Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedures for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket No. EERE-2009-BT-TP-0003]

RIN 1904-AB92

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedures for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers

AGENCY:

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Final rule, Interim final rule.

SUMMARY:

On May 27, 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to amend the test procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. That proposed rulemaking serves as the basis for today's action. DOE is issuing a final rule regarding Appendix A1 and Appendix B1, and an interim final rule for Appendix A and Appendix B. The final rule amends the current procedures, incorporating changes that will take effect 30 days after the final rule publication date. These changes will be mandatory for product testing to demonstrate compliance with the current energy standards and for representations starting 180 days after publication. These changes, which will not affect measured energy use, include test procedures to account for refrigerator-freezers equipped with variable anti-sweat heater controls, establishing test procedures for refrigerator-freezers equipped with more than two compartments, making minor adjustments to eliminate any potential ambiguity regarding how to conduct tests, and clarifying certain reporting requirements. The interim final rule establishes amended test procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers that would be required for measuring energy consumption once DOE promulgates new energy conservation standards for these products. These new standards are currently under development in a separate rulemaking activity and will apply to newly manufactured products starting in 2014. Today's action also discusses the treatment of combination wine storage-freezer products that were the subject of a recent test procedure waiver, energy use measurement round-off, and additional topics raised by stakeholders during the rulemaking's comment period.

While the amended test procedures will be based largely on the test methodology used in the existing test procedures, they also include significant revisions with respect to the measurement of compartment temperatures and compartment volumes. These measurements will provide a more comprehensive accounting of energy usage by these products. The amended test procedure will modify the long-time automatic defrost test procedure to capture all energy use associated with the defrost cycle, establish a test procedure for products with a single compressor and multiple evaporators with active defrost cycles, incorporate into the energy use metric the energy use associated with icemaking for products with automatic icemakers, and clarify requirements on temperature control settings during testing.

DATES:

The amendments to §§ 430.2, 430.3, 430.23 and Appendix A1 and Appendix B1 (the final rule) are effective January 18, 2011. The additions of Appendix A and Appendix B (the interim rule) are effective April 15, 2011.

The final rule changes will be mandatory for product testing starting June 14, 2011. Comments on the interim final rule are due February 14, 2011.

The incorporation by reference of ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-1979, (“HRF-1-1979”), (Revision of ANSI B38.1-1970), American National Standard, Household Refrigerators, Combination Refrigerator-Freezers and Household Freezers, approved May 17, 1979, IBR approved for Appendices A1 and B1 to Subpart B, in the final rule is approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal Register as of January 18, 2011.

The incorporation by reference of AHAM Standard HRF-1-2008 (“HRF-1-2008”), Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances (2008), including Errata to Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances, Correction Sheet issued November 17, 2009, IBR approved for Appendices A and B to Subpart B, in the interim rule is approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal Register as of April 15, 2011.

ADDRESSES:

The public may review copies of all materials related to this rulemaking at the U.S. Department of Energy, Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC, (202) 586-2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at the above telephone number for additional information regarding visiting the Resource Room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Subid Wagley, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, 202-287-1414, e-mail:

Subid.Wagley@ee.doe.gov

or Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. E-mail:

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov

.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This final rule and interim final rule incorporate by reference into part 430 the following industry standards:

(1) ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-1979, (Revision of ANSI B38.1-1970), (“HRF-1-1979”),

American National Standard, Household Refrigerators, Combination Refrigerator-Freezers and Household Freezers,

approved May 17, 1979;

(2) AHAM Standard HRF-1-2008, (“HRF-1-2008”), Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances (2008), including Errata to Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances, Correction Sheet issued November 17, 2009.

You can purchase copies of AHAM standards from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, 1111 19th Street, NW., Suite 402, Washington, DC 20036, 202-872-5955, or

http://www.aham.org.

You can also view copies of these standards at the U.S. Department of Energy, Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Authority

II. Summary of the Final Rule and Interim Final Rule

III. Discussion

A. Products Covered by the Proposed Revisions

B. Combination Wine Storage-Freezer Units

C. Establishing New Appendices A and B, and Compliance Dates for the Amended Test Procedures

D. Amendments To Take Effect Prior to a New Energy Conservation Standard

1. Procedures for Test Sample Preparation

2. Product Clearances to Walls During Testing

3. Alternative Compartment Temperature Sensor Locations

4. Median Temperature Settings for Electronic Control Products and Establishment of Dual Standardized Temperatures

5. Test Procedures for Convertible Compartments and Special Compartments

6. Establishing a Temperature-Averaging Procedure for Auxiliary Compartments

7. Modified Definition for Anti-Sweat Heater

8. Applying the Anti-Sweat Heater Switch Averaging Credit to Energy Use Calculations

9. Incorporation of Test Procedures for Products With Variable Anti-Sweat Heating Control Waivers

10. Elimination of Part 3 of the Variable Defrost Test

11. Corrections and Other Test Procedure Language Changes

12. Including in Certification Reports Basic Information Clarifying Energy Measurements

13. Rounding Off Energy Test Results

E. Amendments To Take Effect Simultaneously With a New Energy Conservation Standard

1. Modification of Long-Time and Variable Defrost Test Method To Capture Precooling and Temperature-Recovery Energy

2. Establishing Test Procedures for Multiple Defrost Cycle Types

3. Incorporating by Reference AHAM Standard HRF-1-2008 for Measuring Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances

4. Establishing New Compartment Temperatures

5. Establishing New Volume Calculation Method

6. Control Settings for Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers During Testing

7. Icemakers and Icemaking

F. Other Issues

1. Electric Heaters

2. Vacuum Insulation Panel Performance

3. Metric Units

G. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements

1. Test Burden

2. Potential Amendments To Include Standby and Off Mode Energy Consumption

3. Addressing Changes in Measured Energy Use

IV. Procedural Requirements

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974

M. Congressional Notification

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Background and Authority

Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6291,

et seq.;

“EPCA” or, “the Act”) sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), Pub. L. 110-140 (Dec. 19, 2007)). Part B of title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309), which was subsequently redesignated as Part A for editorial reasons, establishes the “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.” Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers (collectively referred to below as “refrigeration products”) are all treated as “covered products” under this Part. (42 U.S.C. 6291(1)-(2) and 6292(a)(1)). Under the Act, this program consists essentially of three parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, and (3) Federal energy conservation standards. The testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use (1) as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA, and (2) for making representations about the efficiency of those products. Similarly, DOE must use these test requirements to determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA.

By way of background, the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), Public Law 100-12, amended EPCA by including, among other things, performance standards for residential refrigeration products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)). On November 17, 1989, DOE amended these performance standards for products manufactured on or after January 1, 1993. 54 FR 47916. DOE subsequently published a correction to revise these new standards for three product classes. 55 FR 42845 (October 24, 1990). DOE again updated the performance standards for refrigeration products on April 28, 1997, for products manufactured on or after July 1, 2001. 62 FR 23102.

EISA 2007 amended EPCA to require DOE to determine by December 31, 2010, whether amending the energy conservation standards in effect for refrigeration products would be justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(4)). To comply with this requirement, DOE began a new rulemaking to examine the potential adoption of new energy conservation standards for these products. 75 FR 59470 (Sept. 27, 2010) (hereafter, “standards NOPR”). On September 18, 2008, DOE issued a framework document to initiate that rulemaking. 73 FR 54089. On September 29, 2008, DOE held a public workshop to discuss the framework document and issues related to the rulemaking. The framework document identified several test procedure issues, including: (1) Compartment temperature changes; (2) modified volume calculation methods; (3) products that deactivate energy-using features during energy testing; (4) variable anti-sweat heaters; (5) references to the updated AHAM Standard HRF-1-2008, (“HRF-1-2008”), Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances (2008), including Errata to Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances, Correction Sheet issued November 17, 2009; (6) convertible compartments; and (7) harmonization with international test procedures. (“Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Framework Document for Residential Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers,” RIN 1904-AB79, Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012) DOE initiated this test procedure rulemaking in part to address these issues, and published a notice of proposed rulemaking on May 27, 2010, hereafter referred to as “the NOPR.” 75 FR 29824.

In response to issue (3) mentioned above as applied to automatic icemakers, DOE separately published a guidance document addressing various aspects related to the icemaker, including the manner in which to measure icemaking energy usage as well as set-up issues during testing. (“Additional Guidance Regarding Application of Current Procedures for Testing Energy Consumption of Refrigerator-Freezers with Automatic Ice Makers,” (December 18, 2009) published at 75 FR 2122 (January 14, 2010)).

General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process

Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA provides in relevant part that “[a]ny test procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use * * * or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use, as determined by the Secretary [of Energy], and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct.” (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)).

In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)). When considering amending a test procedure, DOE must determine “to what extent, if any, the proposed test procedure would alter the * * * measured energy use * * * of any covered product as determined under the existing test procedure.” (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)). If DOE determines that the amended test procedure would alter the measured energy use of a covered product, DOE must also amend the applicable energy conservation standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)).

With respect to today's rulemaking, DOE has determined that five of the amendments it is adopting (compartment temperature changes (described in section III.E.4), volume calculation method changes (described in section III.E.5), amendments to capture precooling and partial recovery energy use (described in section III.E.1), amendments in the test procedures for special compartments using heat addition to control temperature (described in section III.D.5), and new test procedures that address products with a single compressor with multiple evaporators with active defrost cycles (described in section III.E.2)) will change the measured energy use of refrigeration products when compared to the current test procedure. In such situations, EPCA requires a standards rulemaking to address such changes in measured energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)). DOE is considering the impacts of these changes as part of its standards rulemaking for refrigeration products, noted above.

Today's rule also fulfills DOE's obligation to periodically review its test procedures under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A). DOE anticipates that its next evaluation of this test procedure will occur in a manner consistent with the timeline set out in this provision.

Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers

DOE's test procedures for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers are found at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A1. DOE initially established its test procedures for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers in a final rule published in the

Federal Register

on September 14, 1977. 42 FR 46140. Industry representatives viewed these test procedures as too complex and eventually developed alternative test procedures in conjunction with AHAM that were incorporated into the 1979 version of HRF-1, “Household Refrigerators, Combination Refrigerator-Freezers, and Household Freezers” (HRF-1-1979). Using this industry-created test procedure, DOE revised its test procedures on August 10, 1982. 47 FR 34517. On August 31, 1989, DOE published a final rule establishing test procedures for variable defrost control (a system that varies the time intervals between defrosts based on the defrost need), dual-compressor refrigerator-freezers, and freezers equipped with “quick-freeze” (a manually-initiated feature that bypasses the thermostat and runs the compressor continuously until terminated). 54 FR 36238. DOE most recently amended these test procedures in a final rule published March 7, 2003, which modified the test period used for products equipped with long-time automatic defrost or variable defrost. 68 FR 10957. The term “long-time automatic defrost” identifies the use of an automatic defrost control in which successive defrosts are separated by more than 14 hours of compressor run time. The test procedures include provisions for determining the annual energy use in kilowatt-hours (kWh) and the annual operating cost for electricity for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers.

Also, consistent with the regulations set out in 10 CFR part 430, the 1989 and 2003 final rules terminated all the previous refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer test procedure waivers that DOE had previously granted to manufacturers before the issuance of the 2003 rule. Since the issuance of that rule, DOE has granted 11 waivers, which fall into two broad groupings. First, on April 24, 2007, DOE granted a waiver to Liebherr Hausgeräte (Liebherr waiver), permitting testing of a combination wine storage-freezer line of appliances using a standardized temperature of 55 °F for the wine storage compartment, as opposed to the 45 °F temperature prescribed for fresh food compartments of refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. 72 FR 20333, 20334.

Second, DOE has granted 10 waivers allowing manufacturers to use a modified procedure to test refrigeration products that use ambient condition sensors that adjust anti-sweat heater power consumption. These variable anti-sweat heaters prevent condensation on the external surfaces of refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. The new control addressed by the waivers uses sensors that detect ambient conditions to energize the heaters only when needed. The procedure described by these waivers provides a method for manufacturers to determine the energy consumed by a refrigerator using this type of variable control system. The first of these waivers was granted to the General Electric Company (GE) on February 27, 2008. 73 FR 10425. The full set of such waivers is summarized in Table I.1 below.

Table I.1—Variable Anti-Sweat Heater Control Waivers

Manufacturer

Waiver status

Case No.

Date

Federal Register citation

GE

Granted

RF-007

2/27/2008

73 FR 10425

Whirlpool

Granted

RF-008

5/5/2009

74 FR 20695

Electrolux

Granted

RF-009

12/15/2009

74 FR 66338

Electrolux

Granted

RF-010

3/11/2010

75 FR 11530

Samsung

Granted

RF-011

3/18/2010

75 FR 13120

Electrolux

Granted

RF-012

4/29/2010

75 FR 22584

Haier

Granted

RF-013

6/7/2010

75 FR 32175

Samsung

Granted

RF-014

8/3/2010

75 FR 45623

GE

Granted

RF-015

8/19/2010

75 FR 51262

LG

Granted

RF-016

8/19/2010

75 FR 51264

After granting a waiver, DOE regulations generally direct the agency to initiate a rulemaking that would amend the regulations to eliminate the continued need for the waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(m). This rulemaking addresses this requirement. Once today's final rule becomes effective, any waivers it addresses will terminate.

Freezers

DOE's test procedures for freezers are found at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix B1. DOE established its test

procedures for freezers in a final rule published in the

Federal Register

on September 14, 1977. 42 FR 46140. As with DOE's test procedures for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, industry representatives viewed the freezer test procedures as too complex and worked with AHAM to develop alternative test procedures, which were incorporated into the 1979 version of HRF-1. DOE revised its test procedures for freezers based on this AHAM standard on August 10, 1982. 47 FR 34517. The August 31, 1989, final rule mentioned above established test procedures for freezers with variable defrost control and freezers with the quick-freeze feature. 54 FR 36238. The test procedures were amended on September 20, 1989, to correct the effective date published in the August 31, 1989 rule. 54 FR 38788. The current test procedures include provisions for determining the annual energy use in kWh and annual electrical operating costs for freezers.

DOE has not issued any waivers from the freezer test procedures since the promulgation of the 1989 final rule.

Current Refrigeration Product Test Procedure Rulemaking

The NOPR for this rulemaking was published on May 27, 2010. 75 FR 29824. The public meeting was held June 22, 2010. At the meeting, DOE discussed the NOPR, detailed the proposed revisions, and solicited oral comments from meeting participants. Numerous stakeholders attended the meeting and/or provided written comments. These parties are identified in Table I.2 below.

