. 10 CFR 431.62. 

4Based on review of DOE’s Compliance 

Certification Database, available at https://

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data 

(accessed February 5, 2021). 

5See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A, 

section 3.2. 

manufacturer’s design intent would be 

unknown to a third party. 

DOE is considering amendments to 

the definition of ice-cream freezer that 

would incorporate technical features 

and characteristics to better delineate 

this equipment from other commercial 

freezers. 

Issue 1: DOE requests comment on the 

technical features that characterize ice 

cream freezers and distinguish them 

from commercial freezers capable of 

operating at or below ¥5 °F (±2 °F). 

Additionally, the ice-cream freezer 

definition references ‘‘ice cream’’, but 

the term is not specifically defined. 

Gelato, frozen yogurt, and other icecream-like products are typically 

displayed, stored, or 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. 

Issue 2: DOE requests comment on if 

further specificity is needed for the term 

‘‘ice-cream’’. DOE is also interested in 

whether manufacturers are certifying 

equipment intended to store gelato or 

other ice-cream like products as icecream freezers or freezers. 

Appendix B requires testing all icecream freezers to an integrated average 

temperature (‘‘IAT’’) 3 of ¥15 °F. 

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

includes a variety of equipment with a 

range of typical operating temperatures 

during normal use. For example, certain 

ice-cream freezers are designed to 

operate considerably below ¥5 °F 

(sometimes referred to as ‘‘hardening’’ 

cabinets and specifically designed for 

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

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

‘‘dipping cabinets’’ and other equipment 

used to hold ice cream intended for 

immediate consumption). Ice-cream 

freezers intended for higher-temperature 

operation are often not capable of 

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

instance, Appendix B requires testing 

the units to the lowest application 

product temperature (‘‘LAPT’’). 

Of the 445 ice-cream freezer models 

certified to DOE,4 55 are rated based on 

LAPTs warmer than ¥15 °F, including 

29 models with a rating temperature of 

¥5 °F. Many of these models are 

horizontal or service over counter and 

intended to hold ice cream for 

immediate consumption. Accordingly, 

testing at an IAT of 0 °F may be more 

representative of typical operation than 

testing to the LAPT for these models. 

If certain ice-cream freezers not 

capable of reaching an IAT of ¥15 °F 

should instead be tested at an IAT of 0 

°F, there may be an opportunity to better 

distinguish between ice-cream freezers 

and other freezers, as discussed earlier 

in this section. For example, the icecream freezer definition could be 

revised to refer to any freezer capable of 

operating at an IAT of ¥15 °F, 

regardless of the product stored in the 

equipment. Any other equipment 

currently meeting the ice-cream freezer 

definition but not capable of reaching an 

IAT of ¥15 °F would instead be 

classified and tested as freezers, not icecream freezers. Such an approach would 

use the measured IAT of the equipment 

as the foundation for this equipment 

definition, thus eliminating the reliance 

on manufacturer intent or the end use 

of the equipment. 

Issue 3: DOE seeks feedback on 

whether equipment that meets the 

current ice-cream freezer definition but 

cannot operate at an IAT of ¥15 °F ± 

2 °F should be tested at an IAT of 0 °F 

± 2°F instead of the LAPT. 

Issue 4: DOE additionally requests 

comment on whether the ice-cream 

freezer definition should only refer to 

equipment that is capable of achieving 

an IAT of ¥15 °F ± 2 °F without any 

reference to the manufacturer’s 

designed, marketed, or intended use. 

2. High-Temperature CRE 

Section 2.1 of Appendix B requires 

testing commercial refrigerators to an 

IAT of 38 °F ± 2 °F. DOE is aware of 

equipment that meets the definition of 

a commercial refrigerator but is capable 

of operating only at temperatures above 

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

Consistent with the current test 

procedure, manufacturers certify such 

equipment using the LAPT setting. 

Examples of these types of equipment 

include CRE designed for storing or 

displaying chocolate and/or wine, with 

typical recommended storage 

temperatures around 55 °F. 

DOE is 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. DOE is also 

considering establishing separate test 

requirements for high-temperature 

refrigerators, including the IAT required 

for testing. For consumer refrigeration 

products, DOE established the 

miscellaneous refrigeration product 

category to capture such products, with 

‘‘coolers’’ tested at a standardized 

cabinet temperature of 55 °F.5

Issue 5: DOE requests comment on 

whether an IAT of 55 °F ± 2 °F is an 

appropriate test condition for 

commercial high-temperature 

refrigerators. DOE also requests data on 

the typical operating temperatures of 

CRE that operate above an IAT of 38 °F 

± 2 °F. 

Issue 6: DOE requests comment on 

whether any additional changes or 

clarifications are needed to the test 

procedure to better account for the 

energy consumption of commercial 

high-temperature refrigerators. For 

example, DOE requests information on 

whether the current loading and dooropening requirements are appropriate 

for high-temperature CRE. 

B. Updates to Industry Test Standards 

As discussed previously, DOE’s test 

procedure for CRE currently 

incorporates by reference AHRI 1200– 

2010, ASHRAE 72–2005, and AHAM 

HRF–1–2008. 10 CFR 431.63. AHRI 

1200–2010 also references 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’’). 

The changes within these updated 

industry test standards are either 

editorial, to improve clarity, to better 

harmonize with the DOE test procedure, 

or relevant to other product types (e.g., 

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 Total Display Area (‘‘TDA’’) of CRE, 

as applicable. 

DOE is considering whether to update 

the current CRE test procedure and 

incorporate by reference the updated 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 31185 

6 Information and materials for ENERGY STAR’s 

Specification Version 5.0 process are available at 

https://www.energystar.gov/products/spec/ 

commercial_refrigerators_and_freezers_

specification_version_5_0_pd. 

7While the April 2014 Final Rule did not 

specifically refer to refrigerated preparation tables, 

DOE is considering them in this RFI because they 

have similar features to salad bars and buffet tables 

(e.g., an open top holding refrigerated pans) and are 

used during food preparation. 

industry test standards: AHRI 1200– 

2013, ASHRAE 72–2018, and AHAM 

HRF–1–2016. These references would 

replace previous references to the 

superseded AHRI 1200–2010, ASHRAE 

72–2005, and AHAM HRF–1–2008 

standards referenced in the current CRE 

test procedure. 

