Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Miscellaneous Consumer Refrigeration Products

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

[Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0029]

RIN 1904-AD44

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Miscellaneous Consumer Refrigeration Products

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is proposing new test procedures that would measure the energy efficiency of wine chillers and other related miscellaneous refrigeration products that maintain warmer compartment temperatures than refrigerators. These procedures would apply both to those products that use a vapor-compression refrigeration system and those that do not. DOE is also proposing new definitions and test procedures for cooled cabinets, refrigerators that do not use a vapor-compression refrigeration system, hybrid refrigeration products, which incorporate warm compartments such as wine storage compartments in products that otherwise provide the functions of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, or freezers, and ice makers. The proposal also seeks to clarify the definitions for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.

DATES:

DOE will hold a public meeting on Thursday, January 8, 2015 from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be broadcast as a webinar. See section V, “Public Participation,” for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and after the public meeting, but no later than March 2, 2015. See section V, “Public Participation,” for details.

ADDRESSES:

The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945. See Section V, “Public Participation,” for details.

Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Test Procedures for Miscellaneous Consumer Refrigeration Products, and provide docket number EE-2013-BT-TP-0029 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-AD44. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:

1.

Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov

. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

2.

Email: MiscResRefrigProd2013TP0029@ee.doe.gov

. Include the docket number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.

3.

Mail:

Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.

4.

Hand Delivery/Courier:

Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, please submit all items on a CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.

For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section V, “Public Participation.”

Docket:

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=105

. This Web page will contain a link to the docket for this notice 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 submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, 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 Program, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-6590. Email:

Ashley.Armstrong@ee.doe.gov

or Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email:

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov

.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background

A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process

B. DOE Test Procedures for the Products in This Rulemaking

II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

III. Discussion

A. Products Covered by the Proposed Rule

1. Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers

2. Cooled Cabinets

3. Non-Compressor Cooled Cabinets/Refrigerators

4. Hybrid Refrigerators/Refrigerator-Freezers/Freezers

5. Ice Makers

6. General Terms for the Groups of Products Addressed in This Notice

7. Test Procedure Sections and Appendices Addressing the New Products

B. Elimination of Definition Numbering in the Appendices

C. Removal of Provisions for Externally-Vented Products

D. Sampling Plans, Certification Reporting, and Measurement/Verification of Volume

E. Compartment and Product Classification

F. Cellar Compartments

1. Cellar Compartment Definition

2. Cellar Compartment Standardized Temperature

3. Cellar Compartment Temperature Measurement

4. Cellar Compartments as Special Compartments

5. Temperature Settings and Energy Use Calculations

6. Volume Calculations

7. Convertible Compartments

G. Test Procedures for Cooled Cabinets

1. Ambient Temperature and Usage Factor

2. Light Bulb Energy

H. Non-Compressor Refrigeration Products

1. Ambient Temperature for Non-Compressor Refrigerators

2. Refrigeration System Cycles

I. Extrapolation for Refrigeration Products Other Than Non-Compressor Refrigerators

J. Hybrid Refrigeration Product Test Procedure Amendments

1. Ambient Temperature and Usage Factor

2. Standardized Temperature, Temperature Control Settings, and Energy Use Calculations for Hybrid Refrigeration Products

K. Ice Maker Test Procedure Amendments

1. Establishment of New Paragraph 10 CFR 430.23(dd) and New Appendix BB for Ice Makers

2. Definitions for Ice Makers

3. Energy Use Metric for Ice Makers

4. Daily Ice Consumption Rate

5. Test Conditions and Set-up

6. Icemaking Test

7. Ice Storage Test

8. Ice Hardness for Continuous-Type Ice Makers

9. Energy Use Calculations

L. Incidental Changes to Test Procedure Language To Improve Clarity

M. Changes to Volume Measurement and Calculation Instructions

N. Removal of Appendices A1 and B1

O. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements

1. Test Burden

2. Changes in Measured Energy Use

3. Standby and Off Mode Energy Use

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

V. Public Participation

A. Attendance at Public Meeting

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements For Distribution

C. Conduct of Public Meeting

D. Submission of Comments

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6291,

et seq.

; “EPCA” or, in context, “the Act”) sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012).) Part B of title III, which for editorial reasons was re-designated as Part A upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), establishes the “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.” These include conventional consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, which are among the subjects of today's notice. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1)) The other products addressed by this notice, all of which are consumer products, are hybrid (or combination) refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers (

i.e.

, products that include warm compartments such as wine storage compartments in products that otherwise perform the functions of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, or freezers), cooled cabinets (including wine chillers), refrigeration products that do not use vapor-compression refrigeration systems (

i.e.

, products that do not include a compressor and condenser unit as an integral part of the cabinet assembly), and standalone ice makers (

i.e.

, ice makers not contained within a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer), which this notice refers to generally as “ice makers.” DOE raised the possibility in an October 31, 2013, coverage determination proposal of adding all of these other products as covered products under EPCA. 78 FR 65223 (referred to in this notice as the October 2013 Coverage Proposal).

1

1

Although DOE has previously indicated its belief that wine chillers, and, by extension, cooled cabinets that use compressor and condenser systems are covered under EPCA, it nevertheless has recently proposed to add them as separately enumerated covered products. This is discussed below in Section I.A.

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 products must use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA, and (2) making representations about the efficiency of those products. Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA.

A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process

Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. Any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results that measure the energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost 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. 6293(b)(3))

In addition, if DOE determines that adoption or amendment of a test procedure 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. 6293(b)(2)) Finally, when amending a test procedure, DOE would determine to what extent, if any, the proposed test procedure would alter the measured energy efficiency of any covered product as determined under the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1))

EPCA further requires that any new or amended DOE test procedure for a covered product integrate measures of standby mode and off mode energy consumption into the overall energy efficiency, energy consumption, or other energy descriptor, unless the current test procedure already incorporates the standby mode and off mode energy consumption or such integration is technically infeasible. If an integrated test procedure is technically infeasible, DOE must prescribe a separate standby mode and off mode energy use test procedure for the covered product, if a separate test is technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) The current DOE test procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers measure the energy use of these products during extended time periods that include periods when the compressor and other key components are cycled off. All of the energy these products use during the “off cycles” is already included in the measurements. The amended and new test procedures proposed in this notice would address standby and off mode energy use in a similar fashion. To address this EPCA requirement for ice makers, the notice proposes to integrate into the energy use measurement the energy consumed in an ice storage test in which the ice maker would be maintaining a full bin of ice rather than producing ice to fill the bin.

B. DOE Test Procedures for the Products in This Rulemaking

EPCA covers various specific consumer products identified in the Act, as well as any other product as to which DOE has determined that (1) coverage is necessary and appropriate for carrying out the purposes of EPCA and (2) the average annual energy use of the product is likely to exceed 100 kilowatt-hours per-household in households that use the product. (

See

42 U.S.C. 6292) The statute precludes the coverage of any product “designed solely for use in recreational vehicles and other mobile equipment.” (42 U.S.C. 6292(a))

Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers are among the consumer products listed as covered products in EPCA. See 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1). The Act, however, does not define these terms, although it specifies that statutory coverage applies to a product of one of these types if it (1) can operate

using alternating current electricity, (2) includes a compressor and condenser unit as an integral part of the cabinet assembly, and (3) is designed to be used with doors.

Id.

(These compressor/condenser-based products use what are commonly referred to as vapor-compression-based systems to provide cool air to the interior of the cabinet assembly.) DOE has adopted definitions for these products, which are located in 10 CFR 430.2.

The current DOE test procedures apply only to those refrigeration products that are identified as covered products in the text of EPCA at 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1). The test procedures that apply to basic models of these products manufactured prior to September 15, 2014, are located at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix A1, Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Electric Refrigerators and Electric Refrigerator-Freezers, and Appendix B1, Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Freezers. The DOE test procedures for models manufactured starting on September 15, 2014, are located in Appendices A and B to subpart B of part 430. DOE's current regulatory definitions for “electric refrigerator” and “electric refrigerator-freezer,” found at 10 CFR 430.2, exclude refrigeration products that are not designed to be capable of achieving storage temperatures below 39 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). This temperature threshold is not listed in EPCA. Although DOE has set a regulatory definition that includes limitations not found in EPCA, DOE is not precluded from expanding that regulatory definition. DOE has indicated that the term “refrigerator” as used in EPCA does not exclude products that are not designed to be capable of achieving storage temperatures below 39 °F, and that EPCA authorizes DOE to adopt test procedures and standards for those products. 75 FR 59470, 59486 (Sept. 27, 2010). DOE's purpose in adding the 39 °F criterion to its “electric refrigerator” definition was to draw a distinction between refrigerators and wine chillers. DOE drew this distinction on the grounds that these wine chillers were different from standard refrigerators because they are not suitable for fresh food storage. 66 FR 57845, 57846 (Nov. 19, 2001); 64 FR 37706 (July 13, 1999). DOE did not assert that EPCA excludes wine chillers from being considered as a class of refrigerator.