Table I.2—Stakeholders That Submitted Oral or Written Comments

Name

Acronym

Type*

Oral

comments

Written comments

AcuTemp/ThermoCor

ThermoCor

CS

✔

American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy

ACEEE

EA

✔

✔

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

AHAM

IR

✔

✔

California Investor-Owned Utilities

IOUs

U

✔

Earthjustice

Earthjustice

EA

✔

✔

Electrolux Major Appliances North America

Electrolux

M

✔

✔

Energy Solutions for California Investor-Owned Utilities

IOUs

U

✔

Fisher & Paykel Appliances Ltd

Fisher & Paykel

M

✔

General Electric Consumer and Industrial

GE

M

✔

✔

NanoPore Insulation, LLC

NanoPore

CS

✔

National Institute of Standards and Technology

NIST

TE

✔

Natural Resources Defense Council

NRDC

EA

✔

✔

People's Republic of China WTO/TBT National Notification & Enquiry Center

PRC

FG

✔

Sanyo E&E Corporation

Sanyo

M

✔

Sub Zero-Wolf, Inc

Sub Zero

M

✔

✔

Whirlpool Corporation

Whirlpool

M

✔

✔

Penfield Appliances

Penfield

I

✔

* IR: Industry Representative; M: Manufacturer; EA: Efficiency/Environmental Advocate; CS: Component Supplier: TE: Technical Expert: I: Individual; U: Utility; FG: Foreign Government Agency.

II. Summary of the Final Rule and Interim Final Rule

The final rule amends the current DOE test procedures for refrigeration products. These changes will not affect measured energy use of these products. Instead they will primarily clarify the manner in which to test for compliance with the current energy conservation standards. As indicated in greater detail below, these amendments apply to the current procedures in Appendices A1 and B1, to the definitions set forth in 10 CFR 430.2, to the current procedures in 10 CFR 430.23. These minor amendments will eliminate any potential ambiguity contained in these sections of the test procedures and clarify the regulatory text to ensure that regulated entities fully understand the long-standing views and interpretations that the Department holds with respect to the application and implementation of the test procedures. The current procedures are also being amended to help account for, among other things, the various waivers granted by DOE. The final rule also makes a minor change to the text of 10 CFR 430.32(a) in order to ensure consistency with the test procedure amendments.

The interim final rule establishes comprehensive changes to the manner in which the procedures are conducted by creating new Appendices A and B. These appendices include the modifications being adopted today as part of the modified Appendices A1 and B1 prescribed in this regulation. The procedures contained in the new Appendices A and B apply only to those products that would be covered by any new standard that DOE promulgates and are organized separately from the current test procedures found in Appendices A1 and B1. DOE will retain current Appendices A1 and B1 for this interim final rulemaking to cover products manufactured before any new standards DOE is currently considering would need to be met. However, once manufacturers are required to comply with any new standards, those appendices will be replaced by Appendices A and B, respectively.

The final rule amendments discussed in this notice will take effect 30 days after publication of this final rule. However, manufacturers do not need to use the new versions of Appendices A1 and B1 for testing to verify compliance with the energy standards until 180 days from the final rule's publication. The interim final rule will take effect 120 days after date of publication of this final rule. Manufacturers will not need to use the new Appendices A and B until the compliance date for the 2014 standards that DOE is considering. The date of compliance with those new standards has been set by Congress through EISA 2007 (i.e. January 1, 2014). See EISA 2007, sec. 311(a)(3) (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(4)). In order to ensure that new Appendices A and B adequately address the new energy standards currently under development, DOE is issuing these appendices on an interim final basis and offering an additional 60 day comment period.

The revised Appendices A1 and B1 achieve three primary goals. First, they address certain issues raised throughout

the standards rulemaking. Second, they incorporate test procedures for refrigerator-freezers with variable anti-sweat heater controls that were the subject of test procedure waivers and interim waivers granted to GE and other manufacturers. Finally, the amendments clarify the test procedures for addressing special compartments and those refrigeration products that are equipped with more than one fresh food compartment or more than one freezer compartment.

The revisions also address areas of potential inconsistency in the current procedure, and eliminate an optional test that DOE understands is not used by the industry. None of these changes is expected to result in any change in measured energy efficiency or energy use of refrigeration products.

The additional test procedure revisions in the new Appendices A and B would (1) include new compartment temperatures and volume adjustment factors,

1

(2) include new methods for measuring compartment volumes, (3) modify the long-time automatic defrost test procedure to ensure that the test procedure measures all energy use associated with the defrost function, and (4) establish test procedures for products with a single compressor and multiple evaporators with active defrost cycles. The first two of these amendments will improve harmonization with relevant international standards and assure test repeatability. The compartment temperature changes will significantly impact the energy use measured by the test for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. The temperature changes will also affect the calculated adjusted volume, which is equal to the fresh food compartment volume plus a temperature-dependent adjustment factor multiplied by the freezer compartment volume. The new volume calculation method will affect the calculation for compartment volumes and adjusted volume for all refrigeration products. Since the standards for refrigeration products are expressed as equations that specify maximum energy use as a function of adjusted volume, the modifications impact the allowable energy use for all of these products. The changes also affect the energy factor, which is equal to adjusted volume divided by daily energy consumption.

1

Volume adjustment factors are used in calculation of the adjusted volume, which is the basis for the energy conservation standard equations for refrigeration products.

The final rule also discusses the combination wine storage-freezer products that were the subject of the Liebherr waiver. DOE expects to propose modified product definitions to include coverage of wine storage products in a separate future rulemaking. This final rule treats wine coolers and other hybrid products that combine wine storage compartments with freezer or fresh food compartments in a consistent manner, by modifying the definition of electric refrigerator-freezer to require compartment temperatures in the fresh food compartment that effectively exclude combination wine storage-freezer products from coverage.

Lastly, the interim final rule also addresses the measurement of icemaking energy use. This measurement adds a fixed value to account for the energy used to produce ice in refrigeration products that are equipped with automatic icemakers. However, DOE intends to support development in 2011 of a test procedure for measurement of icemaker energy use and to initiate in 2012 a test procedure rulemaking to incorporate the new measurement into the refrigeration product test procedure. The icemaker energy use addition, which is included only in the new Appendices A and B, will improve the consistency of the measurement with the representative use cycle for such products.

III. Discussion

Table III.1 below summarizes the subsections of this section and indicates where the amendments would appear in the CFR. Seven of the subsections address changes in the CFR other than in appendices A1, B1, A, or B, and six of the subsections have no test procedure changes associated with them. Section E addresses the amendments that are part of the interim final rule. In addition, two of the interim final rule amendments are addressed in parts of section III.D (in sections III.D.2 and III.D.5). The remaining sections address the amendments that are part of the final rule.

Table III.1—Section III Subsections

Section

Title

Affected CFR sections

Appendices

A1

B1

A

B

A

Products Covered by the Proposed Revisions

430.2

NA

B

Combination Wine Storage-Freezer Units

430.2

NA

C

Establishing New Appendices A and B, and Compliance Dates for the Amended Test Procedures

Subpt. B

✔

✔

✔

✔

D.1

Procedures for Test Sample Preparation

430.23, Subpt. B

✔

✔

✔

✔

D.2

Product Clearance Distances to Walls During Testing

Subpt. B

✔

✔

✔

✔

D.3

Alternative Compartment Temperature Sensor Locations

New pt. 429*, Subpt. B

✔

✔

✔

✔

D.4

Median Temperature Settings for Electronic Control Products and Establishment of Dual Standardized Temperatures

Subpt. B

✔

✔

✔

✔

D.5

Test Procedures for Convertible Compartments and Special Compartments

Subpt. B

✔

✔

✔

✔

D.6

Establishing a Temperature-Averaging Procedure for Auxiliary Compartments

Subpt. B

✔

✔

✔

✔

D.7

Modified Definition for Anti-Sweat Heater

Subpt. B

✔

✔

✔

✔

D.8

Applying the Anti-Sweat Heater Switch Averaging Credit to Energy Use Calculations

430.23

NA

D.9

Incorporation of Test Procedures for Products with Variable Anti-Sweat Heating Control Waivers

Subpt. B

✔

✔

✔

✔

D.10

Elimination of Part 3 of the Variable Defrost Test

Subpt. B

✔

✔

✔

✔

D.11

Simplification of Energy Use Equation for Products with Variable Defrost Control

Subpt. B

✔

✔

✔

✔

Energy Testing and Energy Use Equation for Products with Dual Automatic Defrost

Subpt. B

✔

✔

Freezer Variable Defrost

Subpt. B

✔

✔

D.12

Including in Certification Reports Basic Information Clarifying Energy Measurements

New pt. 429*

NA

D.13

Rounding Off Energy Test Results

430.23, 430.32(a)

NA

E.1

Modification of Long-Time and Variable Defrost Test Method to Capture Precooling and Temperature-Recovery Energy

Subpt. B

✔

✔

E.2

Establishing Test Procedures for Multiple Defrost Cycle Types

Subpt. B

✔

E.3

Incorporating by Reference AHAM Standard HRF-1-2008 for Measuring Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances

Subpt. B

✔

✔

E.4

Establishing New Compartment Temperatures

Subpt. B

✔

✔

E.5

Establishing New Volume Calculation Method

Subpt. B

✔

✔

E.6

Control Settings for Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers During Testing

Subpt. B

✔

✔

E.7

Icemakers and Icemaking

Subpt. B

✔

✔

F.1

Electric Heaters

No changes to the regulatory language are associated with these sections of the Final Rule

F.2

Vacuum Insulation Panel Performance

F.3

Metric Units

G.1

Test Burden

G.2

Potential Amendments to Include Standby and Off Mode Energy Consumption

G.3

Addressing Changes in Measured Energy Use

* See the Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement (CCE) NOPR, 75 FR 56796 (September 16, 2010). The changes discussed in section III.D.12 are discussed here but not included in this final rule—they will instead be implemented in the CCE rulemaking.

A. Products Covered by the Proposed Revisions

The NOPR solicited comments regarding certain definitions related to refrigeration products. In particular, DOE sought comment regarding a proposed modification to the electric refrigerator-freezer definition that would clarify that the fresh food compartments of these products are designed for the refrigerated storage of food at temperatures above 32 °F and below 39 °F. DOE proposed this change to address the coverage of combination wine storage-freezer products (i.e. to exclude them from coverage as electric refrigerator-freezers), and to improve consistency with the current definition for electric refrigerators. 75 FR 29828-29829.

Additionally, while DOE did not propose specific changes to the electric refrigerator definition, the agency solicited comments on possible improvements to enhance the definition's clarity. Most of these comments addressed concerns about the 32 °F to 39 °F temperature range, already part of the electric refrigerator definition, that DOE proposed in the NOPR to apply also to the electric refrigerator-freezer definition. These comments, applicable to both definitions, are discussed in section III.B below.

AHAM also recommended that any changes to the definition for “electric refrigerator” and/or “electric refrigerator-freezer” should also be made in the related Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Energy Guide labeling rules in order to ensure consistency across all government agencies. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 4) DOE notes that to achieve

consistency, the FTC would need to update the definitions of “electric refrigerator” and “electric refrigerator-freezer” in 16 CFR part 305.2. DOE will work with FTC to ensure that consistency is maintained between the two sets of regulations.

With respect to freezers, DOE notes that its regulations currently define a freezer as “a cabinet designed as a unit for the freezing and storage of food at temperatures of 0 °F or below, and having a source of refrigeration requiring single phase, alternating current electric energy input only.” 10 CFR 430.2. DOE did not propose altering this definition.

Earthjustice commented that all products that can store frozen food should be covered as freezers, even if they cannot maintain temperature as low as 0 °F. The comment pointed to walk-in freezers as an example, which are statutorily defined as commercial equipment that maintain a temperature at or below 32 °F. (Earthjustice, No. 22.1 at p. 2) See EISA 2007, sec. 312(a)(3) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 6311(20)) and 10 CFR 431.302. DOE could define freezers in a similar manner, and may consider doing so in a future rulemaking. However, several reasons militate against such an approach at this time.

Although Earthjustice raised the possibility that refrigeration products with compartment temperatures between 0 °F and 32 °F are being sold as freezers, they provided no information regarding how prevalent such sales might be, which would provide justification for immediate action. DOE is reluctant to apply the current energy standards for freezers to products that provide substandard performance because they do not achieve the temperatures specified for freezers. Instead, DOE would consider establishing standards with lower maximum energy levels for new freezer product classes that provide warmer freezing temperatures. However, such an approach would require developing appropriate product class definitions, as well as producing an analysis supporting the selection of appropriate energy standards. In order to properly examine Earthjustice's proposed approach, DOE believes that a separate rulemaking would be the appropriate means of addressing this issue and would provide all interested parties with a sufficient opportunity for comment. Such a process is not in the scope of the current test procedure rulemaking or within the applicable timeframe, but DOE may consider Earthjustice's approach when it re-examines this procedure. DOE also notes that creating such product classes and accompanying standards would create potential conflicts with the Joint Comment's proposed levels that DOE is currently considering as part of its separate standards rulemaking. (See Joint Comment, No. 20.1 at p. 2).

B. Combination Wine Storage-Freezer Units

In its November 19, 2001, final rule, DOE amended its definition of electric refrigerators to exclude wine storage products. 66 FR 57845. DOE modified the definition to exclude products that do not maintain internal temperatures below 39 °F to clarify that wine coolers are not covered by DOE's standards for refrigerators. The final rule explained that these products “are configured with special storage racks for wine bottles and in general do not attain as low a storage temperature as a standard refrigerator. These characteristics make them unsuitable for general long-term storage of perishable foods.”

Id.

at 57846. The final rule also noted the small number of sales of these products and the likely absence of any significant impact from this approach.

Id.

When this change occurred, wine storage-freezer appliances were unavailable as a consumer product. Subsequently, when Liebherr Hausgeräte (Liebherr) introduced a line of wine storage-freezer appliances in 2005, containing both freezer and wine storage compartments, they could not be accurately categorized by any of the current DOE product classes. Because of this gap, Liebherr petitioned the agency for a test procedure waiver to address this product, which DOE granted on April 24, 2007 (Liebherr waiver). 72 FR 20333. The waiver specified that testing shall be conducted following the test procedure for refrigerator-freezers, except that the standard temperature for the wine-storage compartment shall be 55 °F.

Id.

at 20334.

DOE believes that the arguments made in favor of excluding wine storage products from the definition of electric refrigerators also apply to combination appliances such as these wine storage-freezer appliances. Consequently, in the NOPR, DOE proposed modifying the definition of refrigerator-freezer to exclude products which combine a freezer and a wine storage compartment. 75 FR 29829. The proposed definition invoked the same clause used in the refrigerator definition, “designed for the refrigerated storage of food at temperatures above 32 °F and below 39 °F”, which would be applied to any fresh food compartments of refrigerator-freezers.

Id.