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. For these and the other 

referenced industry standards, were 

DOE to determine to propose an 

amended CRE test procedure, DOE 

would consider adopting the most 

updated industry test procedures 

available during the course of such a 

rulemaking. 

Issue 7: DOE requests 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. 

DOE additionally requests 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. 

AHRI has another rating standard 

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 

cases that are equipped and designed to 

work with electrically driven, mediumtemperature, single-phase secondary 

coolant systems, but excludes 

equipment used for low-temperature 

applications, secondary coolants 

involving a phase change (e.g., ice 

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

includes similar rating temperature 

conditions as those in AHRI 1200–2013 

and references ASHRAE 72–2005 and 

AHAM HRF–1–2008 for the 

measurement of energy consumption 

and calculation of refrigerated volume, 

respectively. The only substantive 

differences between AHRI 1200–2013 

and AHRI 1320–2011 are the inclusion 

of secondary refrigerant circulation 

pump energy consumption in the 

calculation of total daily energy 

consumption and revised coefficients of 

performance to determine compressor 

energy consumption. DOE is evaluating 

AHRI 1320–2011 as a potential test 

method to rate CRE that use secondary 

refrigerants. 

Issue 8: DOE requests 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. DOE also seeks information and 

data on CRE designed to work with 

electrically driven, mediumtemperature, single-phase secondary 

coolant systems, including the typical 

field installations and operating 

conditions. 

Issue 9: DOE also requests 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. 

C. Test Conditions for Specific CRE 

Categories 

DOE has identified specific categories 

of CRE that are not currently subject to 

the DOE test procedure. These certain 

categories of CRE either cannot be tested 

using DOE’s current test procedure or 

the current test procedure may not be 

representative of their use. These 

categories are discussed in the following 

paragraphs. In this RFI, DOE is 

considering whether amendments are 

warranted to DOE’s current test 

procedures to provide for the 

appropriate testing of such categories of 

CRE. This section discusses potential 

definitions and test procedures for each 

category of CRE identified. 

Additionally, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’) ENERGY 

STAR program recently announced that 

it is considering three of these 

equipment categories for scope 

expansion and test method 

development: Refrigerated preparation 

and buffet tables; chef bases or griddle 

stands; and blast chillers and freezers.6

DOE will consider information gathered 

through that process when determining 

whether these equipment categories 

should be defined and included within 

the scope of DOE’s CRE test procedure. 

1. Salad Bars, Buffet Tables and 

Refrigerated Preparation Tables 

Salad bars, buffet tables, and other 

refrigerated holding and serving 

equipment, such as refrigerated 

preparation tables, are CRE that store 

and display perishable items 

temporarily during food preparation or 

service. These units typically have 

easily accessible or open bins that allow 

convenient and unimpeded access to 

the refrigerated products. In the April 

2014 Final Rule, DOE did not include 

test procedures for this equipment, but 

maintained that this equipment meets 

the definition of CRE and could 

therefore be subject to future test 

procedures and energy conservation 

standards. 77 FR 22278, 22281. In this 

RFI, DOE is considering definitions and 

test procedures applicable to salad bars, 

buffet tables, and refrigerated 

preparation tables.7 As discussed in 

sections II.C.4 and II.C.5 of this RFI, 

DOE is also requesting information on 

other refrigerated holding and serving 

equipment, including definitions and 

appropriate test procedures. 

ASTM International F2143–16 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Performance 

of Refrigerated Buffet and Preparation 

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

the following definitions for refrigerated 

buffet and preparation tables: 

• Refrigerated buffet and preparation 

table—equipment designed with a 

refrigerated open top or open condiment 

rail. 

• Refrigerated buffet table or unit— 

equipment designed with mechanical 

refrigeration that is intended to receive 

refrigerated food and maintain food 

product temperatures and is intended 

for customer service such as a salad bar. 

A unit may or may not be equipped 

with a lower refrigerated compartment. 

• Refrigerated food preparation 

unit—equipment designed with a 

refrigerated open top or open condiment 

rail such as refrigerated sandwich units, 

pizza preparation tables, and similar 

equipment. The unit may or may not be 

equipped with a lower refrigerated 

compartment. 

DOE will consider these definitions if 

it determines that definitions for these 

equipment categories are appropriate. 

DOE notes that certain terms used 

within these definitions are undefined 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
31186 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

(e.g., condiment rails, food product 

temperatures). Additionally, DOE is not 

aware of any other industry standard 

definitions for these equipment types 

(nor for salad bars). DOE is requesting 

feedback to better understand the 

appropriate terms, definitions, and 

operating characteristics of salad bars, 

buffet tables, and refrigerated 

preparation. This information would 

inform DOE’s decision to group or 

differentiate different types of 

equipment within this category in any 

eventual definitions or test procedures. 

Issue 10: DOE requests comment 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. DOE requests comment on 

whether any further delineation of the 

equipment category, salad bars, buffet 

tables, and refrigerated preparation 

tables, is 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). 

Issue 11: DOE requests comment on 

the specific features and equipment 

capabilities that should be included in 

definitions for refrigerated salad bars, 

buffet tables, and preparation tables. For 

example, DOE seeks information on the 

factors that would differentiate this 

equipment from other typical CRE. DOE 

also requests whether potential 

definitions should specify temperature 

operating ranges, and if so, what the 

appropriate ranges would be. 

The configuration of salad bars, buffet 

tables, and refrigerated preparation 

tables may also raise questions as to 

whether a unit is commercial hybrid 

refrigeration equipment. Commercial 

hybrid refrigeration equipment is 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. 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. 

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. 

Issue 12: DOE requests comment on 

whether the presence of thermally 

separating partitions should be 

considered as a factor to differentiate 

between refrigerated salad bars, buffet 

tables, and preparation tables on the one 

hand, and commercial hybrid units 

consisting of a refrigerated salad bar, 

buffet table, or preparation table with a 

refrigerator and/or freezer on the other 

hand. 

In conjunction with considering 

definitions for this equipment, DOE is 

also considering whether to adopt a test 

procedure to evaluate their energy 

consumption. DOE reviewed ASTM 

F2143–16 and noted several differences 

between this test method and DOE’s 

current test procedure for CRE. 