Id.

Similarly, in a notice of proposed determination published in November, 2011, (the November 2011 Proposed Determination) and in its recent rulemaking to promulgate standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, DOE again clearly indicated that it interprets EPCA as authorizing it to develop standards and test procedures for wine chillers, and many stakeholders agreed. See 76 FR 69147, 69149-50 (Nov. 8, 2011). See also 75 FR at 59486 (Sept. 27, 2010). Furthermore, construing a “refrigerator” as including wine chillers and other cooled cabinets using integrated compressor/condenser systems would be consistent with EPCA's statutory framework. Namely, they are designed to be used with doors, use a compressor and condenser unit as an integral part of the cabinet assembly, and operate on alternating current electricity. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1))

Despite this history, DOE has also stated that the exclusion of wine chillers from its definition of “electric refrigerator” means that they are “not a covered product.” 64 FR 37706, 66 FR 37846;

see

76 FR 57516, 57534 (Sept. 15, 2011). DOE notes that it has the authority to adopt test procedures and standards for consumer products if they are “covered products.” (

See

42 U.S.C. 6293(b) and 6295(a)). In light of its past positions and its statutory authority to affirmatively establish coverage, DOE has decided to evaluate all of the varied consumer refrigeration products addressed in today's notice (including wine chillers) under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20) and (b), rather than proposing to expand the regulatory definition of refrigerator to include some of these products. See 78 FR 65223 (Oct. 31, 2013). Applying this approach requires that DOE issue a determination regarding the appropriateness of covering and then—if merited—set standards for these products using the applicable statutory criteria. See 42 U.S.C. 6292(b) and 6295(l).

DOE began examining whether to adopt energy conservation standards for the products addressed in this NOPR by issuing a framework document explaining the issues, analyses, and process the agency considered in developing standards. 77 FR 7547 (Feb. 13, 2012).

2

Among the issues discussed in the framework document were test procedures for cooled cabinets, to which the document referred generally as “wine chillers.” (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043, Energy Conservation Standards for Wine Chillers and Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products, No. 3 at pp. 21-22) As part of that discussion, DOE identified what it believed to be the key issues in developing test procedures for these products and specifically requested comment as to the existence and nature of any other key issues on this subject.

Id.

DOE also solicited written comments on these and the other matters addressed in the framework document and held a public meeting on February 20, 2012, at which it presented and solicited discussion on these issues. 77 FR at 7547 (Feb. 13, 2012).

2

The framework document is available at

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043-0003

.

This NOPR addresses products DOE categorizes as “cooled cabinets,” which include units commonly referred to as wine chillers, beverage centers, and beverage coolers. These cooled cabinets are not designed to maintain compartment temperatures below 39 °F. Thus, they do not meet the current regulatory definition of “electric refrigerator” in 10 CFR 430.2 and are not currently subject to DOE's energy efficiency regulations for refrigerators. As discussed above, DOE believes that those cooled cabinets that contain a compressor and condenser unit as an integral part of the cabinet assembly could be included within the definition of “refrigerator” as that term is used in EPCA. Nevertheless, DOE is evaluating vapor-compression-based cooled cabinets as miscellaneous refrigeration products under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20) and (b). See 78 FR 65223 (Oct. 31, 2013). Other cooled cabinets use thermoelectric or absorption technology rather than vapor-compression technology to provide refrigeration. These products are not currently covered under EPCA because the Act specifically excludes refrigerators that do not include a compressor and condenser unit as an integral part of the cabinet assembly. See 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1). In November 2011, DOE proposed to classify as “covered products” under EPCA these and other non-compressor consumer refrigeration products because they meet the criteria for coverage in 42 U.S.C. 6292(b), set forth above. 76 FR 69147 (Nov. 8, 2011) (the “November 2011 Coverage Proposal”). DOE reiterated this view in its October 2013 Coverage Proposal. 78 FR at 65224-28 (Oct. 31, 2013).

This NOPR also addresses consumer products that combine a refrigerator (fresh food) compartment, a freezer compartment, or both fresh food and freezer compartments with a refrigerated but higher-temperature compartment for storing wine, other beverages, or other non-perishable items. DOE issued guidance on the treatment of such products in February 2011 (“Guidance

on Scope of Coverage for Hybrid Refrigeration Products Issued Feb. 10, 2011,” No. 5, (“February 2011 Guidance”)).

3

However, the October 2013 Coverage Proposal and this notice propose an alternative treatment of such products. Some of them would meet one of the revised definitions proposed in this notice for “refrigerator,” “refrigerator-freezer,” or “freezer,” and would therefore fall into the class of products identified as covered by EPCA at 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1). Depending on the specific characteristics of the model, others would meet the proposed definition of a “hybrid refrigeration product.” These products are evaluated in today's notice as miscellaneous refrigeration products under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20) and (b).

See

78 FR 65223 (Oct. 31, 2013). DOE has determined that the former group would continue to be tested using the current test procedures in Appendices A and B. The latter group would be tested using test procedures proposed in this notice. Additionally, this notice proposes to clarify the distinctions between the different product types and how to test them.

3

This and other DOE guidance documents are available for viewing at

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

.

II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

DOE is proposing to establish definitions and test procedures for several consumer refrigeration products whose energy efficiency DOE does not currently regulate. These products include wine chillers and similar products with compartment temperatures too warm to be suitable for food storage (collectively called “cooled cabinets”); refrigeration products that are cooled with refrigeration system technologies such as thermoelectric and absorption-based systems that do not rely on compressor and condenser units; hybrid (combination) refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers (

i.e.

, those that include a refrigerated but higher-temperature compartment for storing wine, other beverages, or other non-perishable items; DOE proposes the term “cellar compartment” to describe these warmer compartments); and ice makers. DOE is also proposing to make clarifying amendments to the definitions of refrigerator, refrigerator-freezers, and freezer. For all definitions that include a compartment temperature specification, DOE proposes to clarify that the compartments must be capable of maintaining the required temperatures during operation at an ambient temperature of 72 °F.

Today's notice proposes test procedures for cooled cabinets that would address testing set-up, temperature control adjustment, volume calculation, and energy use measurement and calculation. These test procedures would be nearly identical to the current test procedures used by the State of California to measure wine chiller efficiency. The California procedures are based on the DOE test procedure for refrigerators, but apply a different compartment standardized temperature and usage adjustment factor (0.85 instead of the 1.0 factor used in the DOE refrigerator test procedure). See California Code of Regulations, Title 20, Sections 1601 through 1608 (September 2012).

4

The proposed DOE test procedure for cooled cabinets would use a different adjustment factor than the California test (0.55 v. 0.85), which DOE believes better reflects household usage. In addition, this notice proposes that cooled cabinets using refrigeration technology other than vapor-compression would be tested in 72 °F ambient temperature conditions, rather than the 90 °F ambient temperature currently required in both Appendix A and Appendix B, and would use a different usage factor to account for this difference in test ambient temperature. This proposal is based on DOE's tentative conclusion that testing these products in an elevated ambient temperature would not appropriately simulate added loads, such as the load associated with door openings, because many of these products cannot maintain standardized compartment temperatures in the 90 °F ambient temperature test conditions.

4

Available at

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012publications/CEC-400-2012-019/CEC-400-2012-019-CMF.pdf

.

This notice also proposes new test procedures for refrigerators that do not use vapor-compression refrigeration technology. These proposed test procedures would require the same 90 °F ambient temperature condition that is used for testing conventional refrigerators. DOE proposes this approach because refrigerators, which are intended to store fresh food, would be expected to maintain their compartment temperatures when subjected to the same door-opening and other loads that are simulated with closed-door testing in 90 °F temperature conditions. Failing to maintain compartment temperatures when subjected to such loads would constitute a food safety risk, which DOE does not consider to be appropriate for refrigerators. This approach differs from that proposed for cooled cabinets, which would be tested with a 72 °F ambient temperature as described in the previous paragraph.

