# Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2014-08640

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** April 21, 2014
- **Citation:** 79 FR 22278

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
[Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0025]
RIN 1904-AC99
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

In this final rule, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) revises and reorganizes its test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment (CRE) to clarify certain terms, procedures, and compliance dates to improve the repeatability and remove ambiguity from the CRE test procedure. In this final rule, DOE also addresses a number of test procedure clarifications that arose as a result of the negotiated rulemaking process for certification of commercial heating, ventilation, air conditioning, refrigeration, and water heating equipment.

DATES:

The effective date of this rule is May 21, 2014.

The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this final rule is approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal Register as of May 21, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

The docket, which includes
Federal Register
notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.

A link to the docket Web page can be found at:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=80
. This Web page will contain a link to the docket for this rulemaking on the regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov Web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov
.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-6590. Email:
commercial_refrigeration_equipment@ee.doe.gov
.

Ms. Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6111. Email:
mailto:Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.gov
.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This final rule incorporates by reference into 10 CFR part 431 the following industry standards:

(1) ANSI/ASHRAE 72-2005, (“ASHRAE 72-2005”), “Method of Testing Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers,” Copyright 2005.

(2) ASTM E 1084-86 (Reapproved 2009), “Standard Test Method for Solar Transmittance (Terrestrial) of Sheet Materials Using Sunlight,” approved April 1, 2009.

Copies of ASHRAE standards may be purchased from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 1971 Tullie Circle NE., Atlanta, GA 30329, or at
www.ashrae.org/
.

Copies of ASTM standards may be purchased from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, (877) 909-2786, or at
www.astm.org/
.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background

A. Authority

B. Background

II. Summary of the Final Rule

III. Discussion

A. Amendments to the Test Procedure

1. Scope of Coverage

a. Salad Bars, Buffet Tables, and Other Refrigerated Holding and Serving Equipment

b. Chef Bases and Griddle Stands

c. Existing Cases Undergoing Refurbishments or Retrofits

d. Case Doors Shipped as After-Market Additions

2. Definitions Pertinent to Commercial Refrigeration Equipment

a. Commercial Refrigeration Equipment With Drawers

b. Transparent and Solid Doors

c. Hybrid Equipment and Commercial Refrigerator-Freezers

3. Relationship Among Rating Temperature, Operating Temperature, and Integrated Average Temperature

4. Proper Configuration and Use of Components or Features in the DOE Test Procedure

a. Energy Management Systems

b. Lighting

c. Test Package Temperatures

5. Treatment of Other Specific Equipment Features and Accessories During Testing

a. Customer Display Signs/Lights

b. Condensate Pan Heaters and Pumps

c. Anti-Sweat Door Heaters

d. Ultraviolet Lights

e. Illuminated Temperature Displays and Alarms

f. Condenser Filters

g. Refrigeration System Security Covers

h. Night Curtains and Covers

i. Grill Options

j. Coated Coils

k. Internal Secondary Coolant Circuits

l. Wedge Cases

m. Misting or Humidification Systems

n. Air Purifiers

o. General Purpose Outlets

p. Crankcase Heaters

q. Interior/Exterior Liners

r. Other Comments Received From Interested Parties

6. Rounding of Test Results and Certified Ratings

7. Testing at the Lowest Application Product Temperature

a. Definition of Lowest Application Product Temperature

b. Incorporation by Reference of ASHRAE 72-2005

8. Clarifications in Response to Interpretations to AHRI 1200-2010

9. Clarification of Methodology for Measuring Total Display Area

10. Compliance Date of Test Procedure Amendments

B. Other Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Comments and DOE Responses

1. Ambient Test Temperatures

2. Burden of Testing

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

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 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. Authority and Background

A. Authority

Title III, Part C of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, Sec. 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, a program covering certain industrial equipment, which includes the commercial refrigeration equipment that is the focus

of this final rule.
1

All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012).

1
For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A-1.

Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA, (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1))

General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process

Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered equipment. EPCA provides, in relevant part, that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use and estimated annual operating costs of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))

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 on them. (42 U.S.C. 6314(c)(2)) Finally, in any rulemaking to amend a test procedure, DOE must determine to what extent, if any, the proposed test procedure would alter the measured energy efficiency of any covered product or equipment
2

as determined under the existing test procedure. If DOE determines that the amended test procedure would alter the measured efficiency of a covered product, DOE must amend the applicable energy conservation standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(D))

2
The term “covered product” broadly refers to all types of appliances and equipment regulated by DOE regardless of whether they are consumer products or commercial and industrial equipment.

Under 42 U.S.C. 6314(c)(1), no later than 3 years after the date of prescribing a test procedure pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6314, and from time to time thereafter, DOE is required to conduct a reevaluation and determine whether to amend the test procedure. If DOE determines a test procedure should be amended, it shall promptly publish in the
Federal Register
proposed test procedures, incorporating such amendments and affording interested persons an opportunity to present oral and written data, views, and arguments. (42 U.S.C. 6314(c)(2))

In February 2012, DOE published a final rule (2012 test procedure final rule) prescribing new amendments to the test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment. 77 FR 10291, 10318-21 (Feb. 21, 2012). Pursuant to EPCA's requirement in 42 U.S.C. 6314(c), DOE has reevaluated the CRE test procedure and concluded that it should be amended to clarify a number of provisions regarding how aspects of the test are conducted, to more explicitly define some terms, and to more clearly specify the compliance dates for various provisions. DOE's adopted amendments to the test procedure are presented in this final rule.

B. Background

EPCA mandates that the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 117-2002, “Method of Testing Closed Refrigerators,” shall be the initial test procedure for the types of equipment to which standards are applicable under 42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)-(3). (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(A)(ii)) EPCA requires DOE to address whether to amend its test procedures if ASHRAE amends this standard. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(E)-(F)) In 2005, ASHRAE combined Standard 72-1998, “Method of Testing Open Refrigerators,” and Standard 117-2002 and published the test method as ASHRAE Standard 72-2005 (ASHRAE 72-2005), “Method of Testing Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers,” which was approved by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) on July 29, 2005. Consistent with EPCA's requirement in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(E), DOE reviewed ASHRAE 72-2005, as well as American Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Standard 1200-2006 (ARI 1200-2006), which was approved by ANSI on August 28, 2006. DOE determined that ARI 1200-2006 included by reference the test procedures in ASHRAE 72-2005 and the rating temperatures prescribed in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(B)) As a result, DOE published a final rule in December 2006 (2006 test procedure final rule) that adopted ARI 1200-2006 as the DOE test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment. 71 FR 71340, 71357 (Dec. 8, 2006). The 2006 test procedure final rule specified rating temperatures of 38 °F (±2 °F) for commercial refrigerators and refrigerator compartments, 0 °F (±2 °F) for commercial freezers and freezer compartments, and −15 °F (±2 °F) for commercial ice-cream freezers. 71 FR at 71370 (Dec. 8, 2006). DOE also adopted Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) Standard HRF-1-2004, “Energy, Performance and Capacity of Household Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers,” for measuring compartment volumes for equipment covered under the 2006 test procedure final rule. 71 FR at 71358 (Dec. 8, 2006). The test procedure established in the 2006 final rule became effective on January 8, 2007 (71 FR at 71340), and its use has been required to demonstrate compliance with the current energy conservation standards.

More recently, on February 21, 2012, DOE published the aforementioned 2012 test procedure final rule, in which it adopts several amendments to the DOE test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment. These amendments include updating the standard incorporated by reference in the DOE test procedure in response to the relevant industry organizations issuing updated versions. Specifically, DOE updated the incorporation by reference of Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010 (AHRI 1200-2010), “Performance Rating of Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets,” as the DOE test procedure for this equipment. 77 FR at 10318 (Feb. 21, 2012). The 2012 test procedure final rule also includes an amendment to incorporate by reference the updated ANSI/AHAM Standard HRF-1-2008 (AHAM HRF-1-2008), “Energy, Performance, and Capacity of Household Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers,” for determining compartment volumes for this equipment. 77 FR at 10318 and 10321 (Feb. 21, 2012). These updates were primarily editorial in nature and aligned the AHRI test procedure with the nomenclature and methodology used in DOE's 2009 standards rulemaking on commercial refrigeration equipment. The updated AHRI 1200-2010 also

references the most recent version of the AHAM standard, AHAM HRF-1-2008.

In addition, the 2012 test procedure final rule includes several amendments designed to address certain energy efficiency features that were not accounted for by the previous DOE test procedure, including provisions for measuring the impact of night curtains,
3

lighting occupancy sensors, and scheduled controls. 77 FR at 10296-10298 and 10319-10320 (Feb. 21, 2012). In the 2012 test procedure final rule, DOE also adopts amendments to allow testing of commercial refrigeration equipment that cannot operate at the rating temperature specified in the DOE test procedure. Specifically, the 2012 test procedure final rule allows testing of commercial refrigeration equipment at its lowest application product temperature (LAPT), for equipment that is physically incapable of reaching the prescribed rating temperature. 77 FR at 10320 (Feb. 21, 2012). The 2012 test procedure final rule also allows manufacturers to test and certify equipment at the more-stringent rating temperatures and ambient conditions required by NSF
4

for food safety testing. 77 FR at 10320-10321 (Feb. 21, 2012).

3
Night curtains are devices made of an insulating material, typically insulated aluminum fabric, designed to be pulled down over the open front of the case to decrease infiltration and heat transfer into the case when the merchandizing establishment is closed.

4
Founded in 1944 as the National Sanitation Foundation, the organization is now referred to simply as NSF.

The test procedure amendments established in the 2012 test procedure final rule became effective on March 22, 2012. 77 FR at 10292 (Feb. 21, 2012). The amendments are required to be used in conjunction with the amended standards established in DOE's recently published energy conservation standards final rule (March 2014 energy conservation standards final rule) beginning on March 28, 2017. 79 FR 17726, 17727 (Mar. 28, 2014).

Since publication of the 2012 test procedure final rule, DOE has received a number of inquiries from interested parties regarding DOE regulations for commercial refrigeration equipment, including how different types of equipment fit into DOE's definitions of commercial refrigeration equipment at 10 CFR 431.62, and questions involving certain provisions of the DOE test procedure at 10 CFR 431.64. More specifically, DOE has received inquiries and questions regarding the applicability of DOE's test procedure and Federal energy conservation standards to particular models of commercial refrigeration equipment, the proper configuration and use of certain components and features of commercial refrigeration equipment for purposes of testing according to the DOE test procedure, and the compliance date of the amendments specified in the 2012 test procedure final rule. On October 28, 2013, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (hereafter referred to as the October 2013 test procedure NOPR) to amend the test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment (CRE) appearing at 10 CFR 431.64. 78 FR 64296 (Oct. 28, 2013). In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE presented proposed amendments to address the questions presented by interested parties and, where appropriate, proposed edits to the regulatory language to clarify DOE's existing regulations. 78 FR at 64296 (Oct. 28, 2013).