Specifically, ASTM F2143–16 

specifies different rating conditions for 

test room dry-bulb temperature and 

moisture content than the current DOE 

test procedure. Table II–1 summarizes 

these differences. 

TABLE II–1—TEST ROOM DRY-BULB TEMPERATURE & MOISTURE CONTENT STANDARDS COMPARISON

Equipment type Test standard 

Test room 

dry bulb 

temperature 

Wet bulb 

temperature 

(relative humidity) 

Moisture content 

(lb/lb dry air) 

Currently Covered CRE ........................ ASHRAE 72–2005 (incorporated by 

reference).

75.2 °F ± 1.8 °F 64.4 °F ± 1.8 °F (49–62 percent *) ...... 0.009–0.011 

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

* Equivalent value from psychrometric conversion. ASHRAE 72–2005 specifies web bulb temperature, while ASTM F2143–16 specifies relative humidity. 

Issue 13: DOE requests comment and 

supporting data on test room dry-bulb 

temperature and moisture content 

typically experienced by refrigerated 

salad bars, buffet tables, and preparation 

tables operating in the field. DOE 

requests comment on whether these 

conditions are significantly different 

from those encountered by conventional 

CRE and would justify adopting 

separate rating conditions for 

refrigerated salad bars, 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 salad bar, buffet table, or 

preparation table under test. For 

example, is the measurement location 

based on the highest point of the unit 

under test 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 measurement location 

at the center of the unit 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). 

Issue 14: DOE requests comment on 

the appropriate locations for recording 

ambient conditions when testing 

refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and 

preparation tables to ensure repeatable 

and reproducible testing for a range of 

equipment configurations. 

DOE notes that ASTM F2143–16 

specifies temperature measurements for 

refrigerated preparation 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, which incorporates by 

reference ASHRAE 72–2005 and AHRI 

1200–2010, 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 31187 

requires 70 to 90 percent of the 

compartment net usable volume to be 

loaded with filler material and test 

simulators for testing. See ASHRAE 72– 

2005, section 6.2.5. Refrigerated salad 

bars, 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 longterm storage but testing with the 

refrigerated compartment entirely empty 

also may not be representative of 

average use. 

Issue 15: DOE requests 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 refrigerated salad bars, 

preparation tables, or buffet tables. DOE 

requests comment on whether adopting 

test packages and filler materials similar 

to DOE’s current test procedure (as 

specified in ASHRAE 72–2005) may 

better represent the properties of these 

foods, instead of distilled water. 

Issue 16: DOE requests comment on 

the feasibility of requiring temperature 

measurements in closed refrigerated 

compartments of refrigerated salad bars, 

buffet tables, and preparation tables 

using test packages as specified in 

ASHRAE 72, and whether the 

compartments should be loaded with 

any filler packages (and to what percent 

of the net usable volume) for testing. If 

the test packages are not appropriate for 

measuring compartment temperatures, 

DOE requests comment on alternatives 

that should be used instead (e.g., 

thermocouples located in pans filled 

with distilled water, thermocouples as 

specified in ASTM F2143–16, or 

weighted thermocouples). 

Additionally, ASTM F2143–16 

specifies the pans for holding water to 

be standard 4-inch deep 1⁄6-size metal 

steam table pans with a weight of 0.70 

± 0.07 lb. ASTM F2143–16 allows for 

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. 

Issue 17: DOE requests comment on 

whether pan dimensions should be 

standardized if testing refrigerated salad 

bars, buffet tables, and preparation 

tables is required, or whether these 

units should be tested with pans 

meeting manufacturer-recommended 

pan dimensions. If pans were 

standardized, DOE requests 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. 

DOE also requests information on 

whether the pan material should be 

defined in greater detail, recognizing 

that ASTM F2143–16 specifies only that 

the pans be ‘‘metal.’’ 

Section 10.5.6 of ASTM F2143–16 

specifies that if it is possible to control 

cooling to the display area 

independently of the refrigerated 

cabinet, the cooling to the display area 

is turned off and all pans are to be 

moved from the display area to the 

refrigerated cabinet underneath after the 

active period. The ability to control 

cooling in both the display area and the 

refrigerated cabinet independently of 

each other suggests that this language 

applies to units with thermallyseparated compartments and pan areas, 

which may be considered commercial 

hybrid refrigeration equipment. 

Issue 18: DOE requests 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 

refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and 

preparation tables. DOE further requests 

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. 

As described, refrigerated salad bars, 

buffet tables, and preparation tables 

store and display perishable items 

temporarily during food preparation or 

service. Due to the short duration of use 

of salad bars, buffet tables, and 

preparation tables, these equipment 

types may not be used for the same 24- 

hour duration used to characterize 

performance for other categories of CRE. 

However, ASTM F2143–16 specifies a 

24-hour test, with an active period of 8 

hours and a standby period of 16 hours. 

The active period provisions contain 

instructions for a cover, if equipped: 

Open for 2 hours, closed for 4 hours, 

open for 2 hours. These provisions also 

contain instructions for a door opening 

sequence: 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. 

Issue 19: DOE requests comment on 

the typical daily usage of refrigerated 

salad bars, buffet tables, and preparation 

tables. Additionally, DOE requests 

feedback on whether these CRE are used 

for long-term storage of food or only 

short-term storage during food 

preparation or service periods. DOE also 

requests comment on whether the daily 

use of this equipment varies depending 

on configuration or other technical 

characteristics. 

Issue 20: DOE requests comment on 

the applicability of the ASTM F2143–16 

door and cover opening specifications. 

If the ASTM door and cover opening 

requirements are not representative of 

typical use, DOE requests comment on 

an appropriate door and cover opening 

sequence. For example, DOE requests 

comment on whether the door-opening 

requirements specified in ASHRAE 72– 

2018 are appropriate for refrigerated 

salad bars, buffet tables, and preparation 

tables. 

ASHRAE 72–2018 and ASTM F2143– 

16 have different loading requirements 

for stabilization. ASTM F2143–16 

specifies that the unit operates with 

empty pans for at least 2 hours, water 

be pre-cooled before being loaded into 

the pans, and, once the water has been 

loaded into the pans, that the thermostat 

be calibrated until the pan temperatures 

are never outside of 33 °F to 41 °F for 

any 15-minute period over a 4-hour 

measurement period. Although 

ASHRAE 72–2018 does not specify how 

to test units with display pans, it 

generally provides that the unit be 

loaded with test simulators and filler 

packages and then operated to establish 

steady-state conditions over consecutive 

24-hour periods or refrigeration cycles. 