Today's notice proposes test procedures for “hybrid refrigeration products.” DOE proposes that this term would include products that have freezer and/or fresh food compartments, but for which at least 50 percent of the refrigerated volume is comprised of cellar compartments that are not suitable for food storage. The proposal would establish procedures for setting temperature controls, calculating volume and adjusted volume, and measuring and calculating energy use for these products. Today's notice also proposes clarifying amendments to the test procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers to address products that include cellar compartments such as wine storage compartments that occupy less than 50 percent of their total storage volume. Such products would not be included under the proposed definition for hybrid refrigeration products; these products would be classified as refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, and would be required to meet the applicable energy conservation standards for these product types. The proposal also includes clarifying amendments to the definitions for refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer to better distinguish them from the new product types.

This notice also proposes new test procedures for ice makers. The proposed amendments include definitions for these products and test procedures indicating how to measure their ice production capacity (

i.e.

, harvest rate) and their annual energy use. The proposed annual energy use calculation would be based on a daily average ice production rate of 4 pounds per day. The annual energy use calculation would account for the energy use during active ice production as well as idle operation. The energy use during idle operation, called ice storage energy use, would account for energy use during times when the ice maker is maintaining a full bin of ice but not replacing ice used by a consumer. Including the ice storage energy use would address the statutory requirement to integrate measures of standby mode and off mode energy consumption into the overall energy consumption descriptor. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))

DOE's proposal for ice maker test procedures considers different ice maker design configurations. Specifically, the proposal provides a

different approach for measuring the energy use associated with ice storage for products that maintain ice storage temperature below freezing temperature than for products without cooled ice storage. Further, it provides different test procedures for batch-type and continuous-type ice makers.

All of the amended and new test procedures for these products would be added to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 10 CFR 430.23, and also at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices A (amendments for uniform test method for non-hybrid refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with cellar compartments,

5

as well as all products newly covered by this proposal except ice makers), B (amendments to uniform test method for non-hybrid freezers with cellar compartments); and BB (new appendix with uniform test method for ice makers).

5

The notice proposes the term “cellar compartment” to refer to compartments with a temperature range warmer than that of fresh food compartments, for example, compartments that may be suitable for storage of wine.

As explained above, this notice covers two groups of refrigeration products. The first group contains products included in 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1)—refrigerators, refrigerators-freezers, and freezers. Amended test procedures for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers would be addressed in 10 CFR 430.23(a), and amended test procedures for freezers would be addressed in 10 CFR 430.23(b). DOE is proposing to make clarifying amendments to the definitions of refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer found at 10 CFR 430.2. DOE is also proposing amendments to the test methods for these products found at Appendices A and B to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 to clarify how non-hybrid refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers with cellar compartments should be tested.

The second group falls under 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20) and (b)—cooled cabinets, non-compressor refrigerators, hybrid refrigeration products, and ice makers. Test procedures for all of these products except ice makers would be addressed in a new section 10 CFR 430.23(cc). Test procedures for ice makers would be addressed in a new section 10 CFR 430.23(dd). Definitions associated with these products would also be added to 10 CFR 430.2. Despite the fact that these products are treated separately, there are many similarities among certain of them that warrant applying similar test methods to those DOE currently applies to refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. Therefore, DOE is proposing to amend 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A to address cooled cabinets, non-compressor refrigerators, and hybrid refrigeration products in addition to refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. Test methods for freezers would continue to be found at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix B. Ice makers do not share these similarities. Therefore, DOE is proposing separate test methods for ice makers at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix BB.

When amending a test procedure, DOE typically determines the extent to which its proposal would alter the measured energy efficiency of any covered product as determined under the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) DOE notes that most of the products addressed in this notice (

e.g.

, cooled cabinets, products not using vapor-compression refrigeration technology, and ice makers) are not currently covered by energy conservation standards or test procedures. Hence, there would be no change in measured energy efficiency by an amendment to a test procedure. While DOE's February 2011 Guidance previously laid out an approach regarding certain hybrid refrigeration products, this proposal, assuming a coverage determination is finalized, would alter that approach but not result in a change in measured energy use for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 6293(e).

III. Discussion

The discussion below details the various products addressed in today's proposal and the specific changes to the current regulations that would be made to accommodate the testing of these products. These products include all of those consumer refrigeration products that, for a variety of reasons, do not lend themselves to being readily tested under the current test procedures laid out in DOE's regulations. The proposal seeks to remedy this situation by providing manufacturers with the framework to test these refrigeration products. Table III-1 below lists the affected subsections and indicates where the proposed amendments would appear in each appendix or section.

Table III-1—Discussion Subsections

Section

Title

Affected Appendices or sections

III.A

Products Covered by the Proposed Rule

10 CFR 430.2 and 10 CFR 430.23.

1. Refrigerators, Refrigerator-freezers, and Freezers

2. Cooled Cabinets

3. Non-Compressor Cooled Cabinets/Refrigerators

4. Hybrid Refrigerators/Refrigerator-Freezers/Freezers

5. Ice makers

6. General Terms for the Groups of Products Addressed in this Notice

7. Test Procedure Sections and Appendices Addressing the New Products

III.B

Elimination of Definition Numbering in the Appendices

Appendices A and B.

III.C

Removal of Provisions for Externally Vented Products

Appendix A.

III.D

Sampling Plans and Certification Reporting

10 CFR 429.61, 10 CFR 429.72, 10 CFR 429.134.

III.E

Compartment and Product Classification

10 CFR 429.14, 10 CFR 429.61, 10 CFR 430.2, Appendices A and B.

III.F

Cellar Compartments

Appendices A and B.

1. Cellar Compartment Definition

2. Cellar Compartment Standardized Temperature

3. Cellar Compartment Temperature Measurement

4. Cellar Compartments as Special Compartments

5. Temperature Settings and Energy Use Calculations

6. Volume Calculations

7. Convertible Compartments

III.G

Test Procedures for Cooled Cabinets

Appendix A.

1. Ambient Temperature and Usage Factor

2. Light Bulb Energy

III.H

Non-Compressor Refrigeration Products

Appendix A.

1. Ambient Temperature for Non-Compressor Refrigerators

2. Refrigeration System Cycles

III.I

Extrapolation for Refrigeration Products other than Non-Compressor Products

Appendices A and B.

III.J

Hybrid Refrigeration Product Test Procedure Amendments

Appendix A.

1. Ambient Temperature and Usage Factor

2. Standardized Temperature, Temperature Control Settings, and Energy Use Calculations for Hybrid Refrigeration Products

III.K

Ice maker Test Procedure Amendments

10 CFR 430.2 and Appendix BB.

1. Establishment of New Section 10 CFR 430.23(dd) and New Appendix BB for Ice makers

2. Definitions for Ice makers

3. Energy Use Metric for Ice makers

10 CFR 430.23(dd) and Appendix BB.

4. Daily Ice Consumption Rate

Appendix BB.

5. Test Conditions and Set-up

6. Icemaking Test

7. Ice Storage Test

8. Ice Hardness for Continuous-Type Ice Makers

9. Energy Use Calculations

III.L

Incidental Changes to Test Procedure Language to Improve Clarity

Appendices A and B.

III.M

Incidental Changes to Volume Calculation Instructions

Appendices A and B.

III.N

Removal of Appendices A1 and B1 from the CFR

Appendices A1 and B1.

III.O

Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements

No test procedure amendments are proposed in these sections.

1. Test Burden

2. Changes in Measured Energy Use

3. Standby and Off Mode Energy Use

A. Products Covered by the Proposed Rule

Today's notice proposes new test procedures for several consumer refrigeration products DOE does not currently regulate. They include (a) cooled cabinets (

e.g.,

wine chillers) that do not meet the definition for “refrigerator” because their compartment temperatures are warmer than the 39 °F threshold established for refrigerators (

see

10 CFR 430.2), (b) refrigeration products regardless of compartment temperature that do not use vapor-compression refrigeration technology (

i.e.,

no compressor and condenser unit used as an integral part of the cabinet assembly), (c) hybrid products, for which cellar compartments (

e.g.,

wine storage compartments) comprise at least half of the total refrigerated volume within a product that would otherwise meet the definitions for “refrigerator,” “refrigerator-freezer,” or “freezer,” and (d) ice makers. Collectively, these products (

i.e.,

products not currently covered by EPCA as a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer) are referred to by DOE as miscellaneous refrigeration products, and DOE has proposed a definition to distinguish them from the other consumer refrigeration products that DOE's regulations currently cover. The following sections discuss the products affected by this proposed rule and the manner in which DOE proposes to address them for the purposes of regulatory coverage, including (1) distinguishing between those items covered as consumer products from those covered as industrial equipment under EPCA and (2) the status of products currently covered as refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.

1. Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers

Today's notice proposes amendments to the definitions for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. These amendments would not change the meaning of the definitions, but in light of the proposed addition of numerous related refrigeration product types, these proposed changes would provide a consistent definition structure and improve clarity. These proposed amendments are described below.

DOE is proposing to clarify the compartment temperature ranges used for these products. The current definitions for “electric refrigerator” and “electric refrigerator-freezer” in 10 CFR 430.2 include cabinets that are “designed to be capable of achieving storage temperatures above 32 °F (0 °C) and below 39 °F (3.9 °C).” DOE last modified these definitions in the December 2010 final rule. 75 FR at 78815-17 (Dec. 16, 2010). Prior to the 2010 rule, the definition for electric refrigerator included cabinets that are “designed for the refrigerated storage of food at temperatures above 32 °F and below 39 °F.” (66 FR 57845, at 57848 (Nov. 19, 2001). In 2010, DOE proposed to add the new language to the definition of electric refrigerator-freezer in order to clarify that that combination wine storage-freezer units without fresh food compartments are not refrigerator-freezers. 75 FR 29824, at 29829 (May 27, 2010) Responding to stakeholder concerns that most refrigerator-freezers can maintain fresh food temperatures above 39 °F (and the fact that most refrigerators can do the same), DOE modified both definitions to clarify that the ability to maintain temperatures above 39 °F does not preclude a product from being classified as a refrigerator or refrigerator-freezer. DOE also noted that this change was intended to clarify that a poorly constructed product that happens to be incapable of actually achieving 39 °F is not excluded from coverage. 75 FR at 78817.

DOE has observed that the current definition has created ambiguity. Specifically, as DOE noted in its 2010 rule, the phrase “designed to be capable of achieving” leaves room for products to be classified as refrigerators even though they cannot actually maintain temperatures that are safe for storing fresh food—provided they are “designed to be capable” of doing so. DOE's

concern in 2010 was to ensure that these products are not excluded from being “covered products.”

To address these difficulties, DOE proposes to replace the phrase, “designed to be capable of achieving [the specified temperature],” with “capable of maintaining compartment temperatures at [the specified temperature].” With this modification, product classification could be definitively determined through testing and would rely on the product's actual capability to serve its intended purpose rather than relying on the design intent of the manufacturer. DOE believes that a clear delineation based upon actual product performance would ensure accurate product classification by manufacturers and enable more effective enforcement of the energy conservation standards. In addition to refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, DOE would apply this approach to the definitions for all refrigeration products whose performance is based on maintaining internal compartment temperatures.

As discussed in Section III.A.3, DOE understands that certain products marketed as refrigerators cannot maintain temperatures below 39 °F at ambient temperatures of 90 °F. The current definitions do not specify the ambient temperature at which a product must be capable of maintaining the specified temperature ranges within the cabinet. To clarify this issue, DOE proposes that the product must be capable of maintaining compartment temperatures as specified during operation at a typical room ambient condition of 72 °F. These proposed changes would appear in the product definitions in 10 CFR 430.2 and would reference product classification sections in the certification requirements in 10 CFR 429.14 and 429.61. DOE proposes this approach for all refrigeration products whose performance is based on maintaining internal compartment temperatures. DOE requests comments on these additional proposed modifications.

DOE's current definitions in 10 CFR 430.2 for refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer require that the product be “designed for the refrigerated storage of food.” The use of the word “designed” and the fact that “food” is not defined has led to questions from manufacturers similar to those encountered with the temperature range language. As mentioned above, DOE believes a clear delineation based on product performance would ensure accurate product classification and enable more effective enforcement of the energy conservation standards. Furthermore, DOE sees no reason to exclude products that are not marketed or configured for food storage, provided that they are capable of maintaining the specified temperatures. Therefore, DOE proposes removing references to storage of food.

Section III.A.4 discusses DOE's proposal to define hybrid products as those for which warm compartments not capable of maintaining compartment temperatures below 39 °F comprise at least half of the refrigerated volume. Section III.F discusses DOE's proposal to call such warm compartments “cellar compartments”. Although the definitions for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers found in 10 CFR 430.2 do not preclude the possibility that such warm compartments could be included as part of these products, they do not clarify whether such compartments could be included. DOE is proposing edits to these definitions to ensure a clear distinction between these products and the hybrid refrigeration products to be addressed in this proposed rule. Specifically, DOE proposes to clarify the definitions for refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer by specifying that the product may include cellar compartments—so long as they comprise less than half of the product's refrigerated volume. DOE notes that specific test procedures associated with the cellar compartments in these products are discussed in sections III.F.3 and III.F.4.

DOE also proposes to amend the definitions in 10 CFR 430.2 for refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer to provide a clear mechanism for determining whether a given basic model is a consumer refrigeration product or commercial refrigeration equipment. The current definitions do not make this distinction explicit, which has also created ambiguity. DOE's proposal is intended to reduce or eliminate situations in which DOE, manufacturers, and consumers must rely primarily upon inference or assumptions in order to make such determinations.

DOE's proposed definitions categorically exclude three types of products that would otherwise meet the definitions of refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer. These three criteria, which are characteristics of commercial refrigeration equipment, are derived from a combination of sources, including statutory provisions, DOE analysis of the market for refrigeration products, and comments received from manufacturers. Specifically, DOE proposes to exclude from the definition any products: (1) With one or more permanently open compartments; (2) that do not include a compressor and condenser unit as an integral part of the cabinet assembly; or (3) that are certified under ANSI/NSF 7-2009 International Standard for Food Equipment—Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers, or ANSI/UL 471-2006 UL Standard for Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers.

Under this proposal, the criteria proposed in today's notice would be the primary means for determining which refrigeration products are covered consumer products. All refrigeration products that are excluded from coverage as consumer products by the three criteria in the definitions, but which meet the definition of a commercial refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer under EPCA, would be considered covered as commercial refrigeration equipment and could be subject to the energy conservation standards in section 431.66 of 10 CFR part 431.

DOE proposes to revise the order of the requirements in the definitions of refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer to create a parallel structure. Amending the definitions to follow the same structure would enhance readability and simplify product classification.

DOE is also proposing to remove the word “electric” from the definitions of “electric refrigerator” and “electric refrigerator-freezer.” The current definition for “refrigerator” in 10 CFR 430.2 indicates only that the product is an “electric refrigerator.” The actual characteristics of the product are detailed in the definition for “electric refrigerator.” Similarly, the definition for “refrigerator-freezer” in 10 CFR 430.2 references the definition for “electric refrigerator-freezer.” An early version of 10 CFR 430.2 defined “refrigerator” as “an electric refrigerator or a gas refrigerator.” See 42 FR 46140, 46143 (Sept. 14, 1977). This reference to “gas refrigerator” has since been deleted; therefore, DOE tentatively concludes there is little reason to retain definitions for both “refrigerator” and “electric refrigerator.” Hence, DOE proposes to eliminate the definitions for “electric refrigerator” and “electric refrigerator-freezer,” and to move the detailed descriptions to the definitions for “refrigerator” and “refrigerator-freezer.” DOE also notes that Appendix B uses the term “electric freezer”, which is not currently defined, in sections 2.3 and 6.2.2. DOE proposes to change this term to “freezer” in these sections of the appendix. These changes would enhance clarity by eliminating duplicate terms. DOE requests comment on this proposal.

The definition for “all-refrigerator” currently appears in Appendices A and A1. Whether a product satisfies this definition can determine its product class as well as how to test it. For this reason, DOE proposes to move the definition for all-refrigerator from Appendix A to 10 CFR 430.2. Because Appendix A1 has not been valid for testing since September 15, 2014, and because DOE is proposing to remove Appendix A1 from the CFR as discussed in section III.N, DOE is not proposing to make an accompanying change in that appendix.

DOE notes that the current definition in 10 CFR 430.2 for electric refrigerator-freezer indicates that at least one compartment has attributes consistent with a fresh food compartment and that at least one compartment has attributes consistent with a freezer compartment. DOE proposes to clarify that the same compartment could not satisfy both of these requirements in a refrigerator-freezer—

i.e.,

at least one of the compartments is capable of maintaining compartment temperatures between 32 °F and 39 °F and at least one of the

remaining

compartments is capable of maintaining compartment temperatures below 8 °F.