On February 26, 2013, members of the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) unanimously decided to form a working group to negotiate rulemaking on certification for commercial heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC); commercial water heating (WH); and commercial refrigeration equipment. A notice of intent to form the Commercial Certification Working Group was published in the
Federal Register
on March 12, 2013 (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023). 78 FR 15653 (Mar. 12, 2013). DOE received 35 nominations for the Working Group. On April 16, 2013, DOE published a notice of open meeting that announced the first meeting and listed the 22 nominees that were selected to serve as members of the Working Group, in addition to two members from ASRAC, and one DOE representative. 78 FR 22431 (Apr. 16, 2013). The members of the Working Group were selected to ensure a broad and balanced array of stakeholder interests and expertise, and include efficiency advocates, manufacturers, a utility representative, and third party laboratory representatives. As part of that rulemaking process, DOE conducted a number of regulatory negotiation sessions over the course of the summer of 2013 involving major stakeholders in the CRE market.
5

One outcome of these meetings was an agreement on the need to clarify aspects of the DOE test procedure with respect to the treatment of specific features of commercial refrigeration equipment. On August 30, 2013, the Working Group submitted a report to ASRAC containing recommendations on the certification requirements for HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023, No. 51) and ASRAC voted unanimously to accept these recommendations (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0005, No. 13). In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE also proposed clarifications of the treatment of those features by the DOE test procedure. 78 FR at 64306-64308 (Oct. 28, 2013).

5
All of the details of the negotiation sessions can be found in the public meeting transcripts that are posted to the docket for the Working Group (
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023
).

On December 5, 2013, DOE held a public meeting (December 2013 NOPR public meeting) to present the test procedure amendments proposed in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR and accept comments from interested parties. Interested parties submitted comments on the ambient test conditions and the burden of testing and certification of commercial refrigeration equipment. DOE analyzed all of the comments received in response to the October 2013 test procedure NOPR and incorporated recommendations, where appropriate, into this test procedure final rule.

II. Summary of the Final Rule

In this final rule, DOE adopts amendments to clarify DOE's test procedure provisions, definitions, the treatment of specific accessories when testing under the DOE test procedure, and the applicability of the existing test procedure and standards to different types of commercial refrigeration equipment. Specifically, DOE is adopting edits to definitions currently incorporated into the existing DOE test procedure and including additional definitions to be incorporated into the existing test procedure (reorganized into appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 431). DOE is also adopting edits to definitions and including additional definitions to be incorporated into the test procedure used to determine compliance with the amended energy conservation standards adopted for commercial refrigeration equipment on March 28, 2014 (reorganized into appendix B to subpart C of 10 CFR part 431). 79 FR 17726. DOE does not believe that the test procedure clarifications adopted in this final rule will affect the measured energy use of any covered commercial refrigeration equipment as they relate to the applicable energy conservation standards. Rather, the additional definitions and amendments to the DOE test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment would serve only to clarify existing nomenclature, testing provisions, compliance dates, and requirements for

certain features and types of commercial refrigeration equipment; they would not establish new requirements with regard to testing commercial refrigeration equipment.

DOE notes that certification is not currently required for commercial refrigeration equipment. On December 31, 2013, DOE published a final rule adopting amended regulations governing alternative energy determination methods (AEDMs), basic model definition, and the compliance dates for certification of commercial HVAC, refrigeration, and WH (2013 AEDM final rule). 78 FR 79579, 79590. The 2013 AEDM Final Rule adopted a certification date of December 31, 2014, for self-contained, closed solid, and closed transparent commercial refrigeration equipment and a certification date of July 1, 2015, for all other commercial refrigeration equipment.
Id.
DOE also recently published a NOPR proposing, among other things, to revise and expand the certification requirements for commercial refrigeration equipment. 79 FR 8886, 8899-8900 (Feb. 14, 2014). The specific proposals discussed in the NOPR were developed as a result of the negotiations and recommendations of the Working Group for commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023).

III. Discussion

Section III.A presents all of the revisions to the DOE test procedure found at 10 CFR part 431, subpart C, “Uniform test method for measuring the energy consumption of commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers,” incorporated in this final rule, and discusses the comments received on these topics during the December 2013 NOPR public meeting and the associated comment period. The changes adopted as a result of this final rule include revisions addressing the following:

1. The applicability of the test procedure and related energy conservation standards to certain types of equipment;

2. the definitions of “hybrid commercial refrigeration equipment,” “commercial refrigeration equipment with drawers,” and “commercial refrigeration equipment with solid and/or transparent doors”;

3. the relationship among the rating temperature, operating temperature, and integrated average temperature (IAT);

4. the proper configuration and use of energy management systems, lighting controls, and test packages in the DOE test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment;

5. the treatment of various features and components;

6. the rounding requirements for test results and certified ratings;

7. the provision adopted in the 2012 test procedure final rule to allow testing at the LAPT for equipment that cannot operate at the prescribed rating temperature for its equipment class;

8. clarifications raised by AHRI's Interpretations 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of AHRI 1200-2010;

9. the methodology used to determine total display area (TDA); and

10. the compliance date of certain amendments established in the 2012 test procedure final rule.

In response to the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE received several comments from stakeholders that did not pertain to a specific test procedure amendment. In section III.B, DOE provides responses to comments pertaining to (1) the ambient test temperatures required in the DOE test procedure and (2) the burden of testing and certifying equipment as compliant with DOE's energy conservation standards.

A. Amendments to the Test Procedure

This final rule incorporates the following changes to the test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment in 10 CFR part 431, subpart C.

1. Scope of Coverage

On October 18, 2005, DOE published a final rule adopting EPCA's definition of commercial refrigeration equipment. This definition includes seven provisions pertaining to the operational, functional, and design characteristics of the equipment that must be met for a piece of equipment to qualify as commercial refrigeration equipment. 70 FR 60407, 60414 (Oct. 18, 2005). This definition forms the basis of the scope of coverage of DOE's regulations for commercial refrigeration equipment. While the definition of commercial refrigeration equipment encompasses a broad cross-section of commercial refrigeration equipment types, DOE has only established energy conservation standards for certain types of covered commercial refrigeration equipment specified at 10 CFR 431.66, and these standards apply to all new equipment distributed into U.S. commerce. 76 FR at 12426 and 12437 (March 7, 2011). There are also several types of equipment that meet the definition of commercial refrigeration equipment for which DOE has not yet set energy conservation standards. These include, for example, buffet tables, salad bars, prep tables, and griddle stands.

EPCA and DOE regulations require manufacturers of commercial refrigeration equipment to use the DOE test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment to evaluate compliance with any applicable energy conservation standards and to support any representations as to the energy use. The DOE test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment is set forth at 10 CFR 431.64.

In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed clarifications regarding the applicability of the current DOE energy conservation standards and test procedure to specific equipment categories, including the following:

i. Salad bars, buffet tables, and other refrigerated holding and serving equipment;

ii. chef bases and griddle stands;

iii. existing cases undergoing refurbishments or retrofits; and

iv. cases with doors shipped as after-market accessories.

78 FR at 64299-64300 (Oct. 28, 2013).

a. Salad Bars, Buffet Tables, and Other Refrigerated Holding and Serving Equipment

Salad bars, buffet tables, and other refrigerated holding and serving equipment are types of commercial refrigeration equipment that store and display perishable items temporarily during food preparation or service. As DOE stated in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, these units typically have specific design attributes, such as easily accessible or open bins that allow convenient and unimpeded access to the refrigerated products, which make them unique from commercial refrigeration equipment designed for storage or retailing. 78 FR at 64299-300 (Oct. 28, 2013). In this final rule, DOE maintains that while salad bars, buffet tables, and other refrigerated holding and serving equipment are covered equipment types because they meet the definition of commercial refrigeration equipment in EPCA, the DOE test procedure and current Federal standards do not apply due to their unique operation. Should DOE decide to consider test procedures or energy conservation standards for salad bars, buffet tables, and other refrigerated holding and serving equipment, it would do so in a future rulemaking.

b. Chef Bases and Griddle Stands

Chef bases and griddle stands are designed to be placed directly under cooking equipment, such as a commercial grill. Chef bases and griddle stands are also designed to provide

food-safe temperatures in extremely hot environments, and thus are designed with uniquely robust refrigeration systems. These refrigeration systems require larger compressors to provide more cooling capacity for the storage volume than equipment with compressors that are appropriately sized for more typical ambient temperatures. As a result, this equipment consumes more energy than similarly sized, standard CRE models.

In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE stated that chef bases and griddle stands are considered commercial refrigeration equipment according to DOE's definition at 10 CFR 431.62 and stated that it believes that chef bases and griddle stands can be tested using the DOE test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment. DOE also noted that current energy conservation standards do not apply to these types of equipment and DOE did not consider standards for this equipment in its recent revision of energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment. 79 FR 17726 (Mar. 28, 2014). DOE further proposed additions to 10 CFR 431.66 to make clear that the current energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment do not apply to chef bases and griddle stands. 78 FR at 64300 (Oct. 28, 2013). To clearly differentiate “chef bases” and “griddle stands” from conventional types of commercial refrigeration equipment that are currently covered by energy conservation standards, DOE proposed to establish a definition for “chef base” and/or “griddle stand” based on the unique operation of chef bases and griddle stands, which are designed to provide food-safe temperatures in extremely warm environments in excess of 200 °F, and thus are designed with uniquely robust refrigeration systems.

In response to the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, interested parties provided comments on DOE's proposed definition and coverage of chef bases and griddle stands. Continental agreed with DOE's proposed definition of “chef base or griddle stand,” stating that it corresponds with industry practice regarding types of units designed and marketed for harsh applications that should be given special consideration for energy consumption limits. (Continental, No. 14 at p. 1)
6

Traulsen suggested that DOE replace the term “cooking equipment” with “cooking appliance,” but stated that otherwise found the definition of “chef base or griddle stand” to be acceptable. (Traulsen, No. 17 at p. 1)

6
A notation in this form provides a reference for information that is in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop test procedures for commercial refrigeration equipment (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0025, which is maintained at
www.regulations.gov
). This particular notation refers to a comment: (1) Submitted by Continental; (2) appearing in document number 14 of the docket; and (3) appearing on page 1 of that document.

Hill Phoenix agreed with DOE that chef bases and griddle stands do not yet have energy conservation standards associated with them and requested that other, similar equipment designed to be placed or mounted directly under equipment that is designed to hold food at an elevated temperature be considered in this category. (Hill Phoenix, No. 13 at p. 1) Similarly, Southern Store Fixtures requested clarification on the exact definition of chef bases, specifically, whether this covered refrigeration units with food warming equipment on top. (Southern Store Fixtures, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 25) True commented that while some consumers may place food-warming equipment on top of a refrigeration unit, a majority of consumers will place high-temperature cooking equipment atop the unit, and manufacturers will almost always design equipment for the harsh case. (True, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 26) Hill Phoenix also noted that NSF Type II equipment is designed to operate at elevated temperatures and similarly would use more energy if tested using the current CRE test procedure (than Type I equipment) and, as such, suggested that NSF Type II equipment also should fall into the category of equipment for which standards have not yet been set. (Hill Phoenix, No. 13 at pp. 1-2)

DOE appreciates the agreement of interested parties with DOE's proposed definition. With regard to replacing the term “cooking equipment” with “cooking appliance,” as suggested by interested parties, DOE's appliance standards and commercial equipment program generally refers to equipment as something designed and primarily found in commercial applications, while the term “appliance” refers to a primarily residential application. DOE finds that chef bases and griddle stands, and the associated cooking apparatus placed above these equipment, are typically used in commercial kitchens. As such, DOE believes the term “cooking equipment” is more appropriate than “cooking appliance” for use in the definition of “chef bases” and “griddle stands,” as it is consistent with DOE's designation of equipment as designed for commercial applications.