Issue 21: DOE requests comment on 

the appropriate stabilization method to 

use when testing refrigerated salad bars, 

buffet tables, and preparation tables. 

ASTM F2143–16 instructs that if a 

buffet or preparation table is equipped 

with a refrigerated compartment, the 

compartment air temperature is to be 

between 33 °F and 41 °F. Likewise, the 

water temperature of the pans placed in 

the display area also are to be between 

33 °F and 41 °F. Alternatively, the DOE 

test procedure for other CRE requires 

IATs of 38 °F ± 2.0 °F for medium 

temperature applications. Through 

preliminary research, DOE has found 

that buffet and preparation tables use a 

variety of refrigeration methods for 

cooling the pans in the display area and 

the refrigerated compartment. In some 

configurations, units might not be able 

to maintain all pans and the refrigerated 

compartment within the specified 

temperature range. For example, units 

with a single refrigeration system and 

thermostat control for temperatures in 

either the refrigerated compartment or 

in the pans. As a result, it may be 

possible for only the refrigerated 

compartment or the pans, but not both, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
31188 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

8 ‘‘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 (42 U.S.C. 

6311(9)(B)). 

to be kept within a specified 

temperature range during operation. 

Issue 22: DOE requests 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. 

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 requests comment on 

which IAT should be used to determine 

the appropriate thermostat control (if 

the unit only has one overall 

temperature control). 

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. However, 

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 when considering metrics 

that define energy performance. 

Additionally, pan surface area could be 

another possible metric that defines 

energy performance, similar to TDA for 

horizontal open equipment classes. This 

method may eliminate the variability 

with different test pan dimensions. 

However, using either pan surface area 

or TDA as the relevant performance 

metric may lead to difficulty when also 

accounting for the storage volume of any 

refrigerated compartments in the 

equipment. 

Issue 23: DOE requests comment on 

the potential methodologies for 

determining pan volume, pan surface 

area, and pan TDA, as well as 

refrigerated compartment volume for 

refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and 

preparation tables in a potential test 

procedure for this equipment. DOE 

additionally requests 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. 

ASTM F2143–16 does not account for 

defrost cycles when testing this 

equipment, other than indicating in the 

test report whether a defrost cycle 

occurred. ASHRAE 72–2018 directs that 

the test period begins with a defrost 

cycle. Defrost cycles increase the energy 

consumption of refrigeration equipment; 

however, through preliminary research, 

DOE has found that most refrigerated 

salad bars, buffet tables and preparation 

tables use off-cycle defrosts, which melt 

any frost accumulation through the 

evaporator fan running 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 (i.e., there may not be 

an identifiable defrost occurrence in the 

measured test data). 

Issue 24: DOE requests comment on 

whether a possible test procedure 

should consider defrost cycles for 

refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and 

preparation tables, and if so, how. 

2. Pull-Down Temperature Applications 

As defined, a CRE must be designed 

for holding temperature applications 8

or pull-down temperature applications. 

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

‘‘Pull-down temperature application’’ is 

a commercial refrigerator with doors 

that, when fully loaded with 12-ounce 

beverage cans at 90 °F, can cool those 

beverages to an average stable 

temperature of 38 °F in 12 hours or less. 

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

CRE within this definition are typically 

known as beverage merchandisers or 

beverage coolers because of their use in 

displaying individually packaged 

beverages for sale, and their ability to 

rapidly cool such beverages. Such 

equipment with transparent doors is 

currently subject to DOE’s test 

procedures set forth at 10 CFR 431.64 

and required to comply with the energy 

conservation standards specified at 10 

CFR 431.66(e). 

DOE’s current CRE test procedure 

does not include any procedure to verify 

a unit’s pull-down performance for CRE 

meeting 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 precooled 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 how to measure the temperature of 

the cans to confirm cooling to 38 °F. 

Issue 25: DOE seeks information on 

whether CRE that provides pull-down 

temperature applications is sufficiently 

differentiated from other types of CRE. 

If not, DOE seeks comment on how 

manufacturers currently determine 

whether a model meets the pull-down 

temperature application criteria. DOE 

requests comment on appropriate 

starting conditions, loading methods, 

and other necessary specifications for a 

potential test method to verify the pulldown performance of a commercial 

refrigerator. 

Whereas 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), pull-down periods may 

account for a substantial amount of the 

energy these models consume in actual 

operation. In order to better reflect the 

representative energy consumption 

associated with pull-down periods, DOE 

is considering revising the test method 

for commercial refrigerators designed 

for pull-down applications to also 

reflect energy consumption during the 

pull-down period. 

Issue 26: DOE requests comment and 

supporting data on the energy 

consumption associated with pull-down 

operation for commercial refrigerators 

designed for pull-down temperature 

applications, including the amount of 

time these models typically spend in 

both pull-down conditions and steadystate operation. DOE additionally 

requests comment on whether a 

modified test method (i.e., one that 

accounts for both pull-down and steady 

state performance) might be more 

appropriate to represent the energy 

consumption of equipment in this class. 

While the cooling criteria in the pulldown temperature application 

definition is in terms of cooling 

beverage cans, the definition is not 

explicitly limited to beverage 

merchandisers and beverage coolers. 

Other equipment with solid doors 

intended to rapidly cool or freeze food, 

commonly referred to as blast chillers 

and blast freezers, may also meet the 

pull-down temperature application 

definition. DOE does not define blast 

chiller and/or blast freezers. The 

California Code of Regulations (‘‘CCR’’) 

defines a blast chiller as a refrigerator 

designed to cool food products from 140 

°F to 40 °F within four hours. (CCR, 

Title 20, section 1602) DOE seeks 

comment on whether there is equipment 

that is not a beverage merchandiser or 

beverage cooler, but that would meet the 

pull-down temperature application 

definitions. 

Issue 27: DOE requests 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. If 

definitions are needed, DOE requests 

comment on the appropriate definitions 

for blast chillers and blast freezers, 

including how to differentiate such 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 31189 

9See https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/ 

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

equipment from CRE currently subject 

to testing and compliance with DOE’s 

energy conservation standards. 