Finally, DOE is proposing to add language to the freezer definition in 10 CFR 430.2 to clarify the distinction between freezers and ice makers, discussed below in Section III.A.5. Specifically, DOE is proposing to exclude from the freezer definition “any refrigerated cabinet that consists solely of an automatic icemaker and an ice storage bin arranged so that operation of the automatic icemaker fills the bin to its capacity.” Tests conducted by DOE indicate that some ice makers have refrigerated space that the product can cool to temperatures of 0 °F or below. (Cooled-Storage Ice Maker Test Summary, No. 3) Because many freezers contain automatic icemakers, DOE considered the potential difficulty of distinguishing ice makers from freezers. Typically, the ice storage bin of an ice maker becomes filled with ice during operation. In most cases, this would preclude use of the product to store items other than ice. However, one could consider a product very similar to an ice maker that has, in addition to the automatic icemaker and the ice storage bin, a compartment maintained at temperatures of 0 °F or below. Such a product would have space for storage of items other than ice and be considered a freezer. Consequently, the key distinctions between ice makers and freezers would include (a) many ice makers do not maintain internal temperatures at or below 0 °F, and (b) ice makers do not have space for storage of items other than ice.

DOE requests comment on all of these proposed changes to the definitions for refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer.

2. Cooled Cabinets

DOE proposes adopting in 10 CFR 430.2 the term “cooled cabinet” to denote consumer refrigeration products such as wine chillers that do not meet the definition for “refrigerator” because their compartment temperatures are warmer than the 39 °F threshold established for refrigerators.

EPCA does not specify the temperature conditions that a product must meet to be considered a refrigerator. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1)) DOE initially defined refrigerators using the term “electric refrigerator” to include products “designed for the refrigerated storage of food at temperatures above 32 °F.” 42 FR 46140, 46143 (Sept. 14, 1977). However, DOE modified this definition to exclude wine chillers by adding an upper limit of 39 °F to the temperature range cited in the refrigerator definition. 66 FR 57845, 57848 (Nov. 19, 2001) (explaining DOE's reasoning for altering the final definition it adopted for the term “electric refrigerator”).

DOE further amended the definition for “refrigerator” as part of a final rule published on December 16, 2010. See 75 FR 78810, 78817. This revision clarified that a product is not necessarily disqualified from coverage as a refrigerator if its compartments can maintain average temperatures above 39 °F for some temperature control settings.

Id.

This modification to the refrigerator definition did not affect the coverage of products that are not designed to store fresh food at temperatures under 39 °F. DOE explained that it would consider initiating a future rulemaking to establish coverage and energy standards for wine chillers and related products.

Id.

On February 13, 2012, DOE announced the availability of a framework document that discussed the process it would follow when considering potential energy conservation standards for wine chillers and other related products. 77 FR 7547. In that document, the agency noted that it was considering how to refer to products such as wine chillers that would not, through the use of “wine” in the name, suggest a limitation to products designed for wine storage. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043, Energy Conservation Standards for Wine Chillers and Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products, No. 3 at p. 13) DOE received no comment on this issue and is proposing to use the term “cooled cabinet” to denote all products such as wine chillers that do not meet the definition for refrigerator because they are not capable of maintaining compartment temperatures below 39 °F (3.9 °C). DOE is proposing to state this explicitly in the definition so that the conditions under which the category of coverage is established will be clearly understood.

DOE is aware that the Australian/New Zealand Standard 4474.1-2007

6

(AS/NZS 4474.1-2007) defines a “cooled appliance” as a refrigerating appliance that cannot be classified as a refrigerator, refrigerator/freezer, or freezer. AS/NZS 4474.1-2007 further defines a “refrigerating appliance” as a self-contained, factory-produced, insulated cabinet of a design and volume which is suitable for general household use, cooled by energy consuming means and intended for the preservation of foodstuffs, frozen or unfrozen. DOE believes that the term “cooled cabinet” is more precise than “cooled appliance,” since the word “cabinet” clarifies that the product is, or includes, a cabinet for storage purposes. Accordingly, DOE is proposing to define such a product as a cabinet having a source of refrigeration requiring electric energy input only and capable of maintaining compartment temperatures not below 39 °F (3.9 °C).

6

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

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

DOE is also aware that some products marketed for the storage of wine or beverages in a temperature range suitable for storage of such products,

i.e.,

in a range from 50 °F to 60 °F, may have the capability to maintain compartment temperatures close to 39 °F and in some cases cross over this threshold by one or two degrees. Rather than require such products to be regulated as refrigerators, and/or their compartments be tested as fresh food compartments, DOE is proposing to allow a small temperature crossover in the definition for cooled cabinet, provided that the product's temperature range extends through the range considered appropriate for wine. Specifically, DOE proposes that the definition specify that a cooled cabinet is capable of maintaining compartment temperatures either (a) no lower than 39 °F (3.9 °C) or (b) in a range that

extends no lower than 37 °F (2.8 °C) but at least as high as 60 °F (15.6 °C). As discussed for the other products covered by this notice in the sections below, DOE is proposing also to use this description of temperature range to denote warm compartments, discussed as “cellar compartments” in section III.F.1, in its proposals for other products. Also, as discussed in section III.A.1, DOE clarifies that the term “capable of maintaining” when used in the product definitions in reference to the compartment temperatures used to delineate coverage (

e.g.,

39 °F) applies to operation in a typical room ambient condition of 72 °F as specified in 10 CFR 429.14 and 429.61. DOE notes that products that are capable of maintaining compartment temperatures below 39 °F, but not less than 37 °F, and are not capable of maintaining compartment temperatures above 60 °F would be considered refrigerators or refrigerator-freezers, as appropriate.

DOE notes that the proposed definition would cover any product that is capable of maintaining a cooler internal storage temperature than the temperature outside the cabinet. Hence, it would apply to products that provide compartment temperatures warmer than the range that is typical for wine chillers.

7

DOE also notes that the proposed cooled cabinet definition would not be limited to products with alternating current power input. This aspect of the definition addresses the possibility that these products may be cooled using thermoelectric refrigeration systems, which can be powered by direct current as well as alternating current electric power. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043, Energy Conservation Standards for Wine Chillers and Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products, True Manufacturing, No. 3 at pp. 21, 22)

7

Wine chillers operate with compartment temperatures above 40 °F and generally near 55 °F (see 75 FR 59469, 59486 (September 27, 2010))

DOE requests comment on the use of the term “cooled cabinet” to denote products such as wine chillers that maintain compartment temperatures that are warmer than 39 °F or between 37 °F and at least 60 °F, and on the proposed definition for these products.

3. Non-Compressor Cooled Cabinets/Refrigerators

For refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, EPCA specifies that coverage applies to those products that include a compressor and condenser unit as an integral part of the cabinet assembly. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1)(B)) These are products that use vapor-compression refrigeration technology. However, DOE is aware of consumer refrigeration products that cool their interiors using other refrigeration technologies, notably those products that use thermoelectric and absorption refrigeration. These refrigeration technologies are described in the framework document noted above. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043, Energy Conservation Standards for Wine Chillers and Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products, No. 3 at p. 5) While DOE is aware of products sold as wine chillers and refrigerators that use thermoelectric and/or absorption technology, it is unaware of any such products sold as refrigerator-freezers or freezers.

DOE proposes to use the term “non-compressor” to describe refrigeration products that do not use vapor-compression refrigeration technology and to define non-compressor variants of refrigerators and cooled cabinets. DOE is proposing to define a non-compressor cooled cabinet as “a cooled cabinet that has a source of refrigeration that does not include a compressor and condenser unit.” A non-compressor refrigerator would be defined as “a cabinet that has a source of refrigeration that does not include a compressor and condenser unit, requires electric energy input only, and is capable of maintaining compartment temperatures above 32 °F (0 °C) and below 39 °F (3.9 °C).” The definition would also indicate that such a product could have a compartment capable of maintaining compartment temperatures below 32 °F (0 °C). The proposed definition would also specify that these products may have one or more cellar compartments, as described in section III.F. DOE's proposed definitions would account for hybrid and non-hybrid versions of these products (

i.e.,

having cellar compartments comprising at least half or less than half of their refrigerated volume, respectively). The definition for non-compressor refrigerator would clarify that these cellar compartments would comprise less than half of the product's refrigerated volume, and the definition for hybrid non-compressor refrigerators would denote the case in which these cellar compartments would comprise at least half of the product's refrigerated volume.