Regarding the inclusion of additional equipment designed for use directly under equipment that is designed to hold food at an elevated temperature as suggested by several commenters, DOE believes that this equipment can be adequately represented in the current CRE equipment categories and does not find sufficient justification to exclude them with the exclusion of “chef bases” and “griddle stands.” The categorization of griddle stands was meant to accommodate equipment that experienced temperatures in excess of 200 °F, which requires significant modification of the refrigeration system to maintain cooling in such a high temperature environment. DOE does not find that temperatures required for short-term holding of food are significantly different from the temperatures observed in restaurants or other closed cooking environments in which conventional commercial refrigeration equipment is placed. DOE does not believe that maintenance of refrigeration performance in these environments requires significantly different equipment design, as is the case of “chef bases” and “griddle stands.” In addition, DOE has not observed specific marketing or identification of commercial refrigeration equipment designed for use under food-warming and holding equipment. Thus, based on DOE's assessment, the refrigeration system and design of this equipment is not significantly different from other types of commercial refrigeration equipment, and DOE believes that the existing DOE test procedure is sufficiently representative of field use, and application of the existing energy conservation standard appropriate for this equipment.

In response to Hill Phoenix's comment regarding NSF Type II equipment, DOE believes that NSF Type II equipment can be effectively characterized by the existing DOE test procedure and effectively meet the existing energy conservation standards. DOE previously considered NSF Type II equipment in the 2012 test procedure final rule and found that the compressor systems can effectively operate at test temperatures. In the 2012 test procedure final rule, DOE agreed with interested parties that testing cases at an ambient temperature of 80 °F, rather than the currently specified 75 °F, will not have a significant impact on energy consumption for cases with doors and recognized that the impact on open cases may be greater than on closed cases, but did not believe that equipment will have operation or

performance issues if tested at the temperatures prescribed by the DOE test procedure. 77 FR at 10305-10307 (Feb. 21, 2012). DOE maintains that the energy consumption of a case should scale with ambient temperature and does not believe these issues will prevent units from being tested using the DOE-prescribed test temperatures or complying with DOE energy conservation standards. DOE researched the equipment available on the market and requested specific data regarding the existence of cases that cannot meet the standard or the characteristics of their operation. DOE did not encounter any data arising from this search that would conflict with its current treatment of these equipment types, and no commenters provided any additional data to support the contention that these equipment types cannot meet the DOE standards. In addition, NSF Type II equipment is typically placed outdoors and may see a wide variety of temperatures in the field; thus, DOE finds the current rating conditions of 75 °F and 45 percent relative humidity appropriately representative for this equipment.

c. Existing Cases Undergoing Refurbishments or Retrofits

Energy conservation standards apply only to new equipment manufactured after the effective date of the applicable standard, and not to equipment undergoing retrofits or refurbishments. DOE stated in its certification, compliance, and enforcement (CCE) final rule, published on March 7, 2011, that manufacturers must certify to DOE that each basic model of covered equipment meets the applicable standard before distributing that equipment into U.S. commerce. 76 FR at 12426 and 12437. In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE clarified that its authority covers only newly manufactured equipment and does not extend to rebuilt and refurbished equipment. 78 FR at 64300 (Oct. 28, 2013).

DOE did not receive any negative comments in response to this clarification and continues to maintain that its energy conservation standards and test procedures apply to only new equipment and not existing equipment undergoing refurbishments or retrofits.

d. Case Doors Shipped as After-Market Additions

A basic model of commercial refrigeration equipment is tested, rated, and subject to specific standards based on the equipment class(es) to which that basic model belongs. For commercial refrigeration equipment, one of the features that distinguishes the current equipment classes for the purposes of applying standards is the presence of doors (
i.e.,
open or closed). In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that when a model of commercial refrigeration equipment is offered for sale with doors as an optional accessory, regardless of how the unit is shipped, such unit must be tested and certified as equivalent to a basic model shipped with doors pre-installed. DOE also requested comment on whether, if this same model is offered for sale as a model without doors, it should be tested and rated with no doors installed and meet the corresponding energy conservation standards for open case equipment.

In response to the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) commented that it believed equipment that can optionally be sold with doors or without should be tested and certified in each configuration. (NEEA, No. 16 at p. 1) DOE did not receive any negative comments on this proposal.

DOE agrees with NEEA that commercial refrigeration equipment that can optionally be sold with doors or without doors should be treated as separate basic models in separate equipment classes and should be tested both with doors and without doors. This is consistent with the definition of basic models, which is based on features that affect the energy use of a covered piece of equipment as established in DOE's CCE final rule, and requires individual models that would fall into different equipment classes to be certified separately. 76 FR at 12429 (March 7, 2011) (
see
10 CFR 431.62).

2. Definitions Pertinent to Commercial Refrigeration Equipment

DOE currently categorizes commercial refrigeration equipment by equipment classes based on several general characteristics of a given basic model. 10 CFR 431.62 provides definitions that assist manufacturers in determining which equipment class and associated energy conservation standard applies to a given basic model of commercial refrigeration equipment. However, 10 CFR 431.62 does not provide explicit guidance on how to classify commercial refrigeration equipment with drawers or how to differentiate between a unit with transparent doors and a unit with solid doors. In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed definitions and clarifications regarding the treatment of commercial refrigeration equipment with drawers and commercial refrigeration equipment with transparent and/or solid doors. 78 FR at 64300-03 (Oct. 28, 2013). DOE also proposed clarification with regard to the definitions for and categorization of hybrid equipment and commercial refrigerator freezers. 78 FR at 64303 (Oct. 28, 2013). These proposals, comments submitted by interested parties, and DOE's response to submitted comments are presented in the subsequent sections.

a. Commercial Refrigeration Equipment With Drawers

DOE's definition of commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer specified at 10 CFR 431.62 includes a requirement that the equipment “[h]as transparent or solid doors, sliding or hinged doors, a combination of hinged, sliding, transparent, or solid doors, or no doors.” Based on this definition, DOE interprets the term “door” to mean any movable component of the CRE unit that:

1. When closed, separates the interior refrigerated space from the ambient air; and

2. when opened, provides access to the refrigerated products inside the CRE unit.

Based on this definition, in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE presented its view that drawers are treated as equivalent to doors for purposes of DOE's regulatory program, including compliance with DOE's energy conservation standards. Likewise, DOE believes drawers are treated as doors when conducting the DOE test procedure. 78 FR at 64300-01 (Oct. 28, 2013).

To demonstrate the comparable operation of models of commercial refrigeration equipment with drawers as compared to similar models with traditional doors, in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE presented the test results for several CRE units with drawers from multiple manufacturers using the current DOE test procedure and compared their performance to nearly identical units with hinged doors (belonging to the vertical closed solid, or VCS, equipment family) from the same manufacturer product lines. As a result of the testing, DOE found that the units with drawers performed similarly to the hinged-door units to which they were compared. DOE also presented the effect of drawer-opening distances for CRE units with drawers and found minimal variation in measured total daily energy consumption (TDEC) at different drawer opening distances. 78 FR at 64301 (Oct. 28, 2013). DOE believes these test results confirm that the door-opening requirements in the DOE test procedure

apply to basic models of commercial refrigeration equipment with drawers, just as they do for CRE units with other types of hinged or sliding doors, and that the current energy conservation standards prescribed for commercial refrigeration equipment are equally applicable to CRE units with drawers.

To clarify how DOE's regulatory scheme applies to basic models of CRE units with drawers, in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to add language to the definition section at 10 CFR 431.62, defining doors as being inclusive of drawers, and requested comment on its proposed definition. 78 FR at 64301 (Oct. 28, 2013).

Several interested parties commented on DOE's proposed definition of door to include drawers, the applicability of the DOE test procedure to units with drawers, and DOE's coverage of units with drawers in general. DOE presents the comments received by interested parties and DOE's response in the following sections.

Definition of Door

In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE defined door at 78 FR 64301 (Oct. 28, 2013).

DOE received several comments and suggestions from interested parties regarding its proposed definition for doors. Continental commented that DOE's definition of “door” should not include drawers. Continental stated that it is counter-intuitive to define a “drawer” as a subset of a “door” and this would result in confusion and misinterpretation and suggested that, instead, DOE change the usage of the term “door” in applicable procedures to “door or drawer.” (Continental, No. 14 at p. 1) AHRI did not agree with DOE's proposed definition of “door” to be inclusive of drawers and instead suggested that DOE create separate definition for drawers or amending the current definition for “doors” by replacing “door” with the term “door/drawer.” (AHRI, No. 15 at p. 3)

NEEA, AHRI, Southern Store Fixtures, and True commented that DOE's definition of doors would include night curtains and recommended that DOE include a specific exclusion of night curtains in the definition of doors. (NEEA, No. 16 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 15 at p. 4; Southern Store Fixtures, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 32; True, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 37) Several interested parties, including NEEA, Traulsen, True, Southern Store Fixtures, and Unified Brands, recommended that DOE remove the “use of tools” clause from the definition, as most drawers and some doors are intended to be removed without the use of tools. (NEEA, No. 16 at p. 2; Traulsen, No. 17 at p. 2; True, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 37; Southern Store Fixtures, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 37; Unified Brands, No. 9 at p. 1)

DOE appreciates the suggestions of interested parties regarding changes and improvements to DOE's proposed definition for door. DOE agrees with interested parties that a night curtain would have met the definition of “door” proposed in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR. This was not DOE's intent, as night curtains are intended to be treated as an energy-saving feature for open cases. DOE also adopted a specific definition for night curtain in the 2012 test procedure final rule. 77 FR at 10318 (Feb. 21, 2012). To clarify that night curtains are not to be treated as doors for the purposes of testing using the DOE test procedure or complying with DOE's energy conservation standards, in this final rule DOE is adding language to the definition of “door” to exclude night curtains.

DOE also acknowledges comments submitted by interested parties regarding the requirement that a door be “affixed such that it is not removable without the use of tools.” DOE's intent with the proposed clause was to exclude temporary insulating panels or other devices that are not doors, but may be placed on open cases periodically to limit energy consumption when the case is not in use for merchandizing. DOE agrees with commenters that some doors and drawers are intended to be removable without the use of tools for the ease of cleaning, product loading, or other utility features, and that these cases should still be treated as closed cases with doors. Therefore, in the definition of “door” adopted in this final rule, DOE is removing the “use of tools” provision. Upon further consideration, DOE found the statement to be superfluous. This does not include night curtains or other panels that are not in place when the case is being used for merchandising.