DOE is not aware of any existing test 

methods for assessing the energy 

performance of equipment generally 

considered blast chillers and blast 

freezers. 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.9 DOE is 

participating in this process and will 

consider referencing publicly available 

industry standards as may be 

appropriate in any future test procedure 

rulemaking. DOE is requesting 

information on typical blast chiller and 

blast freezer operation to evaluate any 

eventual test methods available for this 

equipment 

Issue 28: DOE requests comment and 

supporting data on the typical ambient 

conditions experienced by blast chillers 

and blast freezers. 

Issue 29: DOE requests comment and 

supporting data on the typical usage 

settings for blast chillers and blast 

freezers and how different set-point 

modes affect energy performance. For 

units with multiple temperature settings 

within the refrigerator or freezer 

temperature range, DOE requests 

comment on which setting is 

appropriate for testing. Additionally, for 

units with settings that affect the pulldown duration, DOE requests comment 

on whether the fastest or slowest setting 

(or any other setting if more than two 

settings are provided) should be used 

for testing. 

3. 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. In 

this RFI, DOE is requesting information 

and feedback regarding definitions and 

test procedures for chef bases and 

griddle stands. 

As discussed in the April 2014 Final 

Rule, the explicit categorization of 

griddle stands is meant to accommodate 

equipment that experiences 

temperatures exceeding 200 °F. 79 FR 

22278, 22282. However, DOE notes that 

the current definition for chef bases and 

griddle stands does not specify a 

quantitative means for determining the 

equipment that meets the definition, 

such as a temperature rating for cooking 

appliances placed on top of chef bases 

and griddle stands or specifications for 

the refrigeration systems to differentiate 

this equipment from typical CRE. Also, 

the DOE test procedure does not specify 

unique temperature test conditions for 

this equipment. 

Issue 30: DOE requests 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. 

Specifically, DOE requests feedback on 

a quantifiable characteristics of chef 

bases and griddle stands that 

differentiate this equipment from other 

CRE. This includes information on 

appropriate temperature ranges and 

refrigeration system characteristics that 

could be used to classify equipment as 

chef bases and griddle stands. 

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 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. As a result, this equipment 

tends to consume more energy than 

similarly sized, conventional CRE 

models. 79 FR 22278, 22281–22282. 

Although this equipment can be tested 

using DOE’s current test procedure, the 

test room temperature conditions 

specified in DOE’s test procedure may 

not represent the conditions 

experienced by chef bases and griddle 

stands in the field, due to the cooking 

equipment installed on top of such 

equipment. Specifically, the current 

CRE test procedure may not 

appropriately specify installation and 

setup for chef bases and griddle stands 

to reflect real-world conditions. 

Issue 31: DOE requests comment on 

whether modifications to the current 

CRE test procedure would be 

appropriate for testing chef bases and 

griddle stands to better represent realworld use conditions. DOE specifically 

requests 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. DOE also requests 

comment on whether the existing DOE 

test procedure is appropriate for 

measuring the energy use of this 

equipment. 

4. Mobile Refrigerated Cabinets 

DOE does not currently define or 

specify test procedures for other types of 

refrigerated holding and serving 

equipment such as certain mobile 

refrigerated cabinets. As discussed in 

the April 2014 Final Rule, DOE 

determined that such other types 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 22278, 22281. 

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 most 

typical CRE, mobile refrigerated 

cabinets are not continuously connected 

to a power supply. To better distinguish 

mobile refrigerated cabinets from other 

defined categories of CRE, DOE is 

considering developing definitions for 

this equipment. 

Issue 32: DOE seeks information on 

the design features and operating 

characteristics of mobile refrigerated 

cabinets that would differentiate this 

equipment from other CRE or 

refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and 

preparation tables. 

In addition to definitions, DOE is 

considering whether to develop a test 

procedure for mobile refrigerated 

cabinets. The operating conditions, 

installation locations, and usage 

characteristics for this equipment are 

likely very different compared to typical 

CRE. For example, as discussed, mobile 

refrigerated cabinets are not 

continuously connected to a power 

supply and may not have typical door 

openings for user access. To determine 

appropriate test procedures to evaluate 

the energy consumption of this 

equipment, DOE is requesting 

information on any characteristics of 

their operation. DOE is not aware of any 

industry standards that address 

performance of mobile refrigerated 

cabinets. 

Issue 33: DOE requests comment on 

what test conditions (e.g., temperature, 

moisture content) would be appropriate 

in a potential test procedure for mobile 

refrigerated cabinets, given that this 

equipment often operates in unique 

conditions and applications. DOE 

additionally requests comment on 

appropriate specifications for door 

openings, stabilization and test periods, 

and installation configurations for 

mobile refrigerated cabinets (including 

representative operating times when 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
31190 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

10Founded in 1944 as the National Sanitation 

Foundation, the organization changed its name to 

NSF International in 1990. 

connected and disconnected from a 

power supply). DOE seeks any data 

describing how these units are used in 

the field to help inform potential 

appropriate test conditions and 

procedures. 

5. Additional Covered Equipment 

DOE understands that there may be 

additional equipment available on the 

market that meet the definition for CRE, 

but otherwise do not meet the 

definitions for the existing equipment 

classes or additional equipment 

categories described in this section. One 

such example may be a unit used to 

chill and dispense condiments—for 

example cream in a coffee shop. Such 

units would meet the general CRE 

definition but may have different 

operation and customer use compared 

to equipment covered under the existing 

CRE equipment categories (e.g., fewer 

door openings only for re-loading the 

product). 

Issue 34: DOE requests feedback from 

interested parties on what other CRE 

may be available on the market that 

would require separate equipment 

category definitions and test procedures. 

Specifically, DOE seeks 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. DOE also requests 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. 

Issue 35: DOE also requests 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. DOE seeks feedback on an 

appropriate definition, and on the types 

of equipment it should cover. 

Furthermore, DOE understands that 

there may be CRE that are currently 

categorized into existing equipment 

classes but may require different test 

requirements to reflect typical field 

usage. One example may be CRE that are 

typically used in cafeteria settings to 

store and provide access to cartons of 

milk, often referred to as ‘‘milk coolers.’’ 

Milk coolers may have longer door 

openings during a relatively short 

period of the day (i.e., ‘‘lunch hour’’). 