DOE notes that the proposed amendments to the term “refrigerator” used without a modifier explicitly exclude those products that do not use vapor-compression technology. (A “refrigerator” would be the type of product already covered by the statute.) Thus, a “non-compressor cooled cabinet” would be treated as a type of “cooled cabinet,” but a “non-compressor refrigerator” would not be a type of “refrigerator.”

DOE considered whether the non-compressor refrigerator definition should state explicitly that the ability to maintain a 39 °F or lower compartment temperature applies when a product operates in a 90 °F ambient temperature condition. The current definition for refrigerator does not explicitly specify the ambient temperature associated with the 39 °F requirement. As discussed in section III.A.1, DOE interprets the temperature range capability for the purposes of determining product status to apply to typical room temperature ambient temperature conditions,

i.e.,

72 °F. DOE has observed that many products marketed as refrigerators that do not use vapor-compression refrigeration technology cannot maintain the 39 °F standardized temperature that is used for fresh food compartments when tested using the required 90 °F ambient temperature condition. As described in section III.G.1, refrigerators are tested with closed doors in a 90 °F ambient temperature condition to simulate the added thermal loads associated with door openings and the insertion of warm food items. DOE test results for five non-compressor refrigeration products in 90 °F test conditions are summarized in Table III-2. Each of these products was marketed as a “refrigerator”, but none could attain a 39 °F compartment temperature at the 90 °F test conditions—none were even within 9 °F of the target.

Table III-2—Test Results for Thermoelectric and Absorption Products Marketed as Refrigerators

Product

Refrigeration technology

Lowest compartment temperature achieved in 90 °F ambient temperature

Model 1

Thermoelectric

57.5 °F

Model 2

Thermoelectric

48.2 °F

Model 3

Thermoelectric

48.6 °F

Model 4

Thermoelectric

58.2 °F

Model 5

Thermoelectric

61.1 °F

Model 6

Absorption

52.6 °F

In DOE's view, the ability of a product to maintain temperatures that are safe for food storage,

i.e.,

39 °F or lower, is a key attribute of refrigerators. While most vapor-compression refrigerators generally have no trouble meeting this target, even in 90 °F ambient temperature conditions, DOE's investigation shows that most products, if not all, that are marketed as refrigerators and do not use vapor-compression technology fail to reach this target in 90 °F ambient temperature conditions. In spite of the inability of these products to reach safe food temperatures under these conditions, it may be inappropriate to classify them as cooled cabinets rather than refrigerators, because they are marketed as refrigerators, and DOE expects that they are used as such by consumers. Hence, the definition for non-compressor refrigerator does not indicate that the ability to maintain temperatures below 39 °F applies to operation in a 90 °F ambient temperature condition. This approach has consequences for testing, which is generally conducted in a 90 °F ambient temperature condition. Specifically, the compartment temperature for a non-compressor refrigerator is generally warmer than 39 °F when operating with the temperature control set in the coldest position. DOE's proposals for addressing this issue are discussed in Section III.H.1.

DOE notes that it is not at this time defining “non-compressor refrigerator-freezers” and “non-compressor freezers” because it is not aware of the existence of such products. However, this does not imply that such products would not be covered under any final coverage determination established for miscellaneous refrigeration products, as proposed by the October 2013 Coverage Proposal.

DOE requests comment on the use of the terms “non-compressor cooled cabinet” and “non-compressor refrigerator” to denote products that use refrigeration systems that do not use vapor-compression refrigeration technology. DOE also requests comment on the definitions proposed for these products, and on DOE's initial market research indicating that non-compressor refrigerator-freezers and non-compressor freezers are not available for sale.

4. Hybrid Refrigerators/Refrigerator-Freezers/Freezers

In 2007, Liebherr sought a waiver from the refrigerator test procedure for its combination freezer-wine chillers. It argued that it would be inappropriate to test these products with the wine storage compartment set at the 45 °F standardized temperature used at that time (prior to September 15, 2014) for the fresh food compartments of refrigerator-freezers. Liebherr petitioned to use a standardized temperature of 55 °F for the wine storage compartment to represent energy use because, in its view, the higher temperature would more accurately reflect the energy consumption at the intended temperatures of the wine storage compartments. DOE granted Liebherr's waiver request and permitted the manufacturer to use this alternative test procedure with the condition that the wine storage volume must constitute at least 50 percent of the total volume of the tested product. 72 FR 20333 (April 24, 2007).

On December 16, 2010, DOE issued a final rule that modified the definitions of “electric refrigerator” and “electric refrigerator-freezer.” The final rule's preamble discussion explained that combination products such as combination wine storage-refrigerators would be treated as covered products (

see

75 FR 78810, 78817). DOE reinforced this statement with the February 2011 Guidance, which clarified that a wine storage compartment added to a product that would otherwise be a refrigerator or a refrigerator-freezer does not change the product's coverage status as a refrigerator or refrigerator-freezer. The February 2011 Guidance also indicated, however, that products combining freezer compartments and wine storage compartments are not covered. DOE indicated in its December 2010 final rule that it would address wine storage-refrigeration combination products in a separate rulemaking. 75 FR at 78817.

In its October 2013 coverage proposal, DOE proposed that some products that combine fresh food compartments with warmer compartments such as wine storage compartments (or that combine fresh food and freezer compartments with warmer compartments) would be considered to be hybrid products that are not subject to regulation as refrigerators and/or refrigerator-freezers. 78 FR at 65224 (Oct. 31, 2013). However, DOE did not, in that notice, define the term “hybrid” or elaborate on those characteristics that would distinguish hybrid products from refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. In today's notice, DOE proposes that hybrid refrigeration products would be required to have wine storage or similar types of warm compartments that comprise half or more, but not all, of the refrigerated volume of the product. As described in section III.F.1, DOE proposes to use the term “cellar compartments” for such warm compartments.

DOE's proposal for the 50-percent minimum threshold is based on the expectation that a hybrid product must be designed, built, and marketed with an emphasis on the storage of beverages or other non-perishable items rather than food storage. DOE adopted this same threshold when granting Liebherr a waiver for a product incorporating freezer and wine storage compartments. 72 FR at 20334 (April 24, 2007). DOE is basing its proposal that the cellar compartment volume of a hybrid product be less than 100 percent of the refrigerated volume on the observation that a product comprised entirely of one or more cellar compartments would be a cooled cabinet rather than a hybrid product.

DOE proposes to define a hybrid refrigerator as a product that has “at least half but not all of its refrigerated volume comprised of one or more cellar compartments.” Otherwise the proposed definition is similar to the definition for a non-hybrid “refrigerator.” DOE is

proposing similar definitions for hybrid refrigerator-freezers and freezers. All of these definitions would appear in CFR 430.2. DOE's proposals also specify that these products have refrigeration systems that include a compressor and condenser unit and require electric energy input only.

DOE recognizes that refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers may also have cellar compartments whose combined refrigerated volume is less than half the total refrigerated volume of the product. Section III.A.1 discusses DOE's proposal to address such compartments in the definitions for these products.

For hybrid non-compressor refrigerators, DOE proposes to define these items as referring to “a non-compressor refrigerator with at least half of its refrigerated volume composed of one or more cellar compartments.”

DOE also proposes to include a general term for hybrid refrigeration products, which would specify that they include hybrid refrigerators, hybrid refrigerator-freezers, hybrid freezers, and hybrid non-compressor refrigerators.

DOE notes that the proposed definitions for hybrid products are based on the concept of compartments;

i.e.,

they would be products in which half or more of the volume comprises one or more cellar compartments. While compartments are generally considered to be enclosed spaces within a cabinet, the DOE test procedures do not define “compartment.” Section III.E.1 discusses the need for this term and DOE's proposal for a definition.

DOE requests comment on the definitions for hybrid products, including on the proposed requirement that hybrid status would require that at least 50 percent of the product's refrigerated volume comprise one or more cellar compartments.

5. Ice Makers

DOE proposes to define in 10 CFR 430.2 the term “ice maker” as “a consumer product other than a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, freezer, hybrid refrigeration product, non-compressor refrigerator, or cooled cabinet that is designed to automatically produce and harvest ice, but excluding any basic model that is certified under NSF/ANSI 12-2012

Automatic Ice Making Equipment.

Such a product may also include a means for storing ice, dispensing ice, or storing and dispensing ice.”