AHAM, NRDC, Sub-Zero and Whirlpool all agreed with the principle of excluding such products from the refrigerator-freezer definition (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 10; NRDC No. 21.1 at p. 5; Sub-Zero, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 32; Whirlpool No. 12.1 at p. 6). However, ACEEE, AHAM, Sub-Zero, and Whirlpool all opposed the wording of the temperature range clause, commenting that this change appears to exclude all products that have the capability of temperatures warmer than 39 °F in the fresh food compartment. In their view, this exclusion would be inappropriate. (ACEEE, No. 19.1 at p.1; AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 4; AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 24; Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 27-28; Sub-Zero, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 32; Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 1) Whirlpool suggested that the definition impose a 39 °F maximum when the controls are set in the coldest position. (Whirlpool, No. 10 at pp. 27-28; Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 1)

As mentioned above, the clause, “designed for the refrigerated storage of food at temperatures above 32 °F and below 39 °F” was added to the electric refrigerator definition in 2001 to clarify that wine storage products are not refrigerators, since wine storage products are designed for warmer temperatures, and generally cannot achieve temperatures below 39 °F with temperature controls set in their coldest positions. 66 FR 57845.

DOE does not intend to exclude from coverage those refrigeration products that are capable of controlling fresh food compartments at temperatures cooler than 39 °F at cold settings and warmer than 39 °F at warm settings, including those currently available on the market characterized as wine storage products. In response to these comments and to prevent the inadvertent exclusion of products, DOE is adjusting the definitions of both “electric refrigerator” and “electric refrigerator-freezer” to clarify that temperature control above 39 °F is not a basis for exclusion from the definition. DOE will replace the temperature-range clause highlighted by stakeholders with “designed to be capable of achieving storage temperatures above 32 °F and below 39 °F”. The words “designed to be capable” are intended to clarify that (1) the product can achieve temperatures below 39 °F, but that temperatures above 39 °F do not disqualify it from the definition, and (2) that a poorly constructed product that happens to be incapable of actually achieving the 39 °F is not excluded from coverage. Also, the specification of “storage temperatures” clarifies that the storage areas of the

product are subject to the 39 °F temperature requirement, rather than, for example, the evaporator, which may be somewhat colder during compressor operation. The storage temperature is distinct from “compartment temperature”, which has a specific meaning as described in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A1, section 5.1.2. In particular, storage temperature is not subject to the requirements for averaging of temperature sensors within the compartment. DOE further notes that the definition does not specify the ambient conditions for which the storage temperature range applies. Hence, a product that achieves the storage temperature range in a 70 °F ambient but not during a 90 °F energy test is not excluded from coverage.

Stakeholders also raised a related issue. AHAM asked if DOE had a proposal addressing combination wine storage-refrigerators, which Sanyo confirmed as having already been commercialized. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 30-31; Sanyo, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 33-34) DOE had been unaware of such products and had not developed a proposal to address them. In light of potential coverage concerns, DOE is treating these combination products as covered products. DOE is concerned that removing such combination products from coverage could create a potentially significant gap within its regulatory program that could, in turn, undermine the Department's efforts to improve the energy efficiency of consumer appliances. Manufacturers of products that cannot meet the required testing conditions prescribed by today's rule would, as currently required, need to avail themselves of the waiver regulations in 10 CFR 430.27. DOE intends, however, to address such wine storage-refrigeration combination products further in a separate rulemaking.

In light of these comments and concerns, DOE has modified its “electric refrigerator” definition to read as follows:

Electric refrigerator

means a cabinet designed for the refrigerated storage of food, designed to be capable of achieving storage temperatures above 32 °F (0 °C) and below 39 °F (3.9 °C), and having a source of refrigeration requiring single phase, alternating current electric energy input only. An electric refrigerator may include a compartment for the freezing and storage of food at temperatures below 32°F (0 °C), but does not provide a separate low temperature compartment designed for the freezing and storage of food at temperatures below 8 °F (−13.3 °C).

DOE is also modifying its definition for “electric refrigerator-freezer” in a similar fashion to read as follows:

Electric refrigerator-freezer

means a cabinet which consists of two or more compartments with at least one of the compartments designed for the refrigerated storage of food and designed to be capable of achieving storage temperatures above 32 °F (0 °C) and below 39 °F (3.9 °C), and with at least one of the compartments designed for the freezing and storage of food at temperatures below 8 °F (−13.3 °C) which may be adjusted by the user to a temperature of 0 °F (−17.8 °C) or below. The source of refrigeration requires single phase, alternating current electric energy input only.

These definitions exclude products with wine storage or other compartments that cannot attain temperatures suitable for fresh food storage.

The Liebherr waiver will terminate on the effective date of this final rule, as indicated in the waiver. 72 FR 20333 (April 24, 2007). To the extent that the products covered by this waiver do not meet the definition of electric refrigerator and electric refrigerator-freezer, DOE plans to address these wine storage and related refrigeration products in a separate rulemaking.

Finally, the Department clarifies that this final rule excludes most wine storage products because they are designed to be incapable of attaining temperatures suitable for fresh food storage (i.e., those temperatures below 39 °F) and not because they store beverages rather than solid food. Although EPCA does not define the term “food,” a number of other federal statutes define “food” to include beverages.

See

21 U.S.C. 321(f) (defining “food” in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to include “articles used for food or drink for man or other animals”; 15 U.S.C. 55(b) (using same definition in the false advertising context); 42 U.S.C. 1791(b)(4) (defining “food” in the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act as “any raw, cooked, processed, or prepared edible substance, ice, beverage, or ingredient used or intended for use in whole or in part for human consumption.”) DOE believes that including beverages—such as milk, juice, wine and beer—within the meaning of the term “food” is likewise appropriate in the context of defining refrigeration products for purposes of the Federal energy conservation standards. Thus, those beverage storage products, including wine chillers, beer refrigerators, or other beverage refrigeration products, that are designed to be capable operating with storage temperatures below 39 °F are, and would continue to be treated as, refrigerators and would continue to remain subject to the current test procedures and energy conservation standards of 10 CFR part 430.

C. Establishing New Appendices A and B, and Compliance Dates for the Amended Test Procedures

DOE proposed to establish new Appendices A and B. In addition, DOE has now separated the amendments into two sets. The first set consists of amendments that must be in effect before the compliance date for the 2014 residential refrigeration products energy conservation standards. The second set consists of amendments that must go into effect starting on the compliance date for the 2014 standards. The majority of the first set of amendments will be implemented as part of the currently existing Appendices A1 and B1. (The remaining amendments in the first set include changes to other related sections of the CFR, such as 10 CFR 430.2 and 430.23.) The second set of amendments appears only in new Appendices A and B and constitutes the interim final rule of this notice. These new appendices will include all of the amendments implemented in Appendices A1 and B1.

As indicated earlier, while the effective date for the final rule amendments is 30 days after the publication of this final rule in the

Federal Register

, only the amendments to Appendices A1 and B1 and to 10 CFR 430.2 and 430.23 have an immediate impact on manufacturers. For purposes of representations, under 42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2), effective 180 days after DOE amends a test procedure, manufacturers cannot make representations regarding energy use and efficiency unless the product was tested in accordance with the amended procedure. A manufacturer, distributor, retailer or private labeler may petition DOE to obtain an extension of time for making these representations. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3)) For the purposes of this final rule, DOE interprets the date of amendment to be coincident with the date of publication of the final rule.

Manufacturers will need to use new Appendices A and B once they are required to comply with the amended energy conservation standards. Likewise, Appendices A and B will be mandatory for representations regarding energy use or operating cost of these products once manufacturers must

comply with the new energy conservation standards.

Under EPCA, DOE must determine by December 31, 2010, whether to amend energy conservation standards that would apply to refrigeration products manufactured in 2014. DOE has proposed amending its energy conservation standards for these products, as required by 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2). 75 FR 59470. The amended test procedures of Appendices A and B will be used in analyzing and finalizing the proposed standards.

DOE received no comments opposing the approach of using the proposed new Appendices A and B to organize the staging of implementation of test procedure amendments. Therefore, the establishment of the new appendices remains as proposed in the NOPR. However, the effective date for the new appendices has been delayed 90 days to allow time for the comment period associated with the interim final rule.

D. Amendments To Take Effect Prior to a New Energy Conservation Standard

This section primarily addresses amendments that manufacturers must use prior to the compliance date for the new energy conservation standards. As described above, these amendments become effective in 30 days and will be required for certifying compliance with the current energy conservation standards and for representation purposes for products sold starting in 180 days. As described for each of the subsections, these amendments are made in 10 CFR 430.23. 10 CFR 430.32(a), and to the appropriate sections of Appendices A1 and B1. These amendments also appear in the new Appendices A and B.

Two of the amendments discussed in this section are made only in Appendices A and B. These amendments are included in sections III.D.2 and III.D.5 because they fall under the general topics of these subsections, which also address amendments made in Appendices A1 and B1.

DOE invited comment on whether any of the proposed amendments would affect measured energy use and asked commenters to quantify any potential impacts. AHAM identified four proposed amendments that would have a significant impact on measured energy use: (1) The test method for products with variable anti-sweat heaters; (2) the test procedures for convertible and special compartments; (3) the modified test procedure for products with long-time or variable defrost to capture precooling energy use; and (4) the proposed changes addressing multiple defrost cycle types. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 3). The PRC indicated that measured energy use would be increased by: (1) The proposed test procedures addressing products with variable anti-sweat heaters and (2) modification of test procedures for products with long-time or variable defrost to capture precooling energy use. (PRC, No. 15.1 at p. 4) Whirlpool commented that a number of the amendments proposed to take effect prior to the new energy conservation standards would have a significant impact on measured energy use, manufacturer cost, facilities, testing capability, lead time, or combination thereof and requested that they not take effect prior to January 1, 2014: (1) Revision of the refrigerator definition; (2) test procedures for convertible and special compartments; (3) test procedures for products with variable anti-sweat heating; (4) modification of the test procedure for long-time or variable defrost to capture precooling energy; (5) procedures for products with multiple defrost cycle types; (6) clarification of instructions regarding the presence of ice in the ice bin during testing; and (7) disallowing energy use ratings for products that fail to meet standardized temperatures. (Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 2)

DOE obtained clarification from Whirlpool that all of the above-cited proposals would affect measured energy use. Whirlpool also clarified how two of these proposed amendments affect measured energy use. The proposed refrigerator definition change would, in Whirlpool's view, make it impossible to set fresh food compartments at temperatures above 39 °F during testing, as compared with current testing with temperatures bracketing the 45 °F standardized temperature because the reduced compartment temperature would result in higher thermal load and energy use. Whirlpool also asserted that the proposed test procedure clarification that ice should not be in the ice bin during testing would change the measurement for manufacturers that currently test with the ice bins filled. (Whirlpool provided no evidence that any manufacturer tests in this fashion). (Clarification of Written Comments Submitted by Whirlpool Corporation, No. 35 at p. 1) The available information indicates otherwise—that all manufacturers test products without ice in the bins, due to AHAM support of the CSA Informs Bulletin of August 24, 2009, which discusses “mechanically simulating an ice-bin-full condition that produces identical results to testing with a full bin of ice” (AHAM Preliminary Proposal for Refrigerator-Freezer Verification Program, No. 30 at p. 4). NRDC filed comments asking that the procedures be effective as soon as is practical but offered no information regarding the potential measured energy use impacts of the proposed amendments. (NRDC, No. 21.1 at p. 2)

No commenter quantified the energy measurement impacts of the proposed amendments cited as having an impact on measurements. Consequently, DOE has no data or other factual information—other than what it developed on its own—with which to analyze the possible impacts flowing from its proposed amendments. Nevertheless, DOE gave careful consideration to these comments and made several modifications to its proposals to address the concerns raised by individual commenters. These modifications are described in detail in the sections that follow.

1. Procedures for Test Sample Preparation

To make the current procedure more clear, the NOPR proposed changing the manner in which samples are prepared for testing. Specifically, DOE proposed the following:

• Removing the text “as nearly as practicable” from the current set-up instructions that require testing set up to be in accordance with the printed instructions supplied with the cabinet, and adding specific deviations from this requirement for test repeatability and flexibility. This change was proposed for section 2 of Appendices A1, B1, A, and B in lieu of the current test procedure's reference to HRF-1-1979. 75 FR 29830.

• Adding “anti-circumvention” language in 10 CFR 430.23(a) and (b).

Id.

• Requiring manufacturers to seek a waiver in those cases where (1) the prescribed test procedures do not yield measurements that would be representative of the product's energy use during normal consumer use, or (2) the set-up instructions are unclear. These requirements were proposed to be codified by portions of the proposed text described in the first two bullets above (in section 2 of Appendices A1, B1, A, and B, and in 10 CFR 430.23(a) and (b)), and by a new section 7 of Appendices A1, B1, A, and B.

Id.

As part of the changes described in the first bullet above, the NOPR proposed to add specific deviations from the installation instructions supplied with the product:

(a) Not requiring the connection of water lines and installation of water filters during testing;

(b) Requiring clearance requirements from product surfaces to be consistent

with those described elsewhere in the test procedure;

(c) Requiring the use of an electric power supply as described in HRF-1-2008, section 5.5.1;

(d) Applying the temperature control settings for testing as described in section 3 of Appendix A1, B1, A, or B but requiring the settings for convertible compartments and other temperature-controllable or special compartments to be those settings that are described elsewhere in the test procedure; and

(e) Not requiring the anchoring or securing of a product to prevent tipping during energy testing.

Id.

DOE sought comment on these proposals and specifically asked for suggestions regarding the need for additional deviations from the installation instructions.

AHAM and Whirlpool supported removing the words “as nearly as practical” from the test sample preparation language. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 4; Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 2). Electrolux commented that any deviations in product set-up should be specified in the owner's manual. (Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell H8). No other suggestions were offered by commenters.

In response to the Electrolux comment, DOE believes that most of the deviations proposed in the NOPR are necessary in order to allow for consistent and repeatable testing. For instance, voltage requirements can play a role in determining the measured energy use of a particular product. Product owner manuals, however, do not specify a voltage range with the tight tolerance specified in HRF-1-1979 section 7.4.1 (within 1% of 115 volts). Instead, they typically allow refrigeration products to operate with electric power sources with a range of voltages near the nominal values. GE's owner's manual for GE Profile Side by Side refrigerators is one such example. The instructions do not specify an allowable voltage range other than that “[t]he refrigerator should always be plugged into its own individual electrical outlet which has a voltage rating that matches the rating plate.” (Profile Side by Side Refrigerators, No. 28 at p. 4) The online specifications for one of these products provide only a nominal voltage: “Volts/Hertz/Amps 120v; 60Hz; 15A” (GE ENERGY STAR 25.9 Cu. Ft. Side-by-Side Refrigerator with Dispenser, No. 29 at p. 2) DOE believes that the tight tolerance on the voltage specification specified in HRF-1-1979 is necessary in order to assure repeatable testing. Repeatable testing that yields measurements that can be compared across product lines requires the use of consistent testing conditions, such as the use of an electric supply with a voltage very close to the nominal 115 volts. This is just one example of the need for the specific deviations from manufacturer's instructions proposed in the NOPR. Likewise, many of the other proposed deviations are also necessary to assure test repeatability. DOE believes that some of the other proposed deviations, such as not requiring connection of water lines and waiving instructions to secure the product so that it will not tip, do not affect the energy use measurement. DOE notes that Electrolux did not identify which of the proposed deviations are problematic nor did it explain the reasons for its position. No other stakeholders expressed concern about the deviations. Hence, DOE is adopting these deviations as proposed.

Regarding the “anti-circumvention” language, AHAM and Whirlpool urged DOE to adopt the exact language of HRF-1-2008, as adopted by ENERGY STAR, which does not use the term “average consumer use”. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 4; Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 2). AHAM requested that if DOE decides to use the term “average consumer use”, DOE should define the term, provide the data upon which the determination is reached, and allow for comment before releasing the final rule. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at pp. 4-5). Electrolux commented that the language would be acceptable if the 70 °F ambient condition is highlighted. (Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell H12).

As discussed in the NOPR, DOE's proposal reflects the statutory requirement, and the Department's longstanding view, that the overall objective of the test procedure is to measure the product's energy consumption during a representative average use cycle or period of use. 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3). Further, the test procedure requires specific conditions during testing that are designed to ensure repeatability while avoiding excessive testing burden. DOE's test procedures are carefully designed and circumscribed in order to attain an overall calculated measurement of average energy consumption during representative use, though certain conditions may not individually appear to be representative of the average use cycle. DOE has held the consistent view that products should not be designed in a way that would cause energy consumption to drop during testing as a result of these apparently unrepresentative conditions. Doing so would result in a biased measurement that would be unrepresentative of average consumer use and would circumvent the total test procedure.

The concept of average consumer use is not intended to represent an annual energy use in kWh to which a measurement according to the test procedure can be compared. Nor is it intended to represent a specific set of conditions for parameters that can affect energy use (including ambient temperature, ambient humidity, door opening patterns, etc.). Instead, deviation of a test procedure measurement from average consumer use must be established based on the specific control features used by a product and consideration of whether the product or any of its components operate in a fundamentally different way during the energy test than they would during representative consumer use. To this end, the NOPR provided an example of a product with anti-sweat heaters that are controlled by a humidity sensor. In a test under the current test procedure, the humidity of the test chamber is uncontrolled. Because the relative humidity level during a test could be at any level between 0% and 100%, it is unlikely that the measured energy use of the anti-sweat heaters under the current test would yield results consistent with their average energy use in a home.

The average consumer use concept is also illustrated in DOE's “Additional Guidance Regarding Application of Current Procedures for Testing Energy Consumption of Refrigerator-Freezers With Automatic Ice Makers”. 75 FR 2122 (January 14, 2010). This document provides guidance regarding test set up for icemakers, particularly for refrigerator-freezers with bottom-mounted freezers and through-the-door ice service. In explaining that the icemaker must remain on but not producing ice, DOE noted that “keeping the ice maker and its associated components on, but preventing them from making ice, better represents the average use of a refrigerator-freezer, such as when the machine has a full bin of ice in a consumer's home. Turning off either the ice maker or components associated with the ice maker, by contrast, does not represent the average use of a refrigerator-freezer, and may cause the machine to consume less energy than when the ice maker is on, but not making ice.”

Id.

at 2123.

Hence, DOE believes that the concept of average consumer use, as used, for example, in the icemaker treatment guidance described above, is sufficiently understood in the context of the regulatory language. Therefore the phrase has neither been eliminated from the amended language nor specifically

defined. The concept is invoked in the proposed passage that requires manufacturers to obtain a waiver if a product operates in a way that makes the test procedure unsuitable for measuring its energy use. The language retains this passage to reinforce EPCA's requirement that the test procedures measure energy use under a representative average use cycle or period of use. 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3).

However, DOE has considered comments favoring the adoption of the existing anti-circumvention language in HRF-1-2008, which were based on the collective belief that harmonization of anti-circumventions language will improve compliance. The modified anti-circumvention language that DOE is adopting today retains all of the HRF-1-2008 text and reads as follows:

The following principles of interpretation should be applied to the test procedure. The intent of the energy test procedure is to simulate typical room conditions (approximately 70 °F (21 °C)) with door openings, by testing at 90 °F (32.2 °C) without door openings. Except for operating characteristics that are affected by ambient temperature (for example, compressor percent run time), the unit, when tested under this test procedure, shall operate in a manner equivalent to the unit in typical room conditions. The energy used by the unit shall be calculated when a calculation is provided by the test procedure. Energy consuming components that operate in typical room conditions (including as a result of door openings, or a function of humidity), and that are not exempted by this test procedure, shall operate in an equivalent manner during energy testing under this test procedure, or be accounted for by all calculations as provided for in the test procedure. If (1) a product contains energy consuming components that operate differently during the prescribed testing than they would during representative average consumer use and (2) applying the prescribed test to that product would evaluate it in a manner that is unrepresentative of its true energy consumption (thereby providing materially inaccurate comparative data), a manufacturer must obtain a waiver in accordance with the relevant provisions of 10 CFR 430. Examples:

1. Energy saving features that are designed to be activated by a lack of door openings shall not be functional during the energy test.

2. The defrost heater should not either function or turn off differently during the energy test than it would when operating in typical room conditions.

3. Electric heaters that would normally operate at typical room conditions with door openings should also operate during the energy test.

4. Energy used during adaptive defrost shall continue to be tested and adjusted per the calculation provided for in this test procedure.

This modification includes the specification of 70 °F as typical for room conditions, as requested in the Electrolux comment. (Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell H12). It also includes the proposed requirement that a manufacturer must petition for a waiver when the test procedure cannot be used to measure the energy use of a product.

DOE dropped the proposed text's description of a type of product feature that would make the energy test procedure unsuitable for testing the product: “smoothly varying functions of the operating conditions and the control inputs.” AHAM viewed this clause as deficient. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 43). Upon re-examining this example, DOE acknowledges that the control systems that this example attempted to highlight are not necessarily incompatible with the test procedure. One such system is the variable anti-sweat heater control system, which can use on/off control or discrete power input steps rather than a gradual increase in power as humidity increases. An on/off control system is not “smoothly varying”, but that does not necessarily mean that the test procedure cannot provide a representative measurement. Accordingly, DOE decided to eliminate this example from the proposed regulatory text.

Regarding the proposed requirement for a manufacturer to obtain a waiver, Whirlpool and AHAM commented that DOE should use an expedited process such as the FAQ process to address variations in setup instead of the complex and lengthy waiver process. (Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 2; AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 5). Whirlpool also commented that any process used to address exceptions should involve less disclosure of design details than the waiver process. (Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 3).

DOE appreciates the significance of the issues raised by the commenters regarding the waiver process. Separate from this proceeding, DOE has launched a new online database offering guidance on the Department's test procedures for consumer products and commercial equipment. See

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/guidance/default.aspx?pid=2&spid=1.

The new database will provide a publicly accessible forum for anyone with questions about—or needing clarification of—DOE's test procedures. However, the Department's waiver process covers cases where “the basic model contains one or more design characteristics which either prevent testing of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedures, or the prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics * * * as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data.” (10 CFR 430.27(a)(1)). The language DOE is adopting simply reiterates this requirement and illustrates specific cases in which it applies to refrigeration products. Hence, the amended test procedures retain the proposed language requiring manufacturers to seek a waiver if that product, when tested under the prescribed procedure, would produce results unrepresentative of that product's true energy consumption.

2. Product Clearance Distances to Walls During Testing

DOE proposed to modify the rear wall clearance requirement during testing by adding a new rear wall clearance subsection as part of section 2 of Appendices A1, B1, A, and B. 75 FR 29832. Wall clearance is a necessary element to refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer energy efficiency testing because condenser performance is affected by the amount of available air flow. The condenser removes heat from the refrigeration system to the ambient air and placing the back of a refrigerator closer to a wall can restrict the amount of condenser air flow. Reducing this air flow can impact the energy consumption of a tested product—the condenser will need to operate at a higher temperature, which implies a higher discharge pressure and higher power input for the compressor. Similarly, increasing the distance between the refrigerator and wall can ease the load on the compressor, which lowers the tested product's overall energy consumption. In this regard, the current procedure references HRF-1-1979, which provides that “[t]he space between the back [of the cabinet] and the wall shall be in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions or as determined by mechanical stops on the back of the cabinet.” (HRF-1-1979, section 7.4.2) (10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A1, section 2.2).

In contrast, HRF-1-2008 provides greater detail by specifying that “the space between the back and the test room wall or simulated wall shall be the minimum distance in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions or as determined by mechanical stops on the

back of the cabinet.” (HRF-1-2008, section 5.5.2).

DOE proposed to include in Appendices A1, B1, A, and B, language that would help clarify the applicable clearance distances:

2.9 The space between the back of the cabinet and the test room wall or simulated wall shall be the minimum distance in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. If the instructions do not specify a minimum distance, the cabinet shall be located such that the rear of the cabinet touches the test room wall or simulated wall. The test room wall facing the rear of the cabinet or the simulated wall shall be flat within

1/4

inch, and vertical to within 1 degree. The cabinet shall be leveled to within 1 degree of true level, and positioned with its rear wall parallel to the test chamber wall or simulated wall immediately behind the cabinet. Any simulated wall shall be solid and shall extend vertically from the floor to above the height of the cabinet and horizontally beyond both sides of the cabinet.

75 FR 29832.

DOE believes that these proposed requirements are consistent with the current test procedures, as well as the clearance requirements found in HRF-1-1979 and HRF-1-2008.

AHAM and Whirlpool suggested using less complex language that simply required the space between the back of the cabinet and the wall to be the minimum distance in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 9; Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 6) Electrolux noted that some products lack automatic door closers, and that they are installed in an orientation tipped slightly rearward for gravity to assist in door closing. The product owner's manual includes instruction for further adjustment for unlevel flooring for proper operation of the product. (Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell H18).

NRDC requested that DOE specify the maximum distance allowable for clearance during testing to avoid potential gaming by manufacturers seeking to maximize the amount of cooling space around the condenser coil. (NRDC, No. 21.1 at p. 5). Fisher & Paykel suggested that the DOE test procedure be synchronized with the IEC test procedure by specifying a maximum allowable distance of not more than “50 mm from the plane of the back panel to the vertical surface unless any permanent rear spacers extend further than that. In that case, the appliance shall be located so that those spacers are in contact with the vertical surface.” (Fisher & Paykel, No. 24.2 at p. 1).

Although DOE is adjusting its approach to account for the issues raised by some manufacturers, DOE shares the concerns of NRDC and Fisher & Paykel regarding the potential selection of a rear clearance instruction in owners' manuals that is unrealistically large. In some cases such as chest freezers, the specified rear clearance is consistent with reasonable best practice, but is still large enough that many consumers may ignore the instruction. For instance, the GE Model FCM20SUWW 20-cubic foot chest freezer's installation manual recommends a three-inch clearance (Food Freezers, No. 31 at p. 13), but DOE suspects that many consumers do not maintain this clearance. The purpose of requiring permanent mechanical spacers to be installed on the product if the rear clearance needs to be greater than a certain distance is to ensure consistency between the test procedure and field use of the product. By setting this requirement at a larger, rather than smaller, rear clearance, this approach has a greater potential to save energy in the field.

The modified requirement will incorporate the language suggested by AHAM. This modification is made to section 3 of Appendices A1, B1, A, and B.

The additional provision suggested by Fisher & Paykel requiring use of mechanical stops if testing is conducted with clearances larger than a threshold value will also be implemented in Appendices A and B, using the suggested 50 mm threshold value, which converts to 2 inches in English units.

3. Alternative Compartment Temperature Sensor Locations

DOE proposed to modify section 5.1 of Appendix A1 (alternative temperature sensor locations) in order to provide clearer instructions and to reduce the incidence of deviation from the standard temperature sensor locations. The proposal would have permitted manufacturer selection of new locations only in cases where small deviations from the standard locations were involved. Otherwise, a manufacturer would need to petition for a waiver. 75 FR 29832. DOE proposed this approach to facilitate the development of new diagrams addressing new compartment configurations. In DOE's view, these new diagrams would help ensure future coverage of a broader range of potential configurations in the standard set of diagrams that currently exist. Broader coverage in standardized diagrams would help improve test consistency. Additionally, DOE proposed that where sensor locations deviated less than 2 inches from their standard locations, a manufacturer could simply report that the locations changed in the certification report and identify the locations of these deviations in the product's certification test reports.

Id.

DOE also sought comment on the frequency of temperature sensor location revisions from the specifications of the figures of HRF-1-1979, and on whether the proposed exception allowing for minor relocation of sensors is sufficient to limit to a reasonable level the potential number of waivers associated with the proposed requirement.

AHAM, Whirlpool, and Sub-Zero supported a requirement that manufacturers must report changes to temperature sensor locations as long as such information is treated confidentially until the certification report is submitted to DOE. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 5; AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 48-49; Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 3; Sub-Zero, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 51). AHAM and Sub-Zero commented that alternative temperature sensor placement should not require a waiver under the current waiver procedure due to the public nature of the process and the delay in time to market that it can cause. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 5; Sub-Zero, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 51-52). Electrolux commented that HRF-1-2008 requires even spacing of shelving within the product, which can create conflicts between the placement of drawers or pans and the specified sensor locations. Electrolux also recommended reporting of alternative locations in certification reports. (Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell H20).

DOE appreciates the manufacturers' sensitivity regarding time and confidentiality. In light of this concern, and the absence of any comments to the contrary, DOE has decided to eliminate its proposed waiver requirement. Instead, the use of alternative temperature sensor locations will be required to be reported in the certification report. These nonstandard sensor locations, whether significant or minor deviations, would be reported in the certification test reports. These modified amendments make any public disclosure of proprietary information unnecessary until product certification, as requested by stakeholders. DOE will make these changes in section 5.1 of Appendices A1, B1, A, and B, which will include the requirement to identify the new sensor locations in test reports, and in a new 10 CFR part 429, which

will provide the amended list of data required in the certification report. The part 429 changes, if adopted, will be made as part of the Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement (CCE) rulemaking. See 75 FR 56796, 56819 (September 16, 2010). In addition, because new requirements for the maintenance of records are under consideration as part of a new 10 CFR part 429, the proposed clarification for the section 5.1 amendments regarding test reports (i.e., that manufacturers maintain test data records “in accordance with 10 CFR 430.62(d).”) will be treated separately as part of the ongoing CCE rulemaking. This potential requirement is also discussed in section III.D.12.

4. Median Temperature Settings for Electronic Control Products and Establishment of Dual Standardized Temperatures

Median Temperature Settings

DOE proposed to modify the test procedure language related to temperature control settings, as detailed in section 3 of Appendix A1, to clarify the procedure for products with electronic controls. Many current products have electronic controls, which generally have setpoints indicating specific control temperatures. Section 3.2.1 indicates that a first test is conducted with temperature controls set in a median position. For electronic controls, an average of the coldest and warmest temperature settings is generally used as the median temperature for purposes of testing. However, in some cases there is no temperature setting exactly equal to this average, and the controls cannot be mechanically defeated as described in the procedure.

DOE proposed that the test procedure specify that products equipped with such electronic controls be tested using one of the following three options: (1) Use of a setting equal to the average of the coldest and warmest settings, (2) use of the setting that is closest to this average, or (3) if there are two settings whose difference with the average is the same, use of the higher of these two settings. This modification was proposed for Appendices A1 and B1 and would be retained for new Appendices A and B. 75 FR 29833.

AHAM supported the proposed approach. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 55; AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 10). During the public meeting, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) recommended that DOE consider adopting what is commonly known as the “triangulation approach” in place of the interpolation approach. (NIST, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 55-56). The triangulation approach, which has been a part of the Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4474

2

for many years, maps both the refrigerator and freezer compartment temperatures exactly to the target temperatures by allowing up to three control setting combinations surrounding the standardized compartment temperatures. GE concurred that this approach is more flexible and repeatable, because it gives results at the exact desired sets of temperatures (i.e. 0 °F/39 °F for testing starting in 2014—see section III.E.4 below) rather than close to those temperatures. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 58-59). Whirlpool agreed that the triangulation approach may be appropriate for adopting into the DOE test procedure in the future, but that it would incur redevelopment expense if introduced now. (Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 59). GE indicated that the triangulation approach could be adopted as an option for temperature settings, rather than the required procedure. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 59). AHAM also supported adopting the triangulation approach as an option. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 10).

2

“Australian/New Zealand Standard, Performance of Household Electrical Appliances—Refrigerating Appliances, Part 1: Energy Consumption and Performance”, AS/NZS 4474. 1:2007, Appendix M, available for purchase at

http://infostore.saiglobal.com/store/results2.aspx?searchType=simple&publisher=all&keyword=AS/NZS%204474

While the triangulation method presents advantages with respect to temperature settings, the adoption of this method will require additional examination by DOE to ascertain its suitability for inclusion as part of its regulations. DOE may further examine this method with greater scrutiny as part of a future rulemaking to amend its test procedure. In light of the significant changes already being introduced to the final rule that is being adopted today, and in recognition of the fact that a procedure needs to be finalized in coordination with the parallel standards rulemaking that is underway, DOE is declining to adopt the triangulation method as part of today's rule.

Accordingly, based on the above considerations, DOE is adopting the proposed amendments addressing median temperature settings for electronic control products.

Dual Standardized Temperatures

DOE proposed extensive changes to instructions for setting temperatures as part of Appendices A and B. 75 FR 29843-29846. One concept adopted for these changes included using dual standardized temperatures for refrigerator-freezers and basic refrigerators—products that have two (or more) compartments. The current test procedures allow manufacturers to select “second-test” temperature settings based only on test results for the freezer compartment. (See Appendix A1, section 3.2 and sections 3.2.1 through 3.2.3). NIST advised DOE that, in practice, manufacturers use the warmest setting for the second test only when both compartments are cooler than their standardized temperatures during the first test. DOE asked stakeholders to help clarify the approach for setting of temperature controls for such products. 75 FR 29846.

GE commented that manufacturers currently use the approach described by DOE. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 137-138). DOE received no comments indicating that its understanding of the manufacturers' approach to temperature settings is incorrect. In particular, DOE received no comments from any manufacturer that uses any different approach for setting of temperature controls. Hence, DOE will implement this change in Appendices A1 and A.

5. Test Procedures for Convertible Compartments and Special Compartments

DOE proposed changing the test procedure for special compartments to make this procedure consistent with the convertible compartment test procedure. 75 FR 29833. Under the current DOE test procedure, which references section 7.4.2 of HRF-1-1979, “compartments which are convertible from refrigerator to freezer are operated in the highest energy usage position.” (This section of HRF-1-1979 is referenced in Appendix A1, section 2.2.) The procedure for special compartments calls for the controls to be “set to provide the coldest temperature”. (HRF-1-1979 section 7.4.2) To simplify these requirements to make them consistent with each other, DOE proposed to require the highest energy use position for both convertible and special compartments. 75 FR 29833.

DOE also proposed to specify that if a convertible compartment has external doors (i.e. that the compartment's doors open directly to the exterior of the product), the compartment shall be tested as a fresh food or freezer compartment, whichever of these

functions represents the highest energy use position.

Id.

Such an approach is different than requiring the highest energy use position for the compartment. For example, a compartment that can be controlled for any temperature between −5 °F and 35 °F would likely use the most energy at its −5 °F setting. However, testing the compartment as a freezer compartment, which would most likely represent a higher energy use than when testing that compartment as a fresh food compartment, would place its energy use at a 5 °F standardized temperature under the current test procedure. Testing the compartment as a freezer compartment would involve a temperature setting 10 °F warmer than testing in the highest energy use position. This scenario would most likely use less energy than using the −5 °F setting. The proposal retained the current instructions to use the highest energy use position to test convertible compartments that do not have external doors.

DOE also proposed a definition for “separate auxiliary compartments” to identify compartments that have doors that open to the product's exterior.

Id.

ACEEE supported the proposal to test special compartments in their highest energy usage position, adding that, in the absence of data detailing how such compartments are used by consumers, the highest energy usage position makes the most sense. (ACEEE, No. 19.1 at p. 1). NRDC also supported the proposal to test special compartments in their maximum energy use position to assure that energy ratings are not overly optimistic. (NRDC, No. 21.1 at p. 3).

Other stakeholders opposed the proposal for special compartments, and some offered alternative approaches. AHAM and Whirlpool claimed that a change from the lowest temperature setting to highest energy use would add test burden, because multiple tests may be required to determine which setting results in the highest energy use measurement. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 5; AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 61; Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 3). AHAM claimed that virtually every model, without identifying any representative models, has temperature controllable compartments, and thus the proposed change could dramatically increase the test burdens on all manufacturers. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 5). Electrolux commented that the highest energy use approach is unclear. (Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell H28). Electrolux discussed some of the complications associated with the highest energy use position requirement, mentioning (a) the difference between externally-accessible and internally-accessible compartments (e.g. such as internal drawers), (b) the possibility that the highest energy use position is not necessarily consistent with normal use, and (c) compartments that may engage a feature that increases energy use for a limited period of time. (Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell H26). Electrolux also questioned DOE's suggestion of a 2 cubic foot maximum size delineator for special compartments. (Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell H28). The PRC echoed Electrolux's comment (b) above, indicating that use of the highest energy use position may not be the best representation of the “actual use”. (PRC, No. 15.1 at p. 5).

Additionally, Electrolux pointed out the need for definitions to help clarify the functions of different compartments, indicating that there are many different types of compartments, and the test procedures may not be the same for all of them. (Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell H26). To this end, AHAM offered definitions for both “compartment” and “sub-compartment”, presumably with the intent that the proposed amendments may apply to one of these types and not the other. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 11). Whirlpool recommended that special compartments subject to the proposed approach should not exceed 10% of total capacity (total product volume), adding that temperatures should be volume-weighted, but did not elaborate. (Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 3). AHAM recommended using volume-weighted temperature averaging for special compartments, but did not provide reasons for adopting this approach. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 6). Electrolux recommended that DOE consider including a volume adjustment factor dependent on the (typically cooler) temperature of a special compartment when determining a product's adjusted volume. While such a change may impact the related energy usage calculations, it would not affect the manner in which test sample is set up or the test is conducted and Electrolux offered no explanation as to how its proposed change would affect the actual testing of a given product. (Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell H28). (DOE notes that the volume adjustment factor is used to calculate adjusted volume (see Appendix A1 section 6.1), which in turn is used to calculate energy factor (see 10 CFR 430.23(a)(4)) and maximum allowable energy use (see 10 CFR 430, subpart C, section 32(a)), none of which impact test set-up and conduct of the test. Since this discussion addresses the test set-up for special compartments, DOE concludes that the comment, addressing volume adjustment factor, is not relevant.)

AHAM, Whirlpool, and Electrolux asserted that the measured energy use under the proposed special compartment procedure would change. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at pp. 3, 5, 6; AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 61; Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 3; Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell H26). Whirlpool further commented that the proposed change should not be adopted prior to 2014. (Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 2). Whirlpool further commented that special compartments should be tested at their coldest temperature position. (Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 3)

In consideration of AHAM's comment that nearly every refrigeration product has separate compartments with temperature control, DOE randomly reviewed the refrigerator-freezer product offerings of three major brands (Whirlpool, GE, and Frigidaire) on their Web sites. These are the major brands of Whirlpool, GE, and Electrolux, manufacturers who comprise more than 80% market share for standard-size refrigerator-freezers.

3

The research, involving five randomly selected products from three key product categories (Class 3: refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezers without through-the-door ice service; Classes 5 and 5A: refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezers; and Classes 4 and 7: refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezers) of each of the three brands indicates that one-fifth of these products have special compartments. (These product classes are currently listed in 10 CFR 430.32.) (Special Compartment: Research Summary, No. 36 at p.1, cell F65). The examined classes are those that would be most likely to employ these types of features because they contain multiple sub-compartments such as drawers within their fresh food compartments and constitute a majority of the refrigeration products sold in the market (roughly 70% of refrigeration product shipments).

4

DOE also notes that of the eleven refrigerator-freezer products purchased for reverse engineering teardowns as part of the energy conservation standard rulemaking, only two had a separate compartment with separate temperature

control—both were refrigerator-freezers with bottom-mounted freezers. Hence, DOE believes that the level of test burden associated with these test procedure amendments would be less severe than predicted by AHAM.

3

“32nd Annual Portrait of the U.S. Appliance Industry”,

Appliance Magazine,

September 2009, Vol. 66, No. 7.

4

Shipments of standard-size refrigerator-freezers were near 10 million in 2008, while shipments of compact refrigerators, standard-size freezers, and compact freezers totaled close to 4.5 million. See the TSD, Chapter 3, “Market and Technology Assessment”, section 3.2.6.1.

Definitions of Compartment Types To Improve Clarity

DOE considered the need for additional definitions, for a variety of terms—e.g. “compartment” and “sub-compartment”—as suggested by AHAM, (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 11), to clarify which types of compartments are subject to the different requirements. Because AHAM indicated that the suggested definitions for these terms were derived from the Australian/New Zealand standards,

5

DOE considered this approach and factored in the international harmonization concerns raised by some stakeholders (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 42-43; AHAM, No. 16.1 at pp. 1, 7, 10, 11; Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 5), when it examined the need for new definitions.

5

“Australian/New Zealand Standard, Performance of Household Electrical Appliances—Refrigerating Appliances, Part 1: Energy Consumption and Performance”, AS/NZS 4474. 1:2007.

AHAM proposed to define a “compartment” as “an enclosed space within a refrigerating appliance, which is directly accessible through one or more external doors.” Under the AHAM proposal, a compartment “may contain one or more sub-compartments and one or more convenience features.” (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 11).

In DOE's view, this definition, if adopted, would define a compartment as having one or more external doors, in spite of the fact that the freezer compartments of many refrigeration products do not have external doors. The definitions for “electric refrigerator” and “electric refrigerator-freezer” do not prescribe that the compartments associated with these products have external doors (see 10 CFR 430.2), thus, the AHAM-proposed definition would conflict with the agency's use of the term “compartment” within its regulations. At this time, DOE declines to make this change.

DOE also considered whether any additional definitions are needed to clarify which instructions apply to which compartment types. The following discussion walks the reader through these considerations. The NOPR proposed a series of amendments regarding compartments:

• First, DOE proposed a definition for “separate auxiliary compartments” that defined this term as “a freezer compartment or a fresh food compartment of a refrigerator or refrigerator-freezer having more than two compartments that is not the first freezer compartment or the first fresh food compartment. Access to a separate auxiliary compartment is through a separate exterior door or doors rather than through the door or doors of another compartment. Separate auxiliary compartments may be convertible (e.g., from fresh food to freezer).” 75 FR 29833-29835.

• Next, DOE proposed a new section 2.7 (for Appendices A1 and A—parts of it also appear as section 2.5 in Appendices B1 and B) that would specify the manner in which convertible and special compartments would be tested: “Compartments that are convertible (e.g., from fresh food to freezer) shall be operated in the highest energy use position. For the special case of convertible separate auxiliary compartments, this means that the compartment shall be treated as a freezer compartment or a fresh food compartment, depending on which of these represents higher energy use. Other compartments with separate temperature control (such as crispers convertible to meat keepers), with the exception of butter conditioners, shall also be tested with controls set in the highest energy use position.”

Id.

DOE notes that these “other compartments” fall under the “special compartment” definition in HRF-1-1979 and HRF-1-2008. DOE did not establish a definition for “special compartment” in its proposal, since it considered that the amended section 2.7 clarifies adequately that the highest energy use position would be used for the compartments that fit the description provided in the section.

• Finally, DOE proposed new text for sections 3.2 and 6.2 (for Appendices A1, B1, A, and B): “For the purposes of calculating per-cycle energy consumption, as described in this section, freezer compartment temperature shall be equal to a volume-weighted average of the temperatures of all applicable freezer compartments, and fresh food compartment temperature shall be equal to a volume-weighted average of the temperatures of all applicable fresh food compartments. Applicable compartments for these calculations may include a first freezer compartment, a first fresh food compartment, and any number of separate auxiliary compartments.”

Id.

These sections describe the additional procedures associated with convertible separate auxiliary compartments when treated as fresh food or freezer compartments.

Table III.2 below notes the terminology used in the NOPR for the listed compartments and also lists the test procedure instructions as proposed.

Table III.2—Compartment Types Other Than the First Fresh Food Compartment or the First Freezer Compartment

Temperature range

Doors accessible directly from exterior?

Separate temperature control

Notes

NOPR Testing instructions

Fresh Food

Y

Y

N

Separate Auxiliary Fresh Food Compartment

Test as a Fresh Food compartment.

N

Y

Special Compartment

Highest Energy Use.

N

None.

Freezer

Y

Y

N

Separate Auxiliary Freezer Compartment

Test as a Freezer compartment.

N

Y

Special Compartment

Highest Energy Use.

N

None.

Convertible

Y

Y

Convertible Separate Auxiliary Compartment

Test as a Fresh Food or Freezer compartment, whichever results in the highest energy use.

N

Not likely to exist

None.

N

Y

Convertible Compartment

Highest Energy Use.

N

Not likely to exist

None.

The NOPR proposed to require separate auxiliary compartments that are not convertible to be tested as either fresh food or freezer compartments, depending on their temperature range. The instructions for setting any temperature controls for these compartments are described in section 3 of proposed Appendices A1, B1, A, and B. The proposed section 2.7 specified that convertible separate auxiliary compartments would also be tested either as fresh food or freezer compartments, depending on which of these selections results in a higher energy use measurement. The proposed section 2.7 also specified that convertible compartments that are not separate auxiliary compartments would be tested using the highest energy use position. Finally, the proposed section 2.7 specified that other compartments with separate temperature control that are not butter conditioners would be tested in the highest energy use position.

After re-examining this proposal and considering the relevant comments received, DOE recognizes that additional clarification would help stress that, for testing purposes, special compartments have no external doors, i.e. doors directly accessible from the exterior. To clarify the procedure, in light of commenters' concerns that the compartments involved should be more clearly identified (Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell H26; AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 11), DOE has added a definition for “special compartment” in section 1 of Appendices A1, B1, A, and B.

With respect to the issue of volume, Whirlpool suggested that DOE adopt a size limit of 10 percent of the total refrigerated volume of a product for special compartments, but did not provide information or data justifying such a limit. (Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 3). In contrast, Electrolux criticized as arbitrary the 2-cubic foot size delineation used in the NOPR for discussion purposes. (This volume was not proposed as a size limit). (Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell H26). DOE notes that there is no available information indicating typical consumer usage patterns (i.e. typical temperature settings) for special compartments and the dependence of these temperature settings on compartment size. DOE believes, however, that most such compartments are small, as described in the NOPR. 75 FR 29834. DOE notes that the definitions for the term “special compartment” in HRF-1-1979 and HRF-1-2008 mention several compartment types that are typically small (i.e. less than 2 cubic feet in size): butter or margarine conditioners, cheese compartments, crispers, ice storage bins, and meat keepers (HRF-1-1979 section 3.18; HRF-1-2008 section 3.24). Because these compartments tend to be small, there is no clear need for a size limitation since manufacturers will likely continue to limit the sizes of these compartments. For this reason, and the absence of any available information to help support the selection of an appropriate size limit, DOE has decided not to incorporate a size limitation on special compartments. Accordingly, the new definition for special compartment reads as follows.

“Special compartment” means any compartment other than a butter conditioner, without doors directly accessible from the exterior, and with separate temperature control (such as crispers convertible to meat keepers) that is not convertible from fresh food temperature range to freezer temperature range.

(See section 1 of Appendices A1 and A. A similar definition has been inserted in Appendices B1 and B)

Instructions for Testing of Special Compartments

As discussed above, stakeholders expressed concern about DOE's proposal to require testing using the highest energy use positions of special compartments rather than the lowest temperature. The comments indicated that the requirement would potentially require manufacturers to conduct multiple tests to verify that the highest energy use position was used in a test. DOE acknowledges this possibility. To address this concern, DOE has decided to modify the amendments so that they are based on temperature settings rather than the highest energy use position. Further, DOE has decided to revert to the current test procedure requirement for the coldest setting for most special compartments. For products that use the addition of heat to adjust the temperature of temperature-controllable compartments, the test procedure will require averaging of tests conducted with the temperature settings in the warmest and coldest settings. In making these changes, the potential testing burden will be minimized while ensuring that the energy consumed by these features is sufficiently captured under the test procedure.

Based on its examination of a variety of refrigeration products, DOE expects that most of those products that are equipped with special compartments provide temperature control of these compartments by increasing or decreasing the amount of cold air diverted from the refrigeration system to the special compartment. (In other words, when more air is diverted into the special compartment, that compartment's compartment temperature is lower.) As mentioned above, two of the eleven refrigerator-freezers DOE purchased for its reverse engineering analysis for the energy conservation standard rulemaking had special compartments with separate temperature control. Both of these products were designed to adjust air flow to control the temperature in these compartments. When a greater quantity of cold air is diverted to provide a lower temperature in the special compartment, less air is available to cool the rest of the fresh food compartment. This situation extends the cooldown time for the fresh food compartment, which extends the compressor run time and increases the measured energy use of the product. For such compartments, the coldest temperature setting and the highest energy use setting are generally the same. Hence, the proposed approach should not create any change in energy use measurement.

DOE proposed the change calling for the highest energy use position to establish consistency with the requirements for convertible compartments (for which the highest energy use position is prescribed—see HRF-1-1979 section 7.4.2), and to assure that this highest energy approach is also applied to products that might use resistive heating to control the temperature in special compartments. For such products, the coldest temperature setting would likely be the lowest energy use setting, because less resistance heat would be needed to raise the temperature of such a compartment above its minimum temperature.

The modified amendments specify that the requirement for averaging tests with the settings in the coldest and warmest positions applies to special compartments that use any form of heat addition for any part of the controllable temperature range of the compartments. DOE has decided to modify its earlier proposal and implement this modification only in Appendices A and B, which will require manufacturers to use this procedure in conjunction with the new energy standards that DOE is currently considering promulgating. DOE believes that these changes in the amendments will eliminate most of the added test burden potentially associated with them, since DOE's examination of the market indicates that most products do not use heat addition for special compartment temperature control. By delaying implementation of the exception for heated temperature control, the change will also eliminate the impact of the test procedure change on products manufactured prior to the

compliance date for the new energy conservation standards. Likewise, because, as described above, the coldest and highest energy use settings are equivalent for most special compartments (i.e. those controlled by adjusting the flow of cooling air), DOE believes that this amendment (coldest position, except for the minority special compartments using heat addition) does not significantly alter the proposal (highest energy use position) and will adequately capture the energy use of these features.

DOE recognizes that the highest energy use position may not be consistent with normal use, as indicated by Electrolux and PRC (Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell H26; PRC, No. 15.1 at p. 5). ACEEE and NRDC both supported use of the highest energy use position in light of the lack of such consumer data. (ACEEE, No. 19.1 at p. 1: NRDC, No. 21.1 at p. 3) The modified amendment addresses the concerns of Electrolux and PRC by allowing the use of averaging of warmest-setting and coldest-setting measurements for products with special compartments with heated temperature control systems. Neither stakeholder submitted any information suggesting what temperature settings are used by consumers. There is no currently agreed-upon standard as to what constitutes a normal use setting for special and convertible compartments. Based on its careful analysis, DOE believes its selected averaging approach is likely to provide a reasonable representation of consumer use for these compartments, because the approach does not represent an extreme control setting.

Regarding Electrolux's comment about temporary functions associated with special compartments (Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell H26), Electrolux did not provide any description of the types of such functions that might be at issue. However, DOE notes that “features” are addressed by HRF-1-2008, section 5.5.2 which are manually initiated and which operate temporarily, such as quick-chill compartments. In response to these comments, DOE chose to modify the proposed amendment to clarify that the requirement for temperature setting of special compartments do not apply to any such temporary feature or functions. This change will appear in section 2.7 of Appendices A1 and A, and in section 2.5 of Appendices B1 and B.

Instructions for Testing of Separate Auxiliary Convertible Compartments

Convertible compartments are those compartments that can operate as either freezer compartments or fresh food compartments. As discussed above, a separate auxiliary convertible compartment would be tested as either a freezer compartment or a fresh food compartment, depending on which of these functions uses more energy. Because these compartments have temperature ranges spanning those of both freezer and fresh food compartments, using the standard coldest, median, and warmest settings during testing as a freezer or fresh food compartment may be inappropriate in certain cases. For example, a separate auxiliary convertible compartment could have a range of temperature settings from −6 °F to 46 °F. The median setting would be 20 °F, which is too high a setpoint for a freezer compartment of a refrigerator-freezer and too low for a fresh food compartment. To resolve this issue, DOE has added language in the final rule specifying settings (a) within 2 °F of the standardized temperatures as the median settings, (b) at least 5 °F above the standardized temperature as the warmest setting for testing the compartment as a freezer compartment, and (c) at least 5 °F below the standardized temperature as the coldest setting for testing as a fresh food compartment. The new language also indicates that if the control setpoints do not represent specific temperatures (i.e. as might be the case for mechanical controls), that the measured compartment temperatures rather than the setpoints must meet these requirements. This change is incorporated in section 3 of Appendices A1 and A.

Additional Discussion

DOE agrees in principle with AHAM's comment that volume-weighted temperature averaging may be appropriate for special compartments. However, as AHAM indicated (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 6), such an approach represents a departure from the current test procedure that would change the measured energy use. The current test procedure requires that these compartments be set in their coldest position and does not include a procedure to measure their temperatures. The modified test procedure established by the final rule and the interim final rule requires the coldest temperature position for these compartments for most products, i.e. those that do not utilize heat addition for temperature control. DOE has adopted this approach to maintain greater consistency with the current test procedure. DOE may consider use of volume-weighted temperature averaging in a future test procedure rulemaking.

The test procedure for special compartments established with the interim final rule modifies the test procedure only for products that use heat addition for temperature control. Based on available information, which suggests that few products have such special compartments, DOE expects the number of products that are likely to be impacted by this change to be modest. Stakeholders have not provided any information suggesting otherwise nor have they provided data that would permit DOE to evaluate the likely effects of this change. However, in consideration of these comments, DOE has modified the timing of the amendments. This change will not require manufacturers of products using heat addition for temperature control to use the new averaging approach until the new energy conservation standards take effect. As a result, manufacturers will have additional time to redesign such products to adjust to the new procedure. Hence, the final changes in the procedures for convertible and special compartments are (1) new definitions for “separate auxiliary compartment” and “special compartment” in Appendices A1, B1, A, and B; (2) clarification that the highest energy use position requirement for convertible compartments implies they shall be tested as a freezer or fresh food compartment only if they are separate auxiliary compartments in Appendices A1 and A; (3) requirements for special compartments reiterating current procedures calling for the coldest temperature settings in Appendices A1, B1, A, and B; and (4) instructions for temperature settings for separate auxiliary convertible compartments that take into account the wide temperature control range of these compartments, which will be inserted in Appendices A1 and A. In addition, the interim final rule change is an exception to the requirements for special compartments in products that use heat addition for temperature control, for which the averaging of the warmest- and coldest-temperature settings tests shall be used, which will be prescribed as part of Appendices A and B.

6. Establishing a Temperature-Averaging Procedure for Auxiliary Compartments

The NOPR proposed amendments that would address the testing of external-door compartments other than the two main compartments of a refrigerator-freezer. Specifically, DOE proposed requirements for (1) adjusting temperature controls, (2) measuring auxiliary compartment temperatures,

and (3) incorporating the auxiliary compartment temperature into the calculation of energy consumption. 75 FR 29833-29835. DOE proposed the following:

(1) Temperature settings, generally—Consistent with current requirements, the temperature controls for auxiliary compartments with external doors that have individual temperature control capability would be set at the same median, cold, or warm setting used for the first fresh food compartment and/or the first freezer compartment, or some combination thereof as described in section 3.2.1 of Appendix A1 or B1.

Id.

(2) Auxiliary compartment temperature measurements—Measurement of external door-equipped auxiliary compartment temperatures would be done in the same manner as prescribed in the current test procedure for the main fresh food and freezer compartments, as described in section 5.1 of Appendix A1 or B1.

Id.

(3) Incorporation of auxiliary compartment temperature measurements in the test procedure calculations—calculations for the freezer temperature for a product with more than one freezer compartment (including one or more auxiliary freezer compartments with external doors) would be performed using a volume-weighted average of the compartment temperatures measured within each freezer compartment. A similar approach would apply to fresh food compartments. These freezer and fresh food temperatures would be used to determine the appropriate temperature settings for subsequent testing, and to calculate the energy use.

Id.

DOE proposed to insert these amendments into Appendices A1 and A to address those auxiliary compartments with external doors that are found in some refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. DOE proposed similar amendments to Appendices B1 and B to address the auxiliary compartments found in some freezers. DOE further proposed to define “separate auxiliary compartments” to include auxiliary compartments with external doors in order to ensure they are treated consistently with other auxiliary compartments.

Id.

Commenters generally supported this approach. For example, AHAM and Whirlpool both concurred that auxiliary compartment temperatures should be volume-weighted. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 65; Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 4). AHAM provided an equation to illustrate the volume-weighted averaging of multiple compartments. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 6).

While DOE agrees that AHAM's suggested equation properly represents the proposed approach, because it provides a weighted average of compartment temperatures in which the temperatures are weighted by the compartment volumes, the final rule and interim final rule adopt a more general equation that is functionally equivalent by averaging for a general number of fresh food compartments. DOE is also adopting an equivalent volume-averaging equation for the freezer compartment temperature. These changes have been made in Appendices A1, B1, A, and B. The requirements for testing of auxiliary compartments otherwise remain as they were proposed, except for the clarification regarding temperature settings for convertible separate auxiliary compartments, discussed above in section III.D.5.

7. Modified Definition for Anti-Sweat Heater

DOE proposed to modify the definitions of anti-sweat heater in both the refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer test procedures and in the freezer test procedures to clarify that such heaters can be used for both interior and exterior surfaces. 75 FR 29835.

The current DOE test procedure definition for anti-sweat heater applies to heaters that prevent the accumulation of moisture on the exterior surfaces of the cabinet (see 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A1, section 1.3 and appendix B1, section 1.2). However, some refrigerator-freezers also use anti-sweat heaters to prevent moisture accumulation on internal surfaces of the cabinet. In particular, manufacturers of French door refrigerator-freezers with through the door (TTD) ice service have used anti-sweat heaters to prevent moisture accumulation inside the fresh food compartment near the air duct embedded in the side wall that carries refrigerated air to the ice compartment.

To account for heaters that operate in this manner, DOE proposed to change the anti-sweat heater definition found in Appendices A1 and B1. DOE also proposed to include these modified definitions in Appendices A and B. This proposed modification would not change the test procedure but would clarify that interior heaters used to prevent sweating are to be treated as anti-sweat heaters for purposes of calculating energy usage under the procedure.

Id.

AHAM, Whirlpool, ACEEE, and NRDC supported the DOE proposal for the anti-sweat heater to apply to both interior and exterior surfaces (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 6; Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 4; ACEEE, No. 19.1 at p. 2; NRDC, No. 21.1 at p. 3). There were no comments objecting to this proposal.

DOE also sought comment on whether the proposed definition needed to be modified to indicate that a heater that prevents the accumulation of moisture, irrespective of whether that heater is designated as an anti-sweat heater, should be defined as an anti-sweat heater. Commenters provide no views on this issue.

In light of the support from commenters for DOE's proposed approach, and the absence of any additional comment regarding any further modifications to address heaters that prevent moisture accumulation, DOE has decided to adopt its proposal to modify the definition of anti-sweat heater to apply to interior as well as exterior cabinet surfaces.

8. Applying the Anti-Sweat Heater Switch Averaging Credit to Energy Use Calculations

DOE proposed to modify the calculation for annual energy use to make it consistent with the annual operating cost calculation. 75 FR 29835. Currently, the energy conservation standards for refrigeration products are based on the annual energy use calculated for these products. This value is calculated based on a “standard cycle.” (see 10 CFR 430.23(a)(5) and (b)(5)). The standard cycle is defined as “the cycle type in which the anti-sweat heater control, when provided, is set in the highest energy consuming position.” (see Appendix A1, section 1.7 or Appendix B1, section 1.5).

In contrast, the annual operating cost, which serves as the basis for the figures reported on the Federal Trade Commission's EnergyGuide label, can be calculated based on the average of energy consumption test results using the standard cycle and a cycle with the anti-sweat heater switch “in the position set at the factory just prior to shipping”. (see 10 CFR 430.23(a)(2) and (b)(2)). Manufacturers generally set the switch off prior to shipping. Thus, the annual operating cost is calculated as an average of tests with the switch on and off. This is referred to as the “anti-sweat heater switch averaging credit” for the purposes of this discussion. DOE understands that most manufacturers test and rate refrigeration products equipped with anti-sweat heater switches using the averaging credit and use the same results for reporting both energy use and annual operating cost.

DOE proposed to modify the annual energy use calculation to ensure consistency with the annual operating cost calculation by making changes to

10 CFR 430.23(a) and 10 CFR 430.23(b). 75 FR 29835.

Electrolux favored preserving the current test procedure for testing with an anti-sweat heater switch and sought clarification regarding the agency's rationale for its proposed change. (Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell H50). DOE received no comments calling for elimination of the anti-sweat heater switch averaging credit. To clarify, DOE's proposed modification would change the test procedure to ensure consistency with the manner in which manufacturers already test products—by averaging the test results with the anti-sweater heater switch positioned in the on and the factory-set positions. As explained in the NOPR, this approach was the original intent of the test procedure, and there is nothing from the preamble to the final rule that first established the annual energy use metrics of 10 CFR 430.23(a) and 430.23(b) (see 54 FR 6062 (February 7, 1989)) to indicate that the omission of the anti-sweat heater averaging credit in these metrics was anything but an oversight. 75 FR 29835. Having received no other comment from stakeholders, DOE has decided to proceed with the proposed modification.

9. Incorporation of Test Procedures for Products With Variable Anti-Sweat Heating Control Waivers

Variable anti-sweat heating (VASH) control systems are used to adjust the use of anti-sweat heaters based on ambient conditions. These systems are typically active under high humidity conditions but deactivate when their sensors detect that ambient humidity conditions are dry enough such that their operation is not required. Commercialized products incorporating such control systems have been tested for certification under test procedure waivers using a test procedure based on calculation rather than measurements. This procedure was initially proposed in a GE waiver petition, which was granted February 27, 2008 (GE waiver). 73 FR 10425, 10427. This procedure calculates the additional energy use of the anti-sweat heaters based on manufacturers' data for average heater power input at 10 different humidity levels.

Id.

To address products that have these systems, the NOPR proposed an alternative test procedure prescribing a method for measuring the energy use impact of the anti-sweat heaters during the product's operation, rather than the procedure described in the GE waiver. 75 FR 29835-29837.

The proposed test would require measuring a product's energy use in a chamber controlled at 72 °F at three different humidity levels, including a low humidity level for which the anti-sweat heater would be expected to be inactive. The difference in energy use measurements made in moderate- and high-humidity tests and the energy use measurement of the low-humidity test would provide a measurement of the energy use associated with the heaters operating under VASH control. These measurements would be used to calculate the energy use contribution associated with the anti-sweat heaters at the 10 humidity levels of the GE waiver. A weighted average of these energy use contributions, based on the same weighting factors of the GE waiver procedure, would constitute an adjustment factor that a manufacturer would add to the energy use measured during a test in a 90 °F ambient with the anti-sweat heaters deactivated, similar to the approach of the GE waiver. DOE had proposed that deactivation of the anti-sweat heaters in this 90 °F test would be achieved by requiring a low ambient humidity (i.e. less than 35% relative humidity) to ensure that the VASH control system would not engage the heaters. DOE proposed this procedure rather than adopt the GE waiver's calculation approach because DOE initially did not consider the calculation approach amenable to verification. DOE also proposed to use the standard cycle for calculating energy use for products with VASH control and anti-sweat heater switches rather than using the averaging credit for such products, as allowed in the GE waiver procedure because of concern that the additional energy savings associated with the switch is not likely to occur during consumer use if the VASH control already turns off the heaters when they are not needed.

Id.

Responding to this proposal, AHAM, Fisher & Paykel, and Whirlpool, asserted that (1) it is possible to independently verify published energy consumption measured under the GE waiver, (2) DOE's proposal imposes undue test burden on the manufacturer without a corresponding increase in accuracy, (3) DOE's proposal penalizes variable anti-sweat heater systems compared to fixed anti-sweat heater systems (because of the proposed elimination of the anti-sweat heater switch averaging credit), and (4) DOE's proposal has a significant impact on measured energy use, requiring adjustment of the energy conservation standards. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at pp. 2-3; Fisher & Paykel, No. 24.3 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at pp. 4-5). GE also asserted that an independent laboratory could verify the reported energy consumption by measuring the wattage of the heater at the various humidity levels at the appropriate ambient temperature. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 80-81).

AHAM noted that the requirement to control relative humidity in test chambers below 35 percent would increase test burden. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 85) GE added that achieving 95 percent relative humidity is difficult because of the heavy amount of condensation that would result during testing. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 166) Electrolux expressed concern over the significant transition time when changing chamber humidity levels and allowing the product to reach equilibrium. (Electrolux, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 167-168) Whirlpool, Electrolux, and GE reiterated that available humidity chambers are not currently capable of achieving the required accuracy for measuring energy consumption with the prescribed level of accuracy under the proposed procedure and that making the required upgrades to achieve this accuracy would not be possible within the proposed 30-day period.

6

Whirlpool requested that these proposed changes take place in conjunction with the 2014 standards that DOE is currently promulgating, but not earlier. (Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 78-79; Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell H65; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 165-166).

6

Stakeholders apparently have interpreted the effective date of the test procedure amendments, which is 30 days after the final rule, to also be the date that representations regarding energy use of manufactured products must start to be based on the amended test procedures. As explained earlier, the transition to representations based on the amended test procedure must occur within 180 days of the final rule.

AHAM and Fisher & Paykel urged DOE to adopt the GE waiver in its entirety without modification. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at pp. 2-3; Fisher & Paykel, No. 24.3 at p. 1) In addition, AHAM stated in the public meeting that there is industry consensus around several issues: (1) 30 days is insufficient to begin testing under this proposed procedure, (2) the increase in test burden would likely not change the test results, (3) Japanese researchers have presented data showing that the 1.3 system factor

7

is accurate, and (4) DOE should harmonize with IEC and Canada where possible. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 79-80) DOE notes that the IEC has not yet published

a test procedure incorporating the GE waiver procedure.

7

The 1.3 system factor is used in the GE waiver test procedure to convert energy use of the anti-sweat heaters to energy use of the product.

The PRC requested that the test procedure should use relative humidity measurement points of 35 percent and 80 percent instead of 25 percent and 95 percent in order to yield representative results. The PRC asserted that a 25 percent relative humidity (RH) level would likely not require an anti-sweat heater and 95 percent RH conditions are rare. (PRC, No. 15.1 at p. 4) Whirlpool and Electrolux noted that the infiltration load (i.e. the thermal load added to the refrigeration system associated with leakage of ambient air into the cabinet) increases as ambient humidity increases. Hence, the adjustment factor determined using the measurement would include an adjustment for infiltration that is not associated with the anti-sweat heaters, which would exaggerate the impact of the heater energy use. (Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 167; Electrolux, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 71-73).

NRDC supported DOE's proposal to measure variable anti-sweat heater energy and to define the moisture content of the test chamber. (NRDC, No. 21.1 at p. 4) NRDC suggested that DOE should allow manufacturers to apply for a waiver to avoid the test burden associated with achieving 95 percent RH and allow manufacturers to use an alternative maximum-humidity condition for the test. NRDC also indicated that manufacturers should report the anti-sweat heater wattages at different humidity levels to aid DOE's verification efforts.

Id.

ACEEE noted that Thermotron, Cincinnati Sub Zero, and Scientific Climate Systems all supply temperature- and humidity-controlled environmental chambers capable of achieving a relative humidity range of 20 percent to 98 percent within 2-3 degrees of accuracy. (ACEEE, No. 19.1 at p. 2).

NIST also made a general request during the public meeting that DOE require manufacturers to report their heater control algorithms in certification reports. NIST also requested that DOE modify the test requirements to ensure that the humidity levels used during testing are selected based on the algorithm details to provide the most appropriate test for verifying the performance of a tested product's anti-sweat heater. (NIST, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 75-76) Electrolux also pointed out that different products may use different control strategies. (Electrolux, No. 17.2 at p. 1, cell H53).

The IOUs recommended that DOE investigate VASH control characteristics to ensure that the test procedure favors those systems that use more adaptive controls. The IOUs also asked that DOE consider requiring confirmation during the test that the anti-sweat heater is off at the 25 percent RH condition to prevent circumvention of the test procedure. (IOUs, No. 14.1 at p. 4). Fisher & Paykel also voiced concern about the potential for circumvention associated with heaters that do not deactivate at 25 percent RH (Fisher & Paykel, No. 24.3 at p. 2). The company explained that because the incremental energy use associated with the proposed test at 65 percent and 95 percent relative humidities involves subtracting the measured energy use of those tests from the energy use measured in the 25 percent relative humidity test, any activation of the heaters in the 25 percent test would increase the energy measured in the 25 percent test, which would reduce the incremental energy use calculated by the subtractions for the 65 and 95 percent tests. A manufacturer can simply reduce the energy use adjustment determined for the anti-sweat heaters (which is determined based on the incremental measurements of the 65 and 95 percent tests) by allowing activation of the heaters during the 25 percent test. However, DOE notes that this concern was intended to be alleviated in the proposed procedure by also requiring that the 90 °F ambient test be conducted using sensor-based deactivation of the heaters, also in a 25 percent relative humidity ambient. Any reduction of measured heater energy use in the 72 °F/25 percent relative humidity test due to heater activation would be negated by higher energy measurement in the 90 °F/25 percent relative humidity test.

Fisher & Paykel also indicated that the proposed equations for the energy differences at 65 percent and 95 percent relative humidities presented in the proposed new Appendix A were incorrect, using minus signs where equals signs should have been. (Fisher & Paykel, No. 24.2 at p. 3). See 75 FR at 29864.

DOE acknowledges the potential burden associated with the proposed VASH test procedure and that the proposal did not fully address all VASH control variants, nor the possibility of exaggeration of the measurement as a result of infiltration (as suggested by the Electrolux and Whirlpool comments). Notwithstanding this fact, DOE continues to believe that the adoption of a measurement-based test as opposed to a calculation to account for the energy use of products employing these types of control systems is critical to ensuring that the procedures yield meaningful information regarding the performance of products equipped with these systems. Without such a method, DOE's ability to resolve cases of circumvention (i.e. a manufacturer claiming that a product has variable anti-sweat heater control when it does not) would be significantly weakened. This is because, although DOE could conduct tests to verify manufacturers' claims regarding their control algorithms, as suggested by some stakeholders (AHAM, No. 16.1 at pp. 2-3; Fisher & Paykel, No. 24.3 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at pp. 4-5), the test procedures used for such verification are not codified and could be called into question. Also, the direct measurement of anti-sweat heater wattage as suggested in the comments may be difficult or impossible, depending on the routing of wires to these heaters. However, in lieu of a more comprehensive VASH test procedure, DOE is codifying the procedure that DOE previously approved as part of the test procedure waivers granted to several manufacturers. This approach will provide a uniform method to help account for the energy used by these systems until such time that DOE re-examines this procedure and decides on potentially more comprehensive modifications. Hence, the GE waiver procedure has been adopted in Appendices A1 and A.

DOE believes that the use of the averaging credit for products with anti-sweat heaters and VASH control is inconsistent with field usage, because, as described in the NOPR, an anti-sweat heater switch is not likely to provide additional savings if the VASH controls already respond to ambient conditions and turn off the heaters when they are not needed. 75 FR 29837. However, DOE believes that this provision should remain in place at this time, as specified in the GE waiver procedure, because without the ability to turn off the anti-sweat heater with such a switch, it would be difficult to conduct the test as specified in the waiver because turning off the heaters would require disconnecting the wires supplying their power, which may be difficult or impossible with damaging the product. It is not clear that universally-applicable instructions could be developed for running the 90 °F ambient test with the anti-sweat heater disengaged for products without such switches. Developing a general procedure addressing VASH systems would likely need to include development of an approach to address this issue for these products in order to ensure that the

procedure provides results comparable to the energy usage found in the field.

DOE also sought comment on whether the VASH test procedures should apply to freezers as well as refrigerator-freezers. AHAM and Fisher & Paykel both indicated that these test procedures should apply to freezers (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 3: Fisher & Paykel, No. 24.2 at p. 1). Based on these responses, the final rule will add these procedures to Appendices B1 and B.

10. Elimination of Part 3 of the Variable Defrost Test

DOE proposed eliminating the optional third part of the test currently in place for products equipped with a variable defrost capability. 75 FR 29839-29840. The current procedure, which appears at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A1, section 4.1.2.3, was added to the test procedures in 1989. 54 FR 36238. This test was designed to measure the mean time between defrosts for variable defrost-equipped products. DOE included this optional step to provide manufacturers with an alternative to the default specification for the CT value (10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A1, section 5.2.1.3) that would ordinarily be used when calculating energy use. (CT represents the number of hours of compressor operation between defrost cycles)

As the NOPR explained, the time required to conduct this part of the test ranges from 1 to 2 weeks. To ascertain the impact on accuracy of using the default calculation for CT rather than the optional test, DOE tested a variable defrost product using the optional procedure. The test results showed that the calculated energy use using the CT determined by the optional third part of the test differs from the energy use determined using the default value of CT by less than 0.4% (Third Part Test, No. 33 at p. 1, cell E57). DOE is unaware of any manufacturer that has used the optional procedure to rate a refrigeration product, which indicates to DOE that the industry generally considers the default equation for CT to be adequately represent the performance of variable defrost systems. For this reason, and to simplify the test procedure, DOE proposed to eliminate this optional test from Appendices A1, B1, A, and B. 75 FR 29839-29840.

Both AHAM and Whirlpool supported the proposal to eliminate the optional third part of the test. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 6; Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 111; Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 4) DOE did not receive any comments from manufacturers or other parties that indicate that the test has been used to rate a product's energy use. DOE did not receive any comments in favor of retaining this optional step. Hence, DOE has decided to adopt its proposal to eliminate this optional step.

11. Corrections and Other Test Procedure Language Changes

This section discusses three other amendments to the current test procedure.

Simplification of Energy Use Equation for Products With Variable Defrost Control

DOE proposed modifying Appendix A1 by removing the clarifying equations for F, ET

M

, and ET

L

, eliminating references to the optional third part of the test (see section III.D.10 above, which discusses eliminating this part of the test), and correcting the units in the definitions for CT

M

(maximum time between defrosts in hours of compressor run time) and CT

L

(lowest time between defrosts in hours of compressor run time). Additionally, DOE proposed that parallel changes be made in Appendices B1, A, and B. (In Appendix B1, the change would be made in the current section 5.2.1.3.) 75 FR 29840.

AHAM supported the proposed modifications. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at pp. 6-7) Fisher & Paykel commented that the proposed language would not sufficiently clarify that the CT, CT

M

and CT

L

values represent compressor run time rather than clock time.

In order to address Fisher & Paykel's comment, DOE has modified the sections of the test procedure that use CT in the energy use equations (e.g. sections 5.2.1.2 through 5.2.1.5 of the new Appendix A) to help clarify that these values represent compressor run time rather than clock time. DOE notes that not all of these sections required exactly the same modifications. Similar adjustments have also been made in Appendices A1, B1, and B.

Energy Testing and Energy Use Equation for Products With Dual Automatic Defrost

DOE proposed to amend Appendix A1 to correct certain errors in the instructions for testing dual automatic defrost-equipped products. These proposed amendments affected two areas. First, DOE proposed to modify the text in section 4.1.2.4 of Appendix A1 to explicitly include the compressor and defrost heater in the list of components associated with each system that must have their energy use separately measured. Second, DOE proposed to correct errors in the energy use equation that addresses this class of products (section 5.2.1.5 of Appendix A1 of the current test procedure). 75 FR 29841.

DOE received no comments objecting to these proposed changes. However, AHAM suggested that DOE adopt a different approach. Specifically, AHAM suggested removing the dual compressor system equations of section 5.2.1.4, removing the proposed test procedure for products with multiple defrost cycle types (proposed as section 5.2.1.6 of Appendix A—see section III.E.2 below), and inserting a more general procedure addressing multiple compressor systems as well as single-compressor systems with more than one active defrost cycle. AHAM's written comments included a draft test procedure for DOE's consideration. AHAM explained that the modified equations would be simpler and more efficient, and that, because they are under consideration by the IEC and other countries, their adoption would enhance international standards harmonization. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 7) Sub Zero supported AHAM's comment regarding this issue. (Sub-Zero, No. 23.1 at p. 1)

DOE notes that a key distinction between the energy use calculations of proposed section 5.2.1.6 and the calculations of section 5.2.1.4 is that the former applies to products with a single compressor with multiple defrost cycle types, while the latter applies to products with two compressors. DOE believes that testing products equipped with two compressors is significantly more complicated than testing products with single compressors and multiple defrost cycle types because, when conducting the second part of the test that measures defrost cycle energy use for one of the two or more refrigeration systems, the operation of these other compressors continues. Unless the average energy use of these compressors and their fans is the same during the second part of the test conducted for the first compressor as it is for the first part of the test, the difference in their energy use for the two parts of the test will be added to or subtracted from the first-compressor defrost cycle energy measurement. The only way to avoid this addition or subtraction is by separately measuring the systems during both the first part of the test and during the second part of the test. In contrast, for a system with a single compressor but multiple evaporators, the compressor turns off during the defrost cycle for any of the evaporators, which allows the product's measured overall energy use to accurately measure defrost cycle energy use. Hence, establishing the proposed section 5.2.1.6 will both permit a simpler approach to testing single-compressor products with

multiple defrost cycle types and ensure that energy measurement for these products is accurate.

After analyzing this alternative proposal for multiple compressors, DOE does not believe that it simplifies testing of systems with two or more compressors. In particular, it does not alleviate the test procedure burden associated with having to separately measure the energy use for the different systems, which is part of the procedure of the current dual-compressor product test procedure. DOE understands that this is a key difficulty in testing such systems since it introduces burden and that, in some cases, it may be impossible to accomplish, depending on the details of the internal wiring of such products. DOE is not convinced that AHAM's approach avoids the need for a separate measurement. AHAM's proposed equation includes a term EP2

j

that is defined as the average power for system “j” while system “i” is in defrost and recovery. Measuring the average power for this system would still require a separate measurement, as provided under the current test procedure for dual compressor systems. Thus, the AHAM-proposed procedure appears to represent little or no improvement over the current procedure.

DOE acknowledges that this final rule does not eliminate the difficulty of obtaining separate energy use measurements required in the test procedure for dual compressor products. However, as discussed above, neither does the AHAM-proposed approach. Additionally, as far as DOE is aware, the AHAM procedure has not been subject to the review of interested parties. It is a fairly complex procedure and its adoption into DOE's regulations would require review and comment by the public. In light of DOE's statutory obligation to finalize the refrigeration product energy conservation standard rulemaking by the end of this year, a complete evaluation of AHAM's procedure is not possible within the context of this rulemaking. Hence, DOE has retained in Appendices A1 and A, the dual-compressor system test procedure with the modifications proposed in the NOPR. DOE may consider further revising this part of the procedure in a future rulemaking to address the measurement issues discussed in this section and may reconsider AHAM's proposal at that time.

Freezer Variable Defrost

This section discusses an issue independently raised by stakeholders and is not directly related to any of the specific NOPR proposals. In the test procedures set out for variable defrost-equipped freezers, AHAM pointed out that the energy use equations are missing the freezer correction factor k. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 11) The factor k adjusts the measured energy use for freezers for consistency with consumer usage patterns of these products. Its value is 0.85 for upright freezers and 0.7 for chest freezers. Applying these values means that the calculated energy use of upright freezers is 15% lower than the measured energy use. Correspondingly, the calculated energy use of chest freezers is 30% lower than the measured energy use.

DOE notes that the other energy use equations of the current version of Appendix B1 (sections 5.2.1.1 and 5.2.1.2), which collectively address products that are not equipped with variable defrost, include the factor k. Variable defrost was introduced into the test procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers in the 1989 final rule. 54 FR 36238. That final rule did not address the omission of the freezer correction factor in the equations for energy use of freezers with variable defrost. From the absence of any discussion of this issue in the preamble, there is nothing to suggest that DOE intended to treat variable defrost freezers differently from freezers not having this type of control. Hence, today's final rule corrects this oversight.

12. Including in Certification Reports Basic Information Clarifying Energy Measurements

This section describes amendments for reporting that were proposed in the NOPR but will be adopted in the CCE rulemaking. 75 FR 56819. DOE proposed to modify its regulation to require that certification reports explain how products with advanced controls features (e.g. variable defrost control or variable anti-sweat heater control) or with temperature sensor locations different from the standard locations are tested. 75 FR 29841-42. The energy use of such products cannot be measured properly without knowing specific information regarding these control systems or how the temperature sensor locations have been modified from their standard locations. This information impacts how such a product is tested and how its energy use is calculated. In order to allow verification of the energy use ratings for such products by parties other than their manufacturers, DOE proposed that information clarifying these test details be included in certification reports.

Id.

DOE proposed that manufacturers identify in their certification reports whether the product has (1) variable defrost control, and if so, the values of CT

L

and CT

M

used in the energy use calculation, (2) variable anti-sweat heater control, and (3) internal design details requiring adjustment during testing of temperature sensor locations from their standard locations. The NOPR proposed modifying 10 CFR 430.62(a)(4)(xii) to implement these changes. This section of the CFR lists the information specific to refrigeration products that must be provided in certification reports. The NOPR proposed that the relocation of temperature sensors from standard locations be allowed without petitioning for a waiver only if the new locations are no more than 2 inches from the standard locations.

Id.

DOE sought comment and suggestions on its proposal. AHAM and Whirlpool supported adding the proposed data to the certification report reporting requirements if parallel changes are made to DOE's online data submission template. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 11; Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 8) However, AHAM added that the temperature sensor locations would need to remain confidential until the certification reports are submitted to DOE. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 48) As described in section III.D.3, stakeholders opposed using the waiver process for reporting any deviation from the standard locations. DOE has decided not to include a requirement for waivers in case of temperature sensor relocation since it will be receiving this information as part of a certification report.

Stakeholders also encouraged DOE to add a requirement to report the wattage values used in the variable anti-sweat heating energy use calculation. See Section III.D.9, above. Based on these comments and the absence of any objections, DOE is modifying this proposal within the context of the CCE rulemaking to require manufacturers to report the wattages used in the variable anti-sweat heating energy use calculation for products having this type of control system.

Any such changes that DOE may make to these reporting requirements would be made through the ongoing CCE rulemaking and would be set out in a new 10 CFR part 429. 75 FR 56819. DOE will also make any necessary updates to its online data submission template as appropriate.

13. Rounding Off Energy Test Results

DOE requested comment on whether it needed to clarify the test procedure to specify the required precision in reporting refrigeration product energy use. 75 FR 29847.

AHAM and Whirlpool both supported rounding annual energy use to the nearest kilowatt-hour. (AHAM, No. 16.1 at p. 10-11; AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 162; Whirlpool, No. 12.1 at p. 7) No commenters objected to this approach. Hence, with this final rule, DOE will implement this requirement in 10 CFR 430.23(a), for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, and in 10 CFR 430.23(b), for freezers.

DOE recognizes that, if energy use is reported to the nearest kilowatt-hour, the specification of maximum allowable energy use must also be rounded to the nearest kilowatt-hour to prevent a reporting error. For example, if the energy standard was 500.7 kWh for a product whose energy use measurement was 500.6 kWh, rounding the measurement to 501 kWh might appear to show energy use higher than the maximum allowable under the standard. Hence, DOE also proposed that the maximum allowable energy use under the energy conservation standard be rounded to the nearest kilowatt-hour as part of the energy conservation standard rulemaking. 75 FR 59570.

Because this change is primarily clerical and does not represent a change in the measured energy use of these products, DOE is not delaying the implementation of this provision as part of the new standards that are under consideration for 2014. Accordingly, this provision will be inserted into 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, section 32(a).

E. Amendments To Take Effect Simultaneously With a New Energy Conservation Standard

This section discusses additional proposed changes that would apply to manufacturers when demonstrating compliance with any standard levels that DOE sets as part of its parallel rulemaking for amended energy conservation standards, scheduled to take effect in 2014. DOE had initially proposed that two of these changes be required for testing products prior to the compliance date of the new energy conservation standards, but, due to stakeholders comments, DOE has shifted these so that they will be required for testing starting on the compliance date of the new energy standards. These two changes include (1) modifying the test procedures for products with long-time or variable defrost functions to capture precooling energy use and (2) establishing test procedures for products with multiple defrost cycle types. (Sections III.E.1 and III.E.2 below discuss these amendments.) DOE further notes that some of the amendments that it had proposed have been modified to mitigate their potential impacts. These include the proposed amendments affecting convertible and special compartments and test procedures for products with variable anti-sweat heater control, discussed in sections III.D.5 and III.D.9 above. These changes were made to help ensure that manufacturers obtain test results that are representative of average consumer use.

Responding to the NOPR, stakeholders commented that DOE should adjust the new energy conservation standard to address the potential changes in measured energy use associated with several of the proposed test procedure amendments. AHAM and ACEEE jointly commented that if DOE adopts the energy standards jointly proposed by industry and energy advocates, the standards should be revised to ensure that there is no change in the stringency of the allowable energy use before and after the changes to the test procedures. (Joint Comments, No. 20.1 at p. 3) The standard levels proposed in the energy conservation standard NOPR (see 75 FR 59471-59472) were set taking into consideration the impacts of the compartment temperature changes and the modified volume calculation method. These test procedure amendments are described below in sections III.E.4 and III.E.5. Commenters indicated that additional adjustment of the new energy conservation standards might be necessary. These issues are discussed in other sections of this notice. However, DOE notes that the adjustment of the energy conservation standard is not within the scope of today's notice and does not provide a final resolution of these issues.

1. Modification of Long-Time and Variable Defrost Test Method To Capture Precooling and Temperature-Recovery Energy

DOE proposed to revise the test procedures for products with long-time or variable defrost to capture precooling energy. 75 FR 29837-29839. Long-time defrost is defrost control in which compressor run time between defrosts exceeds 14 hours. Variable defrost is a type of defrost control in which the time interval between defrosts is adjusted based on need, i.e. when a sufficient amount of moisture has collected on the evaporator as frost to reduce refrigeration performance.

Precooling involves cooling the compartment(s) of a refrigerator-freezer to temperatures significantly lower than the user-selected temperature settings prior to an automatic defrost cycle. This technique may be employed in certain systems to limit maximum freezer compartment temperature during defrost cycles. A precooling control system initiates an extra long compressor run before the defrost cycle to reduce the temperature of the cabinet or one of its compartments significantly more than would occur during a normal compressor cycle. An extra long compressor run is one where the compressor on-cycle continues for at least 10% longer than the length of a typical compressor on-cycle after the compartment temperature has dropped down to the temperature at which the compressor typically turns off during steady state cycling operation between defrosts.

Although precooling consumes energy in refrigeration products used by consumers, the current test procedure does not include this energy use. The current long-time defrost test (used also for products with variable defrost) consists of two parts. The first part measures the steady cycling energy use of the refrigerator-freezer with no contribution from the defrost cycle. The second part measures the energy use contribution associated with the defrost cycle. The second part of the test starts when the last compressor cycle before the defrost stops. Appendix A1, section 4.1.2.1. If this last compressor cycle is a precooling cycle, representing more average energy use than is measured during part 1 of the test, the test cannot measure all of the energy use associated with the defrost cycle. This situation presents a potential loophole in the current test procedure that the amendment described in this section is closing.

The DOE test procedure for products with automatic defrost in which defrost cycles are separated by less than 14 hours of compressor run time specify that the test period be “from one point during a defrost period to the same point during the next defrost period.” 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A1, section 4.1.2. In 1982, DOE amended the test procedures to include the alternative procedure for long-time defrost (section 4.1.2.1 of Appendix A1) to accommodate long periods of time between defrosts (i.e. significantly greater than 24 hours of test time) without making the energy test period unduly burdensome. 47 FR 34517 (August 10, 1982). This change, made to reduce test burden, was made at a time when control systems cap

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.