Another such example may be CRE that 

are specifically designed to only operate 

outdoors. Such units may operate in 

different real-world ambient conditions 

compared to the other CRE (and the 

DOE test procedure). Similarly, unique 

shelves or loading configurations may 

require additional test instructions. For 

example, the DOE test procedure 

loading requirements may not be 

appropriate (or possible) for floral 

display merchandisers with unique 

shelf setups. 

Issue 36: DOE requests feedback from 

interested parties on whether any 

additional or different test requirements 

are needed for CRE that meet the 

definitions for the existing equipment 

classes but may have sufficiently unique 

applications from other equipment in 

the same class. Specifically, DOE seeks 

information on how these requirements 

should be addressed in the test 

procedure and how the equipment’s 

typical usage in the field is different 

than other CRE within the respective 

equipment class. DOE also requests 

comment and information on how it 

should be determined whether alternate 

test conditions should apply. 

Issue 37: DOE also requests comment 

on whether DOE could further clarify 

the use of supplemental test instructions 

to address alternate testing requirements 

for specific CRE applications in order to 

provide more representative results. 

D. Harmonization of Efficiency 

Standards and Testing With NSF 7– 

2019 Food Safety 

NSF International (‘‘NSF’’) 10/ANSI 7– 

2019, ‘‘Commercial Refrigerators and 

Freezers,’’ (‘‘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. The current CRE test 

procedure allows Type I (designed to 

operate in 75 °F ambient conditions) 

and Type II (designed to operate in 80 

°F ambient conditions) display 

refrigerators to be tested at NSF 

conditions, provided that these 

conditions result in higher energy 

consumption than the conditions 

specified by the DOE test procedure. 

Appendix B, section 2.3. 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. 

Issue 38: To ensure further that the 

DOE test procedure is appropriately 

representative, and to potentially 

decrease manufacturer test burden, DOE 

requests comment on ways in which the 

DOE test procedure may be modified to 

better harmonize with NSF 7–2019, if 

appropriate. DOE specifically requests 

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. 

E. Dedicated Remote Condensing Units 

DOE is also aware of remote 

condensing CRE models where specific 

dedicated condensing units are 

intended for use with specific 

refrigerated cases. DOE has identified 

such equipment through manufacturer 

literature, installation instructions, and 

vendor information treating the entire 

system as a single model. In many of 

these situations, the remote condensing 

units are intended to be installed on or 

near the refrigerated case within the 

same conditioned space. In other 

situations, the remote condensing units 

are intended to be installed outdoors, 

but the refrigerated case is intended to 

be used specifically with the designated 

remote condensing unit. 

For this equipment, the combined 

refrigerated case and condensing unit 

refrigeration system would effectively 

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

current DOE test procedure, remote CRE 

energy consumption is determined from 

the energy use of components in the 

refrigerated case plus a calculated 

compressor energy consumption based 

on the enthalpy change of refrigerant 

supplied to the case at specified 

conditions. The compressor energy use 

calculation is based on typical 

reciprocating compressor energy 

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

operating conditions. See Table 1 in 

AHRI 1200–2010. For CRE used with 

dedicated condensing units, the actual 

compressor used during normal 

operation is known (i.e., the compressor 

in the dedicated condensing unit). 

Accordingly, testing the whole system 

using the same approach as required for 

a self-contained CRE may produce 

energy use results that are more 

representative of how this equipment 

actually operates in the field. 

Additionally, testing such a system as a 

complete system rather than using the 

test procedures for remote condensing 

units may be less burdensome because 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 31191 

11ASHRAE 72–2005 and ASHRAE 72–2018 

define steady state as the condition where the 

average temperature of all test simulators changes 

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

refrigeration cycle to the next. 

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). 

Issue 39: DOE seeks 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. 

Issue 40: DOE requests 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). For 

example, such testing could be required 

only when manufacturers specify 

specific dedicated remote condensing 

units for use with a remote refrigerated 

case. 

Issue 41: DOE requests comment on 

appropriate test installations and 

conditions for testing CRE with paired 

remote condensing units. For example, 

both the refrigerated case and dedicated 

remote condensing unit could be 

installed within the same conditioned 

space, resulting in a test similar to that 

required for CRE with self-contained 

condensing units. 

Refrigerated cases do not always 

specify dedicated remote condensing 

units with which to be matched. 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. 

Issue 42: DOE also requests 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. DOE 

requests comment on potential 

approaches to evaluate the energy 

performance of dedicated remote 

condensing units independent of their 

use with specific refrigerated cases. 

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 starting the 24-hour test period 

with a defrost after steady-state 

conditions are achieved.11 This method 

introduces a degree of variability in the 

measured energy consumption when the 

24-hour period does not end at the end 

of a complete defrost cycle (the period 

from one defrost to the next) (i.e., the 

test period captures a portion of a 

defrost cycle rather than complete 

defrost cycles). Typically, if multiple 

complete defrost cycles occur within the 

24-hour period, the impact of capturing 

partial defrost cycles is small. Similarly, 

if the defrost cycle duration is slightly 

greater than 24-hours, the impact of 

capturing a partial defrost cycle will 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 provisions for 

addressing the possibility of CRE with 

variable defrost control schemes (i.e., 

defrosts that may be triggered based on 

conditions or other parameters rather 

than only a timer) or CRE with no 

automatic defrost (i.e., manual defrost). 

DOE has addressed similar issues in 

the test procedures for consumer 

refrigeration products. The test 

procedures for those products apply a 

two-part test period (one period for 

steady-state operation and one period to 

capture events related to the defrost 

cycle) to account for defrost energy 

consumption for products with long 

defrost cycle durations or with variable 

defrost control. The energy use 

calculations then weight the 

performance from each test period based 

on the known compressor runtime 

between defrosts or based on a 

calculated average time between 

defrosts in field operation that is based 

on the control parameters for variable 

defrosts. See appendices A and B to 

subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. 

Additionally, DOE has addressed 

testing of certain commercial units that 

do not have automatic defrost in a 

waiver granted to AHT Cooling Systems 

GmbH and AHT Cooling Systems USA 

Inc. (‘‘AHT’’) published on October 30, 

2018. 83 FR 54581. For basic models 

subject to the waiver the test period 

begins after steady state conditions 

occur (instead of beginning with a 

defrost cycle) and that the door-opening 

period begin 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’’). The interim waiver 

requires 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 precooling or temperature recovery 

following the defrost. 82 FR 24330, 

24332–24333. 