DOE's proposed definition indicates that the functions of an ice maker may include ice storage and/or ice dispensing. This part of the definition is consistent with the characteristics of ice makers designed and sold for consumer markets, as demonstrated by product information for a representative sample of ice makers (Product Information for Representative Ice Makers, No. 9). DOE is not aware of any ice makers that do not incorporate an ice storage bin for ice storage. The proposed definition would cover such products, although the proposed test procedures would not necessarily address them. DOE would consider developing additional test procedures to address such products if and when they are commercialized.

The proposed definition would distinguish ice makers from automatic commercial ice makers (ACIM)—ice makers would be consumer products as defined in 42 U.S.C. 6291(1). The definition would exclude from coverage any ice makers with basic models certified to NSF/ANSI Standard 12-2012, which is used to certify commercial ice makers. Therefore, any ice maker that is not certified to NSF/ANSI 12-2012 would be classified as an ice maker rather than an ACIM even if its harvest rate falls within the range for which there are energy conservation standards for ACIMs (

i.e.,

over 50 pounds of ice produced per day). (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1)) Likewise, any ice maker that is certified to NSF/ANSI 12-2012 would not be classified as an ice maker even if it produces 50 or less pounds of ice per day. Such a product may meet the definition for ACIM, even though there are currently no standards for ACIMs that produce less than 50 pounds of ice per day.

This proposed definition would also distinguish ice makers from other types of consumer refrigeration products. As discussed above, DOE considered the difficulty of distinguishing ice makers from other refrigeration products that have automatic ice makers. In order to prevent the ice maker definition from also covering models that would otherwise meet the definition for a freezer or other refrigeration product, DOE is proposing to exclude from the ice maker definition any product that meets the definition for one of the other refrigeration products covered by this notice.

DOE requests comment on its proposed definition for ice makers.

6. General Terms for the Groups of Products Addressed in This Notice

DOE proposes to define “miscellaneous refrigeration product” as a consumer refrigeration product other than a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer, which includes hybrid refrigeration products, cooled cabinets, non-compressor refrigerators, and ice makers. DOE also proposes to define “consumer refrigeration product” as a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, freezer, or miscellaneous refrigeration product. DOE requests comment on these proposed definitions.

7. Test Procedure Sections and Appendices Addressing the New Products

Appendices A and B, along with 10 CFR 430.23(a)-(b), contain the test procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. To limit the impact of the amendments that may be required to adopt test procedures for all of the additional products mentioned in this notice, DOE proposes to modify only Appendix A to address the new products whose primary function is to provide refrigerated storage within their cabinets: cooled cabinets, non-compressor refrigerators, and hybrid refrigeration products. This would mean that the test procedure requirements for hybrid freezers would be inserted into Appendix A rather than Appendix B. DOE proposes to adopt this approach to limit the duplication of amendments that would be required in both appendices if hybrid freezer test procedures were inserted into Appendix B. While the notice proposes some amendments to Appendix B, these amendments would apply to freezers that have cellar compartments that do not comprise a sufficiently large fraction of the product's refrigerated volume to meet the proposed hybrid refrigeration product definition—that is, a product that would continue to be classified as a freezer. DOE also proposes to adopt a new section 10 CFR 430.23(cc) for cooled cabinets, non-compressor refrigeration products, and hybrid refrigeration products.

Regarding ice makers, DOE is proposing to add a new section 10 CFR 430.23(dd) and a new Appendix BB for ice makers, because the proposed test procedure for these products has many differences compared to the test procedures for the other consumer refrigeration products.

B. Elimination of Definition Numbering in the Appendices

Appendices A, B, A1, and B1 each have an introductory section (“Section 1”) that defines terms that are important for describing the test procedures for these products. These sections are currently numbered such that each definition has a unique sub-section number. DOE believes that this approach is unnecessary because the definitions are all listed in alphabetical order. To improve the readability of these sections and to limit confusion

from renumbering when definitions are added or removed, DOE proposes to eliminate the sub-section numbering to simplify the structure of these sections of the appendices.

C. Removal of Provisions for Externally-Vented Products

Externally-vented refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers can reduce energy use by using outside air to help cool the condenser and compressor when the outside air is cooler than the inside air. The condenser and compressor of such a product would be surrounded by a box connected to air ducts that would penetrate the exterior wall of a house, allowing cooler air to be drawn by the condenser fan into the box to cool down these internal components. By using cooler outdoor air to cool these components, an externally-vented product can, in theory, achieve a higher level of efficiency by increasing the efficiency of the product's refrigeration system and reducing the thermal impacts associated with the condenser and compressor heat. DOE established test procedures for these products in Appendix A1 on September 9, 1997. 62 FR 47536. These provisions were retained for the more recent Appendix A. See 75 FR 78853, 78858-59.

Since the inception of this procedure, more than 15 years have elapsed and DOE, after having researched whether any refrigeration product employs this technology, is unaware of any externally-vented refrigeration products that are either currently available or that manufacturers plan to offer. Because these provisions do not appear to apply to any known products—or those that are likely to be produced—DOE proposes to remove the externally-vented products provisions from Appendix A to help simplify and improve its clarity. These changes would entail the removal of a number of provisions, including certain definitions, required testing conditions, testing measurement sections, and calculation methods. DOE also proposes to remove all references to externally vented products from the regulatory text in section 430.23(a) of subpart B. Specifically, DOE proposes to make the following modifications to section 430.23(a): (1) Remove all references to externally vented products from sections 430.23(a)(1) through 430.23(a)(5), (2) remove sections 430.23(a)(7) through 430.23(a)(9), and (3) re-number section 430.23(a)(10) as section 430.23(a)(7). DOE requests comment on this proposal.

D. Sampling Plans, Certification Reporting, and Measurement/Verification of Volume

DOE's sampling plans for both consumer and commercial refrigeration products all use identical statistical evaluation criteria for the samples. (

See,

for example, 10 CFR 429.14, 429.42, and 429.45.) DOE proposes to apply the same sampling plan criteria to all of the miscellaneous refrigeration products addressed in this test procedure notice. DOE proposes to establish a new section 10 CFR 429.61, which would be titled “Miscellaneous refrigeration products,” to address sampling plans and certification reporting for these products.

The information DOE typically requires to be included in a certification report generally falls into three broad categories, (1) general information applicable to any product, (2) public product-specific information, and (3) non-public information. DOE proposes to treat certain information that would be required to be submitted for cooled cabinets, hybrid refrigeration products, and non-compressor refrigerators as public—the annual energy use in kilowatt-hours per year, the total refrigerated volume of the product, and the total adjusted volume. The total adjusted volume for the product can be used to determine the allowed annual energy use under the standard. DOE would also require that certification reports for these products indicate whether they have variable defrost control or variable anti-sweat heater control, and whether the locations of temperature sensors were modified from their standard locations during testing, as is currently required for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. While this information may not apply to most cooled cabinets, hybrid refrigeration products, and non-compressor refrigerators, DOE proposes to require its inclusion in the certification reports for any such product for which the information does apply. DOE would also require manufacturers to report other non-public details regarding variable defrost and variable anti-sweat heater control in a manner similar to what is currently required for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.

Regarding ice makers, DOE is proposing to require that manufacturers provide the following information which would be treated as public for each certified product: the annual energy use in kilowatt-hours per year and the harvest rate in pounds per day. In case the model is a continuous-type ice maker (see further description of ice maker types in section III.K.2), manufacturers would also need to report whether the standard default value of ice hardness was used in the calculation of energy use, and, if it was not, the measured value of ice hardness.

DOE has not yet added “miscellaneous refrigeration product” to the list of covered products. Accordingly, DOE has not yet established product classes or product class definitions for this product type. Further, DOE has not yet proposed energy conservation standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products. DOE may modify these proposed requirements once these elements are finalized in order to harmonize the reporting elements with these other requirements. For example, if DOE were to propose and finalize an energy conservation standard for an ice maker that did not depend on that product's harvest capacity to verify whether its certified energy rating meets that standard, DOE might not require the reporting of this value.

On April 21, 2014, DOE amended its regulations to allow use of computer-aided design (CAD) models when determining volume for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, adding a new section 429.72(c) within 10 CFR part 429 for this purpose. 79 FR 22319, 22336. DOE proposes to add a section 429.72(d) to establish the same approach for use of CAD for miscellaneous refrigeration products. DOE also amended its regulations to establish procedures for evaluating certified volume data and for determining whether to use certified or measured volume in calculating allowable energy use, adding a new section 429.134 for this purpose.

Id.

DOE proposes to add a section 429.134(c) to establish the same approach for miscellaneous refrigeration products.