Regarding the inclusion of drawers in DOE's definition of “door,” DOE acknowledges the concerns of interested parties that referring to drawers as doors in the test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment may be confusing and non-intuitive. However, DOE's test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment only addresses the treatment of “doors” and does not explicitly reference the treatment of “drawers.” This terminology is established in ASHRAE Standard 72-2005, the method of test referenced in AHRI 1200-2010, the test procedure incorporated by reference as the foundation of DOE's test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment. Given that the nomenclature in these referenced test standards is not the sole purview of DOE, DOE believes the most straightforward method for clarifying that the treatment of drawers should be identical to the treatment of doors for the purposes of conducting the DOE test procedure and compliance with DOE's energy conservation standards is to continue to define door as inclusive of drawers, as proposed in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR. 78 FR at 64301 (Oct. 28, 2013). However, if the ASHRAE Standard Project Committee were to revise ASHRAE Standard 72-2005 to include drawers specifically, DOE could review and incorporate the revised test standard, if appropriate, to further eliminate confusion. DOE understands that this may occur in a forthcoming version of ASHRAE Standard 72, anticipated to be published in 2014. Until such a revised test standard is available, DOE will also incorporate language into the test procedure at 10 CFR 431.64 to specify that drawers are to be treated as identical to doors when conducting the DOE test procedure.

Applicability of the DOE Test Procedure to Commercial Refrigeration Equipment With Drawers

Several interested parties commented that the current DOE test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment does not provide sufficient clarity regarding how to test units with drawers. Specifically, commenters identified (1) the type and configuration of drawer pans, (2) the location and number of simulators and test packages in the drawers, (3) how to determine interior refrigerated volume of a drawered unit, and (4) how far a drawer should be opened during testing as areas of ambiguity when applying the existing DOE test procedure to CRE models with drawers. (Unified Brands, No. 9 at p. 2; Traulsen, No. 17 at p. 2; National, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 42) Unified Brands and Traulsen commented that, depending on the design of the drawer unit, moving the test simulators in and out of the refrigerated compartment may cause variation in the integrated average temperature (IAT), which could drive increased energy consumption, and added that testing of commercial refrigeration equipment with doors does not require test simulators to be removed from the refrigerated compartment. (Unified Brands, No. 9 at p. 2; Traulsen, No. 17 at p. 2) Specifically, National opined that when calculating total volume of a drawered

unit, there should be considerations for drawer pan capacity. Additionally, National urged DOE to center the definition of a unit's volume on the amount of product that the unit can hold. (National, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 42)

Unified Brands commented that it is inappropriate for a drawer to be included as equivalent to a door for the purposes of testing and compliance with the DOE test procedure and energy conservation standards because when a drawer is opened, the entire contents of the drawer are removed from the interior volume of the cabinet and exposed to the ambient conditions. In addition, Unified Brands stated that it manufactures drawer units in which the drawer is fully insulated refrigerated space and the cabinet is mostly structural. Unified Brands further commented that drawer units are often designed with additional refrigeration capacity beyond that of a similarly sized door unit due to the unique air flow and refrigeration challenges that drawers provide. (Unified Brands, No. 9 at pp. 1-2)

Lastly, Unified Brands commented that current CRE models may require as many as 12 separate drawer openings, requiring 12 door-opening apparatus, the electronic capability to control all of the openers, and a significant amount of space. Unified Brands added that testing equipment with drawers also increases burden by increasing the complexity of the test and increasing the risk associated with managing thermocouple wires to prevent thermocouple displacement and breakage. (Unified Brands, No. 9 at pp. 2-3) Unified Brands was also concerned that multiple thermocouple wires may prevent the drawer gaskets from sealing properly, resulting in increased energy use. (Unified Brands, No. 9 at p. 2)

Based on comments received by interested parties, DOE reviewed its test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment with regards to specific requirements necessary to accommodate or clarify the application of the CRE test procedure to equipment with drawers. The DOE test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment adopts specific sections of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers Standard for Energy, Performance and Capacity of Household Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers (AHAM HRF-1-2004) as the protocol for determining refrigerated compartment volume for compliance with the current standards and specific sections of AHAM HRF-1-2008 for measuring refrigerated compartment volume to determine compliance with the amended standards adopted in the March 2014 energy conservation standard final rule. 79 FR 17726 (Mar. 28, 2014). DOE reviewed these methods for determining refrigerated compartment volume and finds them sufficient for determining internal refrigerated volume for commercial refrigeration equipment with drawers.

With regard to the comment from Unified Brands about a model of commercial refrigeration equipment in which the drawers are insulated and the outer case acts more as a support, DOE researched this type of commercial refrigeration equipment and reviewed the applicable methods for calculating refrigerated or frozen compartment volume. DOE specifically references section 3.21, “Volume,” of AHAM HRF 1-2004 and section 3.30, “Volume,” of AHAM HRF 1-2008. Both of these sections contain definitions for “fresh food compartment volume” and “freezer compartment volume,” which are defined as the portion of the total refrigerated volume above or below 32 °F, respectively. The total refrigerated volume is a combination of these two compartment volumes. Based on these definitions, DOE believes that only the volume that is purposefully refrigerated for food display or storage is to be included in the refrigerated volume calculation. Thus, in the case of a drawered CRE model in which only the drawers are insulated and directly cooled, only the interior volume of the drawers would be included in the calculation of refrigerated volume, not the entire volume of the cabinet housing. DOE believes that this is clear in the existing protocol specified in AHAM HRF 1-2004 and AHAM HRF 1-2008 and further clarification is not necessary on this matter.

Regarding test simulator locations, filler package placement, and pan configuration for CRE models with drawers, DOE reviewed the ASHRAE Standard 72-2005, which is the industry standard referenced by the DOE test procedure, to determine the sufficiency of existing guidance for placing test simulators and filler packages in commercial refrigeration equipment with drawers. ASHRAE Standard 72-2005 specifically addresses CRE models with shelves and without shelves and, in general, specifies that test simulators shall be placed at the right end, front and back, and the left end, front and back. Test simulators are also to be placed intermittently across the face of CRE model at shelf standard breaks or with specific spacing in the case of CRE models without shelving. Since CRE models with drawers typically do not have shelves, these models will be treated as CRE models without shelves. Therefore, applying the requirements for CRE models without shelves to CRE models with drawers, it is logical that test simulators should be placed in the front and back corners of the drawer and, depending on the width of the drawer, 36- to 48-inch intervals across the width of the drawer in the front and back, as is the case for commercial refrigeration equipment without shelves. DOE does not see a problem applying the requirements for a CRE model without shelves in ASHRAE Standard 72-2005 to a CRE model with drawers, which qualifies as a CRE model without shelves, and believes placing test simulators in this manner will accurately and representatively capture the internal temperature of the equipment.

With regard to filler package placement, ASHRAE Standard 72-2005 specifies that the remaining usable space where test simulators are not required shall be loaded with filler packages or filler material so as to occupy between 70 and 90 percent of the refrigerated volume and to uniformly occupy the space from the front to the rear. Again, DOE does not anticipate issues in applying these requirements to CRE models with drawers just as they are applied to CRE models with doors. In the case of CRE models with drawers, each drawer should be filled with filled packages or filler material up to the load limit. DOE acknowledges that it is theoretically possible that the drawers could hold less than 70 percent of the net refrigerated volume if the entire cabinet was refrigerated. However, DOE notes that this would be an inefficient design choice and DOE does not see a significant utility associated with having significant amounts of unusable refrigerated volume. Therefore, DOE does not believe accommodation is necessary for such situations. If a manufacturer produces a case that cannot meet the requirements of 70 percent packing, that manufacturer must apply for a test procedure waiver.

As to the pan configuration necessary for testing CRE models with drawers, DOE understands that CRE with drawers often consist of a sliding frame that accommodates the placement of standard size pans typically used by the food service industry for holding food. DOE acknowledges that theoretically many configurations of pans could be placed in a commercial refrigerator or freezer with drawers. DOE's test procedure requires that the model be configured with a pan configuration that allows for the maximum packing of filler packages as specified by the test

procedure, but not exceeding 90 percent of the refrigerated volume. To clarify this requirement, DOE is adopting language to specify that commercial refrigeration equipment with drawers should be configured with the drawer pans that allow for the maximum packing of test simulators and filler packages without exceeding 90 percent of the refrigerated volume.

In response to the Unified Brands comment regarding the burden of conducting the test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment on equipment with drawers, DOE does not believe that the requirements are significantly more complex than those for testing commercial refrigeration equipment with doors. Numerous door-opening apparatus are also required for multi-compartment doored cases, and thermocouples must also be configured so as to measure test simulators in the internal refrigerated volume. DOE acknowledges that incrementally more thermocouple wire may need to be attached to thermocouples placed in test simulators in drawers, to ensure sufficient slack is available for the drawer to fully open and fully close without disturbing the thermocouple placement within the test simulator. However, DOE does not believe that providing this additional length of thermocouple wire is a significant additional burden, given many test simulators may already be equipped with excess thermocouple wire.

General Treatment of Drawers as Equivalent to Doors

In response to the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE also received several comments from interested parties regarding the appropriateness of treating drawers as equivalent to doors for the purposes of testing under DOE's test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment and compliance with DOE's energy conservation standards in general. DOE presents these comments and DOE's response in this section.

Traulsen commented that units with drawers typically hold less product by mass and volume than an identical unit with doors only and questioned how this will affect the IAT and the infiltration of air during the door/drawer opening period. (Traulsen, No. 17 at p. 2) According to Unified Brands, many drawer units are specifically designed for drawers and do not have a door unit of similar construction for comparison and, prior to assuming similarity between door and drawer units, a statistically significant sample of product designs should be tested and validated. (Unified Brands, No. 9 at pp. 1-2)

DOE's test data, presented in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, does not suggest that drawers are significantly different from doors in terms of applying the DOE test procedure or the thermodynamic requirements. 78 FR at 64301 (Oct. 28, 2013). Lacking additional data contradicting DOE's test data, DOE is maintaining its position that drawers are to be treated as equivalent to doors for the purposes of conducting the DOE test procedure and complying with DOE's energy conservation standards.

b. Transparent and Solid Doors

In reviewing the CRE test procedure, DOE identified opportunities for clarification within the definitions and classifications of commercial refrigeration equipment with solid doors versus those with transparent doors. In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed several new definitions for transparent, closed solid, and closed transparent to clarify the test procedure requirements at 10 CFR 431.64 to ensure appropriate equipment categorization. 78 FR at 64301-64303 (Oct. 28, 2013).

Definition of Transparent

The DOE test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment, as amended by the 2012 test procedure final rule, incorporates by reference AHRI 1200-2010. 77 FR at 10318 (Feb. 21, 2012). AHRI 1200-2010 defines total display area (TDA) as “the sum of the projected area(s) for visible product expressed in [square feet]” and provides procedures for calculating the TDA of commercial refrigeration equipment with panels, end enclosures, doors, or other envelope components that have some transparent area(s). Appendix D of AHRI 1200-2010 provides further guidance and examples to clarify the calculation of TDA. The appendix also defines a transparent material as that which allows at least 65 percent light transmittance. Therefore, based on AHRI 1200-2010, a transparent door would be one partially or entirely composed of a material that allows greater than or equal to 65 percent light transmittance.

In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed a definition for “transparent” based on an unambiguous measurement of the light transmission properties of a material in accordance with ASTM Standard E 1084-86 (Reapproved 2009), “Standard Test Method for Solar Transmittance (Terrestrial) of Sheet Materials Using Sunlight,” at normal incidence. 78 FR at 64301-64302 (Oct. 28, 2013).

In response to DOE's proposed definition of “transparent,” several interested parties provided comments and suggestions for adopting an appropriate definition for commercial refrigeration equipment applications. Continental stated that DOE's proposed definition of “transparent” introduces unnecessary complexity and suggested that a simple dictionary-type definition as “able to [be] seen through” would be sufficient for nearly all applications for covered commercial refrigeration equipment. Continental added that DOE has the right and obligation to challenge a manufacturer's claim if DOE believes it does not meet a basic definition of the terminology or the intent of the standard. (Continental, No. 14 at p. 1) NEEA, True, and Hussmann were concerned that DOE's proposed threshold of 65 percent light transmittance might inadvertently exclude some types of Low-E, high performance glass, which can have visible transmittance as low as 45 percent. (NEEA, No. 16 at p. 2; True, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 53; Hussmann, No. 11 at p. 1) NEEA and Hussmann recommended DOE consider lowering the threshold for determining whether a material is transparent or not, and suggested that DOE possibly refer to the WINDOWS 5 model, developed by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
7

that was used in the engineering analysis. (NEEA, No. 16 at p. 2; Hussmann, No. 11 at p. 1)

7

http://windows.lbl.gov/software/window/window.html.

True and Southern Store Fixtures noted that self-serve counter display cases may be fitted with see-through mirror-finish, or glass reflective panels, which would affect the transparency of the doors depending on the measurement angle and direction. (Southern Store Fixtures, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 53; True, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 55)

True also noted that the majority of losses through transparent doors were a result of the difference in insulation capacities between the glass door and the solid door, and that only a small portion of the losses were due to light entering through transparent doors. True therefore opined that treating a glass door as solid, irrespective of its transparency, was inaccurate. (True, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 51)

DOE appreciates the suggestions by commenters. In response to Continental's concern regarding the potential complexity of a quantitative method for determining a transparent

material, rather than a definition based on the intent or application of the material, DOE notes that the method to determine transparency of a material is not mandatory for equipment classification or testing. In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE noted that determination of the light transmittance of a transparent material is not required in all cases to classify a basic model of commercial refrigeration equipment as equipment with transparent doors and clarified that manufacturers may continue to specify equipment as belonging to a transparent equipment class (
e.g.,
vertical closed transparent or horizontal closed transparent) or a solid without testing because, in most cases, it will be obvious whether a material is transparent or not; therefore, testing would not be necessary to verify the classification of a material as transparent or not. 78 FR at 64302 (Oct. 28, 2013). Thus, incorporation of a quantitative test procedure is not anticipated to add to the complexity and burden of conducting the DOE test procedure for most models of commercial refrigeration equipment.

DOE agrees with Continental that DOE has the obligation and the right to challenge the classification of certain materials as transparent. However, there may be cases in which the material is not obviously transparent or solid, such as basic models with special decals or opaque glass. DOE prefers to use a quantitative, objective method to determine transparency of a material and subsequent equipment classification, which will also provide certainty to the regulated industry. Therefore, DOE is adopting in this final rule a definition of “transparent” based on the evaluation of that material in accordance with ASTM Standard E 1084-86 (Reapproved 2009).

In response to the comments from NEEA, True, and Hussmann expressing concern about the inclusion of Low-E and high-performance glass as a “transparent” material when such fenestration products may have visible transmittance values as low as 45 percent, DOE researched available high-performance glass door products for commercial refrigeration equipment to determine an appropriate threshold for light transmittance. While some Low-E glass with reflective coatings designed for extremely sunny environments can have visible transmittance values as low as 0.2 (meaning 20 percent transparent), DOE finds that it is unlikely commercial refrigeration equipment would incorporate such material since this equipment is not typically installed in extremely sunny environments. In addition, such a low visible transmittance value would significantly diminish the ability of consumers to see through the glass to the contents inside the unit, which is the intent of including transparent material in a given CRE design. Therefore, DOE is adopting a threshold for determining a transparent material of 45 percent light transmittance as determined in accordance with ASTM Standard E 1084-86 (Reapproved 2009).

Regarding comments by True and Southern Store Fixtures, DOE acknowledges that some glass may be available with a mirrored finish to prevent viewing or light transmittance when viewed from one side of the glass, but not the other. DOE does not intend to treat such glass as solid, as it provides the function of transparent material (
i.e.,
being able to see through to the internal contents of the case) when viewed from one side of the glass. In the equipment described by commenters, this would be when viewed at an angle of incidence normal (90 degrees) to the plane of the case and from the exterior. DOE believes that reflective glass would fully meet the definition of “transparent” when tested at normal incidence and in the intended direction of viewing. Therefore, to clarify the orientation of glass when testing using ASTM Standard E 1084-86 (Reapproved 2009), DOE is incorporating language into the definition of “transparent” to specify that the material is to be tested at normal incidence and in the intended direction of viewing.

Definition of Equipment With Transparent Doors Versus Solid Doors

In the energy conservation standards specified at 10 CFR 431.66, DOE refers to equipment families using the terms “closed solid” and “closed transparent” (for example, vertical closed solid (VCS) and vertical closed transparent (VCT)). In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed definitions for “closed transparent” and “closed solid” to clarify what factors differentiate a CRE basic model as a transparent-door model or a solid-door model. DOE based its proposed definitions on a percentage of outer surface area of all doors that are transparent. Specifically, DOE proposed that if 75 percent or more of the outer surface area of all doors on a CRE unit is transparent, that unit would be considered closed transparent. Conversely, DOE proposed that “closed solid” would refer to CRE equipment with doors, and in which more than 75 percent of the outer surface area of all doors is not transparent. 78 FR at 64318 (Oct. 28, 2013). As DOE presented at the December 2013 test procedure NOPR public meeting, DOE intended for the definition of “closed solid” to include equipment in which more than 25 percent of the outer surface area of all doors on a unit are not transparent, and notes that the inclusion of the 75 percent figure in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR was a typographical error.

DOE received several comments from interested parties in response to the categorization of closed transparent versus closed solid equipment families proposed in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR. Hill Phoenix, AHRI, and Hussmann commented that a case that has a transparent door on the front and a solid door on the side or back, where approximately 50 percent of the door surface area is transparent and approximately 50 percent of the door surface area is solid, was not adequately addressed by DOE's proposed definitions. Hill Phoenix, AHRI, and Hussmann further suggested that a CRE model where 25 percent or more of the outer surface area of all doors on the unit are transparent should be treated as a transparent case and that any case that has more than 75 percent of the door area as solid should be subject to the closed solid energy conservation standards. (Hill Phoenix, No. 13 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 15 at p. 4; Hussmann, No. 11 at p. 2)

Continental commented that DOE's proposed definitions do not correlate with the way commercial refrigeration systems are typically designed for units with transparent doors. Continental further commented that if more than 25 percent of the doors on a unit are transparent, the refrigeration systems are commonly “upsized” to provide the increased cooling capacity required. Thus, Continental suggested that DOE's definition should align with industry practice and adopt a 25 percent threshold or, at most, a 32 percent level. (Continental, No. 14 at p. 2)

Traulsen recommended that the definition of “closed transparent” refer to CRE models in which 75 percent or more of the transparent area of the doors on the customer side of the pass-through or the operator/customer side of the reach-in
8

style unit is transparent, and “closed solid” be defined as equipment in which more than 75 percent of the outer surface area of all the doors on each side of the unit is not transparent. Traulsen added that transparent doors and the design and operation of closed transparent equipment carry a higher

energy penalty and DOE should be cautious of creating definitions that classify equipment with transparent doors as closed solid equipment. Traulsen further recommended ignoring other doors on the backside of the unit when classifying closed transparent equipment, similar to the treatment of pass-through-type equipment in ASHRAE Standard 72-2005, where only doors on the one side of the pass-through should be operated during the test. (Traulsen, No. 17 at p. 2)

8
The comment submitted by Traulsen referenced “read-in” style units. DOE believes Traulsen meant to reference “reach-in” style units and has amended the submitted comment to reflect this.

Hussmann suggested that DOE further clarify what “the outer surface area of the door” is and whether it includes mullions and door frames. (Hussmann, No. 11 at p. 2)

Alternatively, Zero Zone offered that the ENERGY STAR®
9

program uses definitions that describes a number of additional details about glass door equipment and recommended that DOE should consider these definitions. For example, Zero Zone stated that it manufactures a CRE model with transparent doors on the front and solid doors on the back, and that the ENERGY STAR definitions would classify such a case as a glass door cabinet and DOE's proposed definitions would qualify such as case as a solid door cabinet. In addition, Zero Zone suggested that DOE perform an engineering analysis to assess the impact and feasibility of reduced energy conservation standard levels for closed transparent equipment with a small percent of transparent area. (Zero Zone, No. 18 at pp. 1-2)

9
ENERGY STAR is a joint program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and DOE that establishes a voluntary rating, certification, and labeling program for highly energy efficient consumer products and commercial equipment. Information on the program is available at
www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=home.index.

In response to comments regarding the fraction of transparent surface area of all outer doors on a given CRE model that differentiates closed transparent equipment from closed solid equipment, DOE acknowledges comments from interested parties regarding the increased energy use associated with closed transparent equipment due to the increased thermal conductance of glass as compared to insulated case walls and other design and operation features. In determining the fraction of transparent door surface area to qualify a basic model of commercial refrigeration equipment as equipment with transparent doors, DOE proposed a transparent surface area higher than 50 percent to ensure that only doors with a majority of transparent surface area were considered transparent doors. 78 FR at 64302 (Oct. 28, 2013). However, DOE finds the suggestions of Traulsen, Hill Phoenix, AHRI, and Hussmann—that equipment with transparent doors on one side of the cabinet and solid doors on another be treated as transparent equipment—reasonable and consistent with DOE's intended application of closed transparent equipment. That is, equipment with only one transparent door and the remaining sides consisting of solid insulated case wall and similar equipment with two doors, one that is transparent and one on another side that is solid, should be treated equivalently for the purposes of testing and compliance with DOE energy conservation standards. However, DOE finds the suggestion of Traulsen to address only the customer-side of a CRE model to be inconsistent and impractical to implement given the variety of door configurations that could be present on other sides of the CRE unit. DOE believes it is most appropriate to address the outer surface area of all the doors that may be present on any of the sides of a CRE model when determining whether the equipment belongs in the closed solid or closed transparent equipment family.

Regarding Hussmann's request that DOE provide additional clarity as to the definition of “outer surface area,” DOE used the term “outer surface area” to refer to the surface area on only one side of a door. DOE acknowledges that solid and transparent doors installed on commercial refrigeration equipment are physically three-dimensional objects, with surface area measurements on each of six sides: Four edges and two faces. DOE used the term “outer surface area” to refer to the side of the door facing out of, rather than into, the cabinet. In response to Hussmann's comment inquiring whether the outer surface area of the door included mullions and door frames, DOE is clarifying that the outer surface area to be accounted for is that of the door itself, as defined in section III.A.2.a, as a unique component of the CRE model. In this case, the door consists of the door frame and any transparent area that represents the “moveable panel” that “facilitates access to the refrigerated space.” This would not include mullions, which are fixed portions of the CRE model's envelope on which the doors are mounted. DOE has specified how to determine the applicability of transparent equipment families to a given model in section 1.2 of each appendix.

In response to Zero Zone's suggestion that DOE consider the ENERGY STAR® definitions for solid door cabinet, glass door cabinet, and mixed solid/glass door cabinet, DOE reviewed the definitions in the ENERGY STAR “Version 2.1 Program Requirements for Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers”
10

(Version 2.1 Program Requirements), as well as associated stakeholder comments received during the development of the ENERGY STAR Version 2.1 Program Requirements in developing the proposed definitions for closed solid and closed transparent.
11

The primary difference between the ENERGY STAR classification scheme and that proposed by DOE is the treatment of CRE models with mixed solid and transparent doors on at least one side of the unit. In DOE's proposal, cases with mixed solid and transparent doors would be treated as either solid or transparent cases, based on the outer surface area of the doors, whereas ENERGY STAR treats this equipment in a separate equipment category.

10
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
ENERGY STAR® Program Requirements for Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers: Eligibility Criteria; Version 2.1.
Effective January 1, 2010. (Last accessed August 15, 2013.)
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/product_specs/program_reqs/Commercial_Refrigerator_and_Freezer_Program_Requirements.pdf?dae6-ef7c
.

11

See
Continental Refrigerator, Comments on Specification for Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers, Version 2.0 Draft 3. Dated January 7, 2009. Available at:
https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/refrig/Continental_Comments.pdf?f45c-2369
. Beverage-Air Corporation, Beverage-Air Comments re: ENERGY VERSION 2.0—DRAFT 3, Dated January 8, 2009. Available at:
https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/refrig/Beverage-Air_Comments.pdf?f45c-2369
. Anonymous, Comments on Draft 2. Dated September 15, 2008. Available at:
https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/refrig/Anonymous_Comments.pdf?f45c-2369
. True Manufacturing, Comments on Draft 2. Dated September 17, 2008. Available at:
https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/refrig/True_Comments.pdf?f45c-2369
. Traulsen, Comments on Draft 1. Dated April 18, 2008. Available at:
https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/refrig/Traulsen_Comments.pdf?f45c-2369
.

DOE believes the definitions proposed in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR are straightforward and would unambiguously address equipment categorization. 78 FR at 64318 (Oct. 28, 2013). In addition, setting the threshold for transparent surface area of all outer doors at greater than 25 percent makes it unlikely that equipment with substantial amounts of transparent area will be categorized in the closed solid equipment family. For example, equipment that has one door that is half-transparent and half-solid would be treated as “closed transparent” and would have to meet the energy conservation standard for the appropriate equipment class based on its volume or TDA. As a result, DOE

does not anticipate issues associated with equipment with small transparent areas that cannot meet the applicable energy conservation standard. Also, these definitions are consistent with the equipment categorization methodology DOE uses to establish standards for covered equipment. As such, DOE believes defining terms that are used directly in the description and determination of equipment classes for commercial refrigeration equipment is the most clear, unambiguous method for defining and categorizing equipment as closed transparent or closed solid, and DOE does not see a need to establish a unique equipment category for mixed solid/transparent equipment.

c. Hybrid Equipment and Commercial Refrigerator-Freezers

At 10 CFR 431.62, DOE defines a commercial hybrid refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-freezer as having two or more chilled and/or frozen compartments that are in two or more different equipment families, contained in one cabinet, and sold as a single unit. In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to replace the definition of “commercial hybrid refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer” with a definition of “commercial hybrid,” and introduce a new definition of “commercial refrigerator-freezer” to clarify DOE's definitions and equipment categories. 78 FR at 64303-64304, 64318 (Oct. 28, 2013).

In response to the definitions proposed in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE received comments from interested parties regarding DOE's definition for commercial hybrid and the applicability of the definition of commercial hybrid to certain equipment. Continental commented that the proposed definition of “commercial hybrid” should specify that the “two compartments” are separated by an insulated partition to isolate them for different storage applications, as this would limit confusion with multiple section cabinets, which may have non-insulated partitions or ducting between them purely for air distribution, shared throughout the entire unit. (Continental, No. 14 at p. 2)

True noted that DOE's definition did not explicitly state that dual temperature units were separated by a vertical partition, and therefore might include solid-shelf units. (True, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 71) Similarly, National expressed confusion over the application of the DOE rule in cases where two sections of a unit were at different temperatures, but potentially use the same evaporator coil or share air between the two spaces. (National, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 75) National commented that some two-door units are built with airflow down the middle and panels with louvers to distribute air. (National, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 79)

Hussmann agreed with DOE's proposed definitions of commercial hybrid and commercial refrigerator-freezer, but requested clarification on how to classify or handle a piece of equipment that contains at least one section or compartment that is not covered by the DOE test procedure (
e.g.,
salad bars and buffet tables). (Hussmann, No. 11 at p. 2) Royston noted that in many hybrid units such as salad bars, it was unclear what percentage of the unit would be considered refrigerated. (Royston, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 82)

In response to Continental's suggestion that DOE consider specifying that the compartments in a commercial hybrid refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator freezer be separated by an insulated partition or be thermally isolated from one another, DOE agrees that the intent of the commercial hybrid equipment provisions is to address equipment with thermally distinct compartments from different equipment families (
e.g.,
vertical closed transparent and vertically closed solid). As such, DOE is adopting language to specify that commercial hybrid equipment is equipment consisting of two or more thermally separated refrigerated compartments that are in two or more different equipment families that is sold as a single unit.

In regard to clarification on how to classify or handle a piece of equipment that contains at least one section or compartment that is not covered by the DOE test procedure (
e.g.,
salad bars and buffet tables), DOE clarifies that this type of equipment is not hybrid equipment because it does not consist of two or more different equipment families. Only the compartment(s) of the piece of commercial refrigeration equipment that is covered by one of DOE's existing equipment classes is included in DOE's equipment family definitions. The compartment that is not covered by DOE's existing standards for commercial refrigeration equipment is not included in DOE's equipment family definitions and, thus, such a unit would not meet the definition of commercial hybrid. Using the example presented in Hussmann's comment, consider a commercial refrigerator that contains one compartment that falls into the vertical closed solid equipment family and a thermally separate compartment that offers accessible refrigerated bins for the purposes of preparing sandwiches or holding buffet items. As presented in section III.A.1.a, sandwich prep tables and buffet tables are not currently regulated under DOE's existing energy conservation standards or subject to DOE's test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment. As such, this CRE model would be covered under DOE's existing energy conservation standards as a commercial refrigerator in the vertical closed solid equipment family based on the refrigerated volume of only the refrigerated compartment comprising the vertical closed solid commercial refrigerator. This CRE model would be tested under the DOE test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment as a commercial refrigerator, and the compartment containing the sandwich prep or buffet table bins would be disabled and not included in the determination of energy consumption for that equipment. If the same refrigeration system serves both compartments and the refrigeration of the sandwich/buffet compartment cannot be disabled, manufacturers may apply for a test procedure waiver for such equipment if the measured energy use would not be representative of the commercial refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-freezer portion of the CRE basic model.

3. Relationship Among Rating Temperature, Operating Temperature, and Integrated Average Temperature

Currently, the table at 10 CFR 431.66(d)(1) describing the energy conservation standards for equipment other than hybrid equipment, refrigerator-freezers, and wedge cases refers to the “rating temperature” and “operating temperature” of equipment, and the table describing the applicable test procedure for covered equipment at 10 CFR 431.64(b)(3) refers to the term “integrated average temperature.” DOE defines “integrated average temperature” as “the average temperature of all the test package measurements taken during the test.” 10 CFR 431.62.

In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed explicit definitions for “rating temperature” as the IAT at which a model of commercial refrigeration equipment should be evaluated in accordance with the DOE test procedure, and “operating temperature” as the range of IATs at which the unit of commercial refrigeration equipment is capable of operating. In addition, DOE noted that while the operating temperature range

of equipment is used to establish the appropriate equipment class for CRE basic models based on the standards table at 10 CFR 431.66(d)(1), only the definition of “ice-cream freezer” explicitly identifies the appropriate operating range (
i.e.,
at or below −5 °F). 10 CFR 431.62 Therefore, DOE also proposed definitions of “commercial refrigerator” and “commercial freezer” that reference the operating temperature range of each category of equipment. 78 FR at 64303-64304, 64318 (Oct. 28, 2013).

In response to DOE's proposed definitions for commercial refrigerator, commercial freezer, and commercial refrigerator-freezer, Continental commented that the use of the term “capable of” introduced confusion and does not accurately reflect industry practices. Continental offered the example of a piece of equipment that is designed and marketed as a refrigerator, but includes an oversized refrigeration system that may be necessary to hold products at temperatures near 32 °F that would allow the refrigerator to be capable of operating below 32 °F in some applications, although it is not intended to be operated that way. As such, Continental suggested that DOE define the commercial refrigerator operating range as “all refrigerated compartments in the unit are designed, marketed or intended for operating at or above 32 °F.” (Continental, No. 14 at p. 2) Similarly, Hussmann suggested DOE replace “capable of operating” with “designed, marketed, or intended to be operated by the manufacturer.” (Hussmann, No. 11 at p. 2)

DOE acknowledges comments from interested parties, but notes that DOE prefers to have an objective method for determining coverage of equipment under DOE's equipment classes. DOE believes that relying on how a piece of equipment is “designed, marketed, or intended to be used” provides too much flexibility for manufacturers to specify how a CRE basic model is “intended to be used,” without consideration of how the equipment actually can be used. As such, DOE maintains that, for self-contained equipment and remote equipment with thermostats, DOE will establish the operating range of equipment based on the operating temperatures the commercial refrigeration equipment is capable of maintaining. DOE will determine the operating range of covered equipment based on the maximum and minimum thermostat set points. However, DOE acknowledges that, for equipment with an operating temperature range that is primarily in, for example, the commercial refrigerator operating temperature range (
i.e.,
at or above 32 °F), but has a minimum operating temperature in the commercial freezer range slightly below 32 °F (
e.g.,
30 °F), it may not be appropriate to require such equipment to be certified as both a commercial refrigerator and a commercial freezer. DOE believes that equipment should be categorized in the equipment class most representative of the operating temperature range of that equipment. As such, DOE is adopting a tolerance on the minimum and maximum IAT that categorizes equipment as a commercial refrigerator, commercial freezer, or commercial ice cream freezer. DOE believes a tolerance of ±2 °F would allow sufficient flexibility that equipment with an operating temperature range that is substantially representative of one equipment class, but with a minimum or maximum operating temperature that extends slightly into the operating temperature range of another equipment class, is not required to be certified in both equipment classes. This tolerance is also consistent with the tolerance on the rating temperatures for the relevant equipment classes. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE will establish in 10 CFR 431.66 operating temperature ranges of greater than or equal to 32 °F (±2 °F) for commercial refrigerators, less than 32 °F (±2 °F) for commercial freezers, and less than or equal to −5 °F (±2 °F) for ice cream freezers.

DOE acknowledges that for remote equipment the operating range of equipment could be much broader, as it is based on the operating parameters of the compressor system much more than the case design. Manufacturers may design a case that could optimize performance for operation as a freezer, but customers would be able to adjust the compressor operating characteristics to operate the case at refrigerator temperatures, even though it is not intended to be used that way. As such, in this test procedure final rule DOE adopts additional language to clarify that for remote condensing equipment, the operating temperature range is based on the range of IATs at which a piece of commercial refrigeration equipment is marketed, designed, or intended to be used. DOE does not see the need to establish such a definition for self-contained equipment with thermostats and will maintain the definition of “operating temperature” proposed in the NOPR based on the IATs at which a piece of commercial refrigeration equipment is capable of operating.

Traulsen recommended changing all referenced temperature thresholds from 32 °F to 25 °F, since some equipment, including meat refrigerators, is intended to be operated as low as 25 °F. (Traulsen, No. 17 at p. 3)

In response to Traulsen's recommendation regarding establishing equipment categories based on operating ranges of greater than or equal to 25 °F for commercial refrigerators, below 25 °F for commercial freezers, and a combination of the two for commercial refrigerator-freezers, DOE believes that 32 °F is a more appropriate temperature threshold for differentiating chilled from frozen food storage equipment. Equipment that can operate at 25 °F is functionally a freezer, since food is primarily composed of liquid water and water freezes at 32 °F. In addition, an operating temperature threshold of 32 °F was determined in the 2009 CRE energy conservation standards final rule and has been in place historically for the purposes of compliance with those standards since January 1, 2012. 74 FR 1092, 1099-1100 (Jan. 9, 2009). DOE notes that the equipment mentioned by Traulsen, which operates both at or above 32 °F and below 32 °F, would qualify as both a commercial refrigerator and a commercial freezer and would have to be certified in both equipment categories. To the extent that the equipment was not able to reach the rating temperature for commercial freezers of 0 °F, the equipment would be tested at its LAPT for certification as a freezer.

In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE recognized that some basic models may have operating characteristics that include an operating temperature range that spans multiple equipment classes, and proposed language to clarify that equipment meeting the definition of multiple equipment classes when operated as intended by the manufacturer would have to be tested and certified as each of these equipment classes to demonstrate compliance with DOE's energy conservation standards. 78 FR at 64304 (Oct. 28, 2013).

Zero Zone and AHRI disagreed with DOE's proposal that the equipment capable of operating in two or more operating temperature ranges be tested and certified as complying with both equipment classes. Zero Zone and AHRI suggested that these cases be tested and certified at their lowest published operating temperature, which would be reflective of the highest energy use mode. (Zero Zone, No. 18 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 15 at p. 4) Zero Zone added that if DOE requires equipment to be tested at all the published operating temperature ranges, more-complex controls may be required to reduce energy so the equipment can meet the energy conservation standards for both

equipment categories, and suggested that DOE consider the increased cost of these controls compared to the benefits to consumers. Zero Zone added that, in general, remote freezers can be operated inefficiently as a refrigerator by customer settings on the remote condensing unit, but added that it does not condone such operation. As such, Zero Zone suggested DOE use the term “marketed operating temperature” to avoid having equipment potentially tested at two different temperature classes because it can be operated at two or more temperature class operating ranges even though it is not designed for use in these operating temperature ranges. (Zero Zone, No. 18 at p. 2)

In contrast, NEEA supported DOE's proposal that equipment intended to operate in multiple equipment classes be tested and certified in each equipment class to demonstrate compliance with DOE's energy conservation standards because NEEA believed it will allow a level playing field for manufacturers to produce energy compliant refrigeration equipment. (NEEA, No. 16 at p. 2)

DOE considered comments submitted by interested parties regarding the potential for commercial refrigeration equipment classified into two equipment categories. Zero Zone and AHRI both suggested that equipment instead be deemed compliant based on testing and certification in the more-stringent configuration or most energy-consuming mode. Zero Zone also discussed the example of a dual temperature unit that can operate as a commercial refrigerator or a commercial freezer. DOE notes that, while the freezer configuration would represent the most energy-consuming mode, determining the more-stringent standard level is less straightforward. Although the freezer configuration may use more energy, the energy conservation standard level for the refrigerator configuration may in fact be more stringent. This would especially be true if the operating range of the case was such that the CRE model could not be tested at the rating temperature of 0 °F for freezers. For example, in the case of a piece of commercial refrigeration equipment that has an operating temperature range of 10 to 50 °F, the unit can operate as a refrigerator, at or above 32 °F, or be converted to operate as a freezer, but only down to 10 °F. Thus, the unit cannot operate at the rating temperature for freezers of 0 °F and would be certified at the equipment's LAPT of 10 °F. However, the equipment, when tested at the LAPT, would still be subject to the same energy conservation standard and, as such, the freezer energy conservation standard would be much easier to meet.

In addition, rating the equipment as a freezer may or may not accurately represent the use of the equipment in the field. That is, dual temperature equipment may spend considerable operating hours as a refrigerator and less significant operating hours as a freezer. This may be the case in a commercial kitchen, for example, where freezer space is necessary at the beginning of the week when new product arrives, but is converted to refrigerator space over the course of the week as food is prepared and stored for more immediate use. DOE does not find it tenable that dual temperature equipment operating inefficiently as a refrigerator most of the time could be compliant with DOE's energy conservation standards due to its certification as a commercial freezer only.

DOE acknowledges Zero Zone's concern that equipment that can operate as a refrigerator or a freezer may require more-complex controls to meet DOE's energy conservation standards as both a refrigerator and a freezer. However, based on the difficulty in determining the “more-stringent” standard and the potential for certification of otherwise non-compliant equipment, DOE believes that this incremental burden is justified to ensure compliance with DOE's energy conservation standards. Further, DOE notes that equipment that can operate as both a refrigerator and a freezer competes directly with equipment in both categories and, as such, must be certified to meet the energy conservation standard for both equipment categories to provide a fair and level playing field when selling this equipment in the market.

In this test procedure final rule, DOE continues to require that self-contained equipment or remote condensing equipment with thermostats capable of operating at IATs that span multiple equipment categories be certified and comply with DOE's regulations for each applicable equipment category. Similarly, DOE adopts requirements for remote condensing equipment without a thermostat that specify that if a given basic model of CRE is marketed, designed, or intended to operate at IATs spanning multiple equipment categories, the CRE basic model must be certified and comply with the relevant energy conservation standards for all applicable equipment categories.

4. Proper Configuration and Use of Components or Features in the DOE Test Procedure

In response to several inquiries from interested parties regarding the proper configuration and use of certain components or features specified in the DOE test procedure, DOE proposed specific provisions in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR for the treatment of energy management systems and case lighting when conducting the DOE test procedure. 78 FR at 64304-64306 (Oct. 28, 2013). In addition, DOE also addressed and clarified the appropriate temperatures of test packages when loaded into the test unit. 78 FR at 64306 (Oct. 28, 2013). These proposals, comments received by interested parties, and DOE's responses are summarized in the subsequent sections.

a. Energy Management Systems

The DOE test procedure specifies that all devices that would normally be used in the field must be installed and operated in the same manner during the test unless such installation and operation is inconsistent with any requirement of the test procedure.
12

Such devices include energy management systems. In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE presented its interpretation of energy management systems as electronic devices that control specific systems in commercial refrigeration equipment to save energy, for example, automatic controls that are capable of turning off cabinet lights on a predetermined schedule or in response to an external variable, increasing the temperature setting of the thermostat (in refrigerators that store non-perishable items) during non-merchandizing hours, or activating and deactivating anti-sweat heaters, pan heaters, or defrost heaters. 78 FR at 64304 (Oct. 28, 2013).

12
ASHRAE 72-2005, section 6.1.1, “Accessories,” as incorporated by reference into the DOE test procedure at 10 CFR 431.64.

In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE further proposed that, if normal field installation or operation of any device would be inconsistent with any test procedure requirement, then the specific function of that device that causes inconsistency with the DOE test procedure provisions must be disabled for the duration of the test. In addition, if the device is designed for multiple functions, only those functions of the device that cause inconsistency with the DOE test procedure requirements must be disabled. 78 FR at 64321 (Oct. 28, 2013).

DOE did not receive any comments from interested parties on its proposal regarding treatment of energy management systems during the DOE test procedure and, as such, is adopting the proposal presented in the October

2013 test procedure NOPR with no modifications.

b. Lighting

The DOE test procedure specifies that all devices that would normally be used in the field must be installed and operated in the same manner during the test. 10 CFR 431.64. Specifically, due to language and provisions in ARI 1200-2006 (as incorporated by reference in the 2006 test procedure final rule) and AHRI 1200-2010 (as incorporated by reference in the 2012 test procedure final rule and this test procedure update) regarding case lighting, DOE believes that the energy consumption associated with lights installed on a model of commercial refrigeration equipment are intended to be captured during testing. In addition, the DOE test procedure requires that all standard components, such as shelves, end enclosures, lights, anti-condensate heaters, racks, and similar items that would normally be used during shopping or working periods, shall be installed and used as recommended by the manufacturer, which DOE interprets to mean that if lighting is installed on the case, the lighting should be operated as intended to be used in the field. However, due to the variety of types of lighting controls and schemes available on the market, the existing provisions for “accessories” may prove insufficient to yield consistent results during testing. Therefore, in the 2012 test procedure final rule, DOE established specific periods in the test during which these variable lights may be turned off or dimmed to account for energy savings due to installed occupancy sensors or scheduled lighting controls. 77 FR at 10319-10320 (Feb. 21, 2012).

In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, to clarify the treatment of lighting under DOE's test procedure, DOE proposed to specify in Appendix A to Subpart C that all lighting must be energized to the maximum illumination level for the duration of testing for commercial refrigeration equipment except for closed solid models of commercial refrigeration equipment that include automatic controls that disable case lighting when the door is closed, the use of which is specified by the manufacturer instructions. DOE also proposed to specify in Appendix B to Subpart C, which will be required for equipment testing on or after the compliance date of any amended energy conservation standards, that case lighting shall be energized to its maximum illumination level except for when a model of commercial refrigeration equipment is equipped with lighting occupancy sensors and/or scheduled controls, or when the a model is outfitted with other permanently installed, automatic energy management systems that control case lighting. 78 FR at 64305-64306 (Oct. 28, 2013).

Zero Zone commented that they agree with DOE's proposed exception for solid door models that utilize an automatic control to disable case lighting when the door is closed. However, Zero Zone did not believe DOE's treatment of manual case lighting adjustment, such as light switches, is consistent with its treatment of manually deployable night curtains for open cases. (Zero Zone, No. 18 at p. 3) In addition, Zero Zone was concerned that an open case model with several lighting options would be tested with all lights installed for the test procedure, but the customer may choose to have a select amount of the lights on in the operation of the installed case. Zero Zone inquired if each lighting scheme in the open case model would be considered a base model and tested separately. (Zero Zone, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at pp. 153-154) True commented that certain occupancy sensors with a learning curve built into them would not be able to be accurately tested since there is no activity near the unit during testing. True added that they can be programmed to override the sensor if needed. (True, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at pp. 155-156)

DOE acknowledges Zero Zone's comment regarding the consistency of the DOE test procedure as it relates to the treatment of manual lighting controls and manual night curtains. DOE addressed this issue in the 2012 test procedure final rule, in which DOE stated that night curtains represent an incremental cost and explicit energy management feature that must be uniquely specified on commercial refrigeration equipment, making it unlikely that customers would purchase a case with night curtains and not employ them. By contrast, manual light switches may be installed for a variety of energy- or utility-related reasons and typically come standard on a baseline unit of commercial refrigeration equipment. As such, DOE finds it less likely that customers will employ manual light switches to adjust case lighting during unoccupied periods with any regularity. 77 FR at 10299-10300 (Feb. 21, 2012). DOE continues to maintain that the incremental cost of night curtains and dedicated use as an energy-efficiency feature make them unique from manual light switches and justify different treatment in the DOE test procedure.

In response to Zero Zone's comment regarding the variety of lighting options available for installation on a given model of commercial refrigeration equipment, DOE notes that these different lighting schemes will have an impact on the measured daily energy consumption of the case. As such, each light option could be treated as an individual basic model and be tested and certified as such. However, to the extent that manufacturers do not wish to account for the reduced energy consumption associated with reduced lighting configurations, all lighting configurations may be grouped into a CRE basic model. In this case, the CRE basic model would be tested and certified based on the lighting configuration with the maximum lighting energy usage and all individual models certified under that basic model would receive that rating.

In response to True's comment regarding lighting controls that are triggered by occupancy sensors, these lighting controls should currently be tested with all the controlled lighting turned on to the maximum illumination level and the occupancy sensor disabled to determine whether the model complies with existing energy conservation standards, as reflected in Appendix A. Beginning on the compliance date of any amended energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment, manufacturers shall use the prescribed test provisions for cases with lighting occupancy sensors included in Appendix B.

c. Test Package Temperatures

The ASHRAE 72-2005 method of test, as referenced by ARI 1200-2006 and AHRI 1200-2010, and thus incorporated by the DOE test procedure at 10 CFR 431.64, provides specific instruction at section 6.2 as to the loading of test simulators and filler packages. ASHRAE 72-2005 also requires temperature stabilization before the formal test period begins, as detailed in section 7.4. After steady-state operation is reached, the unit must then operate for another period of 12 hours without any adjustment to the controls before it is deemed to be stabilized and the testing can begin. These established stabilization requirements are designed to ensure that the product simulators and test packages are cooled to the test temperature prior to initiation of the test period and data collection, and the unit of commercial refrigeration equipment under test is not operating in a pull-down application during any part of the DOE test procedure.

In response to inquiries received by interested parties, DOE presented clarification of these stabilization requirements in the October 2013 test

procedure NOPR, but did not find that the test procedure required more explicit clarification. 78 FR at 64306 (Oct. 28, 2013). DOE did not receive any comments from interested parties on its proposal regarding treatment of test package temperatures during the DOE test procedure and, as such, is adopting the proposal presented in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR with no modifications.

5. Treatment of Other Specific Equipment Features and Accessories During Testing

During the negotiated rulemaking for certification of commercial heating, ventilation, air conditioning, refrigeration, and water heating equipment, stakeholders raised a number of issues regarding the treatment during the DOE test procedure of specific features, components, and accessories that may be in place on certain basic models of commercial refrigeration equipment. In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE presented proposals that resulted from the negotiations regarding the treatment of specific features, components, and accessories. 78 FR at 64306-64308 (Oct. 28, 2013). The specific proposals and the resultant amendments adopted in this final rule are discussed in the following sections.

a. Customer Display Signs/Lights

Manufacturers stated that some customers, when ordering commercial refrigeration equipment, may wish to add additional exterior signage, outside of the body of the refrigerated cabinet, to certain units of a given model to advertise the product inside. This lighting and signage is optional and is not integral to the cabinet. Further, this auxiliary signage does not illuminate product inside the body of the cabinet. During the negotiations, stakeholders inquired regarding how this lighting or signage should be treated during testing.

In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that under the DOE test procedure, all lighting that is integral to the refrigerated cabinet or illuminates the product contained within must be operational during the test, and DOE proposed to add clarifying language in the regulatory text to address customer display signs/lights. Under DOE's proposal, supplemental lighting that exists solely for the purposes of advertising or drawing attention to the case and is not integral to the case would not be operated during testing under the DOE test procedure. 78 FR at 64306 (Oct. 28, 2013).

DOE did not receive any comments from interested parties on its proposal regarding treatment of customer display signs/lights during the DOE test procedure and, as such, is adopting the proposal presented in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR with no modifications.

b. Condensate Pan Heaters and Pumps

Commercial refrigeration equipment captures water from the air entering the cabinet during operation by causing the water to condense and then freeze on the evaporator coil of the equipment. During a defrost cycle, this frost is melted and the meltwater produced must be removed from the unit. In many types of equipment, this meltwater is collected in a pan beneath the unit. Some models of commercial refrigeration equipment come equipped with electric resistance heaters that evaporate this water out of the pan and into the ambient air. Other models may come equipped with pumps that send meltwater to an external drain.

In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that, during the DOE test procedure, these electric resistance heaters and condensate pumps must be installed and operational during the entire test (as per section 6.1.1, “Accessories,” of ASHRAE 72-2005) and clarified that the “entire test” includes stabilization (including pull-down), steady-state, and performance testing periods. Prior to the start of the stabilization period, as defined by ASHRAE 72-2005, the condensate pan should be dry, and during the entire test following the start of the stabilization period, any condensate moisture generated should be allowed to accumulate in the pan as it would during normal operation, with no manual removal of water at any time during the entire test. DOE proposed that if a manufacturer offers a given basic model for sale with an available condensate pan heater or pump, the manufacturer must make representations of the performance of the basic model as tested with the feature in place, and DOE proposed clarifying language in the regulatory text to address condensate pan heaters and pumps. 78 FR at 64306 (Oct. 28, 2013).

In response to DOE's proposal in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, AHRI, Hussmann, and Zero Zone commented that condensate pan heaters should not be required to be tested for remote equipment, since they are not accounted for in the energy conservation standard engineering analysis. (AHRI, No. 15 at p. 3; Hussmann, No. 11 at p. 4; Zero Zone, No. 18 at p. 2) AHRI commented that condensate pan heaters or pumps are usually added in the field to fulfill specific needs of commercial customers and are typically installed on less than 5 percent of the total remote cases sold within the U.S. AHRI further commented that it is unreasonable to require manufacturers to test potentially all remote equipment with condensate pan heaters to certify its basic models to DOE, if those models may be sold with condensate pan heaters in some specific applications. (AHRI, No. 15 at p. 3) Hussmann corroborated that remote equipment shipped with condensate pan heaters represents less than 1 percent of case volume for Hussmann and stated its belief that the discussions during the negotiated rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023) were primarily surrounding self-contained equipment. (Hussmann, No. 11 at p. 4)

Zero Zone added that if case manufacturers are deterred from supplying condensate pan heaters, end users will work around this by buying condensate pans from third parties that typically are not Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Recognized or UL Listed and do not come with protective covers. (Zero Zone, No. 18 at pp. 2-3)

DOE acknowledges the opinions of interested parties and agrees that condensate pan heaters and pumps are not common on remote equipment. As such, DOE agrees that determination of daily energy consumption for remote cases with condensate pan heaters may not be the most representative configuration. Thus, DOE is adopting language in this final rule applying the requirements for testing with condensate pan heaters and pumps in place for self-contained equipment only.

DOE notes that whether or not condensate pan heaters were included in DOE's engineering analysis and energy modeling to support standard development is not dispositive as to what features are included and accounted for when testing a given basic model of commercial refrigeration equipment. DOE models a representative model for each equipment class, but manufacturers may deviate from that assumed representative model in any number of ways, including the addition of features and accessories that improve the utility of cases in specific applications, such as condensate pan heaters and pumps.

c. Anti-Sweat Door Heaters

Many transparent-door cases come equipped with anti-sweat electric resistance heaters that serve to evaporate any water that condenses on the transparent surface of the door

during operation. In some instances, manufacturers may equip their cases with higher-powered anti-sweat heaters in anticipation of potential adverse operating conditions.

In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that anti-sweat heaters should be operational during testing under the DOE test procedure and proposed adding clarifying language in the regulatory text to address anti-sweat door heaters. Models with a user-selectable setting must be tested with the anti-sweat heaters turned on and set to the maximum usage position and models featuring an automatic, non-user adjustable controller that turns on or off based on environmental conditions must be tested with the controller operating in the automatic state. Additionally, DOE proposed that, if a unit is not shipped with a controller from the point of manufacture, and is intended to be used with a controller, the manufacturer must make representations of the basic model based on the rated performance of that basic model as tested when equipped with a controller intended by the manufacturer for use with the unit. 78 FR at 64306-64307 (Oct. 28, 2013).

NEEA stated that it supports DOE's proposal that anti-sweat heaters be in operation during testing unless controls are shipped with the unit and can be turned off by these controls during testing. (NEEA, No. 16 at pp. 2-3) DOE did not receive any negative comments from interested parties on its proposal regarding treatment anti-sweat door heater in the DOE test procedure and, as such, is adopting the proposal presented in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR with no modifications.

d. Ultraviolet Lights

Some manufacturers equip certain models of commercial refrigeration equipment with ultraviolet lights, which can be operated by end users to neutralize pathogens and ensure case cleanliness. Manufacturers inquired as to how these will be addressed by the DOE test procedure. In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that ultraviolet lights should not be turned on during the test procedure and proposed adding regulatory text to clarify this position. 78 FR at 64307 (Oct. 28, 2013).

DOE did not receive any comments from interested parties on its proposal regarding t

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2014-08640. Public record. Not legal advice.