Issue 43: DOE requests 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. DOE additionally 

requests comment and supporting data 

on how incorporating a two-part test 

procedure may impact measured energy 

consumption, test burden, and 

repeatability and reproducibility. 

Additionally, DOE requests information 

on the availability of equipment with 

variable defrost control and the control 

schemes employed in those models, if 

any are available. DOE requests 

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. 

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. 

The DOE test procedure for consumer 

refrigeration products also addresses 

products with multiple evaporators and 

multiple defrosts. In that test procedure, 

the second (i.e., defrost) part of the test 

period is conducted separately for each 

defrost occurrence. Section 4.2.4 of 10 

CFR part 430 subpart B appendix A. 

Similar to the two-part test described 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
31192 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

earlier in this section, the energy use 

calculations weight each individual 

defrost test period with the steady-state 

test period using the known compressor 

runtime between each defrost type or 

based on a calculated average time 

between defrosts. Section 5.2.1.5 of 10 

CFR part 430 subpart B appendix A. 

Issue 44: DOE requests 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. DOE requests 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 twopart approach, as described earlier in 

this section, would be appropriate. 

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 ft2 (i.e., 

portions through which product can be 

viewed from an angle normal, or 

perpendicular, to the transparent area). 

For certain CRE configurations, 

merchandise is not necessarily located 

at an angle directly normal, or 

perpendicular, to the transparent area 

despite the transparent area being 

intended for customer viewing. For 

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

may be placed within the chest portion 

of the refrigerated case, with a glass 

display panel on the front and glass rear 

doors located above the merchandise 

storage area. If the glass display areas 

are nearly vertical, the ice cream 

containers may be positioned low 

enough in the case that they are not at 

a viewing angle perpendicular to the 

glass. However, during typical use, 

customers would stand close enough to 

the display glass that the ice cream 

would be visible from other angles not 

perpendicular to the glass. Accordingly, 

DOE is considering whether additional 

TDA instructions are necessary to 

capture the intended display function of 

this equipment. 

Issue 45: DOE seeks 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. If so, DOE requests information 

on how to define the revised display 

area. 

Issue 46: DOE also requests comment 

on other CRE applications or 

configurations for which the TDA, as 

currently defined, may not adequately 

represent the display functionality of 

the equipment. 

G. Alternative Refrigerants 

DOE’s current test procedure for 

remote condensing CRE requires the 

estimation of compressor EER from 

Table 1 of AHRI 1200–2010. The EER 

ratings in the table are based on 

performance of reciprocating 

compressors and were developed based 

on refrigerants that historically have 

been commonly used for CRE (i.e., R– 

404A). 

Certain remote CRE installations can 

use carbon dioxide (‘‘CO2’’) as the 

refrigerant; however, the existing remote 

CRE test procedure likely does not 

address the unique operation for these 

systems. For example, the current DOE 

test procedure requires an inlet 

refrigerant liquid temperature of 80 °F 

with a saturated liquid pressure 

corresponding to a condensing 

temperature of 89.6 °F to 120.2 80 °F. 

See ASHRAE 72–2005, sections 4.3.2 

and 4.3.3. CO2 has a critical point of 

87.8 °F and 1,070 pounds per square 

inch (‘‘psi’’), above which it is a 

supercritical fluid. Accordingly, CO2

cannot be a liquid at the specified 

condensing temperature conditions (i.e., 

it would either be a gas or supercritical 

fluid, depending on pressure). 

Additionally, CO2 systems typically 

include multiple stages of compression 

and cooling, resulting in liquid supplied 

to the refrigerant cases at conditions not 

necessarily defined by the typical 

condensing unit conditions. DOE has 

recently granted a Decision and Order to 

address similar CO2 operating 

conditions for testing walk-in cooler and 

walk-in freezer unit coolers. 86 FR 

14487 (March 19, 2021). That Decision 

and Order approach requires liquid inlet 

saturation temperature and liquid inlet 

subcooling of 38 °F and 5 °F, 

respectively. 86 FR 14487, 14489. The 

Decision and Order 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 1200–2020). Id. 

Issue 47: DOE requests information on 

the typical conditions for remote CRE 

intended for use with CO2 refrigerant. 

DOE requests comment and data on the 

applicability of the EER values in Table 

1 of AHRI 1200–2010 to the typical 

compressor EERs for CO2 refrigerant 

systems. 

Issue 48: DOE also requests 

information and supporting data on 

whether the existing test procedure is 

appropriate for any other alternative 

refrigerants that may be used for remote 

CRE. DOE requests 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. DOE also requests usage 

data regarding the range of refrigerants 

in the remote CRE market. 

H. Certification of Compartment 

Volume 

The current certification requirements 

specified in 10 CFR 429.42 require 

manufacturers to certify compartment 

volumes for certain equipment classes 

of CRE. 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’’) to in designing their 

equipment. 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. DOE 

is considering whether it should allow 

CRE manufacturers to certify 

compartment volumes using CAD 

drawings. Currently, DOE’s certification 

requirements in 10 CFR part 429 

include provisions for certifying volume 

for basic models of consumer 

refrigeration products, commercial gasfired and oil-fired instantaneous water 

heaters, and hot water supply boilers 

using CAD drawings. 10 CFR 429.72(c), 

(d), and (e). 

Issue 49: DOE requests comment on 

whether allowing manufacturers to 

certify compartment volumes for CRE 

basic models using CAD drawings 

would introduce any testing or 

certification issues. DOE also seeks 

information on the extent to which the 

use of CAD drawings may reduce 

manufacturer test burden. 

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). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 31193 

DOE has granted test procedures 

waivers for the current CRE test 

procedure. On September 12, 2018, DOE 

published a test procedure for ITW Food 

Equipment Group, LLC (‘‘ITW’’) for 

testing specified grocery and general 

merchandise system (i.e., refrigerated 

storage allowing for order storage and 

customer pickup) basic models which 

have unique operating characteristics 

including floating suction temperatures 

for individual compartments, different 

typical door-opening cycles, and a hightemperature ‘‘ambient’’ compartment. 