DOE requests comment on its proposed sampling plans and certification report requirements for the products covered by this proposed test procedure. DOE also requests comments on its proposal to establish requirements for allowing use of CAD for volume measurements and for regulations associated with verifying certified volumes for miscellaneous refrigeration products.

E. Compartment and Product Classification

Section III.F.1 discusses a proposal to define “cellar compartment” as a compartment with a warmer temperature range than fresh food compartments. Although the term “compartment” has been used

extensively in the DOE test procedures, it has not been defined. DOE considered whether further clarification of the term is required. DOE notes that Sanyo commented on this topic in response to the framework document for the energy conservation standard rulemaking for wine chillers and miscellaneous products. Specifically, Sanyo commented that the term “compartment” requires greater clarity, as hybrid products create multiple temperature zones in a variety of ways. (Energy Conservation Standards for Wine Chillers and Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products, Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043, Sanyo, No. 12 at p. 2) Sanyo did not, however, offer any suggestions on how to define that term.

DOE is aware of only one specific definition for “compartment” in finalized test procedures. The term is found in the Australian/New Zealand test procedures (AS/NZS 4474.1-2007). Those procedures define a compartment as “an enclosed space within a refrigerating appliance, which is directly accessible through one or more external doors. A compartment may contain one or more sub-compartments and one or more convenience features.” This use of the term “compartment” suggests that there may be multiple compartments in a refrigeration product of a given type. This approach is consistent with its use in parts of the DOE test procedures, such as the definition for “electric refrigerator-freezer”—defined as a cabinet which consists of two or more compartments (

see

10 CFR 430.2). AS/NZS 4474.1-2007 further defines a “sub-compartment” as “a permanent enclosed space within a compartment or sub-compartment which is designated as being a different type of food storage space (

i.e.,

has a different compartment temperature range) from the compartment or sub-compartment within which it is located,” and “convenience features”, as enclosures or containers with temperature conditions which may or may not be different from the compartment within which they are located. The test standard indicates that “compartment” may be taken to mean “compartment” or “sub-compartment”, as appropriate for the context. The “sub-compartment” and “convenience feature” definitions are similar to the concept of a “special compartment” as defined in the DOE test procedures—these are compartments other than butter conditioners, without doors directly accessible from the exterior, and with separate temperature control. (

See

Appendix A, section 1).

However, DOE notes that the AS/NZS 4474.1-2007 approach is not fully consistent with all of the uses of the term “compartment” in the DOE test procedures. In some cases, the term denotes all of the space within a refrigeration product that operates within a designated temperature range. For example, Appendix A, section 5.1.3 describes “

the

fresh food compartment temperature” and section 5.1.4 describes “

the

freezer compartment temperature.” Similarly, Appendix A, section 5.3 refers to

the

fresh food compartment volume and

the

freezer compartment volume for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers.

After carefully evaluating the uses of the term “compartment”, DOE was not convinced that any of them fully addresses the issue that Sanyo raised when suggesting that a definition for “compartment” should be established. Sanyo's comments responded to DOE's requests for comment on its framework document discussing potential energy conservation standards for wine chillers and miscellaneous refrigeration products. (Energy Conservation Standards for Wine Chillers and Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products, Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043, Sanyo, No. 12 at p. 2) Among the issues raised by DOE were questions related to how DOE should regulate hybrid products, how to determine whether a product is a hybrid product, and how to establish test procedures and energy conservation standards for them. (Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Framework Document for Wine Chillers and Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products, Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043, No. 3 at p. 68) Because Sanyo's comment was primarily concerned with clarifying the concept of “compartment” for the purpose of classifying basic models and conducting tests, DOE has focused on these issues in this notice, while questions regarding the establishment of energy conservation standards would be addressed in the ongoing energy conservation standard rulemaking for wine chillers and miscellaneous refrigeration products.

In light of the different uses of the term “compartment” that already exist in the test procedures, DOE concluded that developing a single definition for the term would not add greater clarity or uniformity to the test procedures, since it would require establishing a new term to denote some of the existing uses of the term. Instead, DOE is proposing to add a dual definition that mirrors its understanding of the term's two key meanings in the test procedures. DOE also proposes to add instructional language to its test procedures that will clarify how the concept of compartments should be used in classifying products and in conducting tests.

In order to determine which definition applies to a given basic model (

e.g.,

cooled cabinet, refrigerator, or hybrid refrigerator), DOE proposes that the person testing the unit must first determine the volume and temperature range of each compartment within the unit. The proposed language provides instructions for how to determine which spaces within a cabinet must be evaluated as compartments and how to configure those spaces to determine their volume. Once the volume and temperature range of each compartment has been identified, the product would be classified according to the existing definitions for refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer, and the new definitions proposed in this notice for cooled cabinets, hybrid refrigeration products and non-compressor products. For example, if at least half, but not all, of the refrigerated volume of a particular refrigerated cabinet is comprised of a compartment or multiple compartments that are capable of maintaining compartment temperatures above 39 °F, but not below 39 °F, or in a range that extends no lower than 37 °F but at least as high as 60 °F, that cabinet would be classified as a hybrid refrigeration product. The compartment types within the remainder of the volume of the cabinet and its refrigeration system technology would dictate whether it is a hybrid refrigerator, hybrid refrigerator-freezer, hybrid freezer, or hybrid non-compressor refrigerator.

DOE proposes that manufacturers and testing facilities use the following principles when selecting spaces within a given basic model to evaluate as compartments: (1) Each compartment to be evaluated would be an enclosed space without subdividing barriers that divide the space—a subdividing barrier would be defined as a solid barrier (including those that contain thermal insulation) that is sealed around all of its edges to prevent air movement from one side to the other, or has edge gaps insufficient to permit thermal convection transfer from one side to the other that would cause the temperatures on both sides of the barrier to equilibrate; (2) each evaluated compartment would not be a zone of a larger compartment unless the zone is separated from the larger compartment by subdividing barriers; and (3) if a subdividing barrier can be placed in multiple locations, it would be placed in the median position, or, if it can be placed in an even number of locations,

it would be placed in the near-median position that results in less cellar compartment volume.

The first instruction would prevent multiple compartments from being evaluated in aggregate when classifying a basic model. This step would prevent, for example, considering a freezer compartment and fresh food compartment of a refrigerator-freezer to be all one single compartment. The second instruction would require that there be a substantial physical barrier between zones that are treated as separate compartments, which would prevent, for example, a single compartment with warm temperatures at the top and cool temperatures at the bottom from being considered two separate compartments. Although some products could maintain different temperature zones in such a fashion, DOE is concerned that allowing such zones to be considered separate compartments would significantly complicate classifying models because the separation between the zones would not be very well defined, and it could change depending on operating conditions and temperature control settings. The third instruction seeks to ensure consistency in how to prepare a subdivided compartment for testing set-up in case the consumer can adjust the position of a compartment-subdividing barrier.

DOE proposes that these instructions be followed when classifying a given basic model based on the volume of its compartment(s)—they would be inserted as a new paragraph within section 5.3 of Appendix A and Appendix B. DOE proposes to establish a definition for “compartment” allowing two meanings—one consistent with the proposed instructions for classifying products, and the second to denote all of the space within a product that is associated with a given temperature range. This definition would appear in Section 1 of both Appendices A and B. Finally, DOE proposes to include the set-up requirement for moveable subdividing barriers in section 2.7 of Appendix A and in section 2.5 of Appendix B. DOE requests comment on these proposals and their placement in the regulations.

DOE proposes to include in 10 CFR 429.14 and 429.61 descriptions of how manufacturers would determine the appropriate compartment classifications. DOE proposes that the product category would be based on measured compartment volumes and temperatures. The proposed provisions in 10 CFR 429.14 and 429.61 would require manufacturers to determine compartment volumes according to the provisions in the applicable test procedure, including the proposed clarifications to section 5.3 of Appendix A and Appendix B discussed in the paragraph above, and to base the product classification on these measured volumes. Compartment temperatures would be determined according to the applicable test procedure for the certified product, but at an ambient temperature of 72.0 °F±1.0 °F (22.2±0.6 °C). These measurements would determine the temperature a compartment is capable of maintaining. The measured compartment volumes and temperatures would determine the appropriate product category for certification based on the proposed product definitions in 10 CFR 430.2. These proposed provisions would help to clarify the distinction between different refrigeration products—

e.g.,

whether a given product is a miscellaneous refrigeration product or a refrigerator-freezer.

F. Cellar Compartments

While the term “cellar compartment” has a connotation associated with the storage of wine, DOE is tentatively