83 FR 46148. As discussed in section 

II.E.1, DOE has granted AHT a test 

procedure waiver to allow for testing 

specified basic models that do not have 

defrost cycle capability when operated 

in freezer mode. 83 FR 54581. 

Additionally, also discussed in section 

II.E.1, DOE has granted AHT an interim 

test procedure waiver for testing certain 

models with defrost cycles longer than 

24 hours. 82 FR 24330. 

The test procedure waivers for these 

CRE basic models have addressed 

provisions in the test procedures that 

would evaluate subject basic models in 

a manner so unrepresentative of their 

true energy consumption characteristics 

as to provide materially inaccurate 

comparative data. 

Issue 50: DOE requests feedback on 

whether the test procedure waiver 

approaches for the ITW and AHT 

petitions are generally appropriate for 

testing basic models with these features. 

III. Submission of Contents 

DOE invites all interested parties to 

submit in writing by the date specified 

in the DATES heading, comments and 

information on matters addressed in this 

RFI and on other matters relevant to 

DOE’s early assessment of whether an 

amended test procedure for CRE is 

warranted and if so, what such 

amendments should be. 

Submitting comments via https://

www.regulations.gov. The https://

www.regulations.gov web page requires 

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 https://

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 https://

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 https://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 https://

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 https:// 

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 in 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 

telefacsimiles (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. 

Submit these documents via email. 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 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

DOE considers public participation to 

be a very important part of the process 

for developing test procedures and 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

actively encourages the participation 

and interaction of the public during the 

comment period in each stage of this 

process. Interactions with and between 

members of the public provide a 

balanced discussion of the issues and 

assist DOE in the process. Anyone who 

wishes to be added to the DOE mailing 

list to receive future notices and 

information about this process should 

contact Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 

1445 or via email at 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on June 4, 2021, by 

Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting 

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
31194 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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 7, 

2021. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2021–12160 Filed 6–10–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2021–0460; Project 

Identifier MCAI–2020–01620–R] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for 

certain Airbus Helicopters Model 

AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, and 

AS355F2 helicopters. This proposed AD 

was prompted by multiple fatigue 

cracks in power turbine (PT) 3rd stage 

wheels. This proposed AD would 

require revising the existing Rotorcraft 

Flight Manual (RFM) for your helicopter 

and installing a placard. The FAA is 

proposing this AD to address the unsafe 

condition on these products. 

DATES: The FAA must receive comments 

on this proposed AD by July 26, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

For Airbus Helicopters service 

information identified in this NPRM, 

contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 North 

Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; 

telephone (972) 641–0000 or (800) 232– 

0323; fax (972) 641–3775; or at https:// 

www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/ 

technical-support.html. For Rolls-Royce 

service information identified in this 

NPRM, contact Rolls-Royce plc, 

Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 

31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom; 

phone: +44 (0)1332 242424; fax: +44 

(0)1332 249936; or at https://www.rollsroyce.com/contact-us.aspx. You may 

view this service information at the 

FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, 

Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood 

Pkwy., Room 6N–321, Fort Worth, TX 

76177. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call (817) 222–5110. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket at 

https://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for and locating Docket No. 

FAA–2021–0460; or in person at Docket 

Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. The AD docket contains this 

NPRM, the European Union Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any 

comments received, and other 

information. The street address for 

Docket Operations is listed above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Hughlett, Aerospace Engineer, 

General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, 

International Validation Branch, FAA, 

10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 

76177; telephone (817) 222–5110; email 

michael.hughlett@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites you to send any 

written relevant data, views, or 

arguments about this proposal. Send 

your comments to an address listed 

under ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2021–0460; Project Identifier 

MCAI–2020–01620–R’’ at the beginning 

of your comments. The most helpful 

comments reference a specific portion of 

the proposal, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. The FAA will consider 

all comments received by the closing 

date and may amend this proposal 

because of those comments. 

Except for Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) as described in the 

following paragraph, and other 

information as described in 14 CFR 

11.35, the FAA will post all comments 

received, without change, to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. The 

agency will also post a report 

summarizing each substantive verbal 

contact received about this NPRM. 

Confidential Business Information 

CBI is commercial or financial 

information that is both customarily and 

actually treated as private by its owner. 

Under the Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt 

from public disclosure. If your 

comments responsive to this NPRM 

contain commercial or financial 

information that is customarily treated 

as private, that you actually treat as 

private, and that is relevant or 

responsive to this NPRM, it is important 

that you clearly designate the submitted 

comments as CBI. Please mark each 

page of your submission containing CBI 

as ‘‘PROPIN.’’ The FAA will treat such 

marked submissions as confidential 

under the FOIA, and they will not be 

placed in the public docket of this 

NPRM. Submissions containing CBI 

should be sent to Michael Hughlett, 

Aerospace Engineer, General Aviation & 

Rotorcraft Section, International 

Validation Branch, FAA, 10101 

Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; 

telephone (817) 222–5110; email 

michael.hughlett@faa.gov. Any 

commentary that the FAA receives 

which is not specifically designated as 

CBI will be placed in the public docket 

for this rulemaking. 

Background 

EASA, which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Union, has issued EASA AD 2020–0266, 

dated December 8, 2020 (EASA AD 

2020–0266), to correct an unsafe 

condition for Airbus Helicopters (AH), 

formerly Eurocopter, Eurocopter France, 

Aerospatiale Model AS 355 E, AS 355 

F, AS 355 F1, and AS 355 F2 

helicopters, all serial numbers, if 

equipped with Rolls-Royce Corporation 

(formerly Allison) (RRC) engine Model 

250–C20F. EASA advises of multiple 

fatigue cracks in PT 3rd stage wheels. 

Investigation has revealed that crack 

initiation at the hub trailing edge could 

occur in low-cycle fatigue and progress 

in high-cycle fatigue up to separation of 

the blade. According to EASA, RRC has 

determined that detrimental vibrations 

could occur within a particular range of 

turbine speeds, below the normal 

operating range of this helicopter, which 

are a potential contributing factor to 

these failures. This condition, if not 

addressed, could result in fatigue failure 

of a PT 3rd stage wheel, and subsequent 

loss of engine power, release of debris 

and damage to the helicopter, and loss 

of control of the helicopter. 

Accordingly, EASA AD 2020–0266 

requires revising the Normal Procedures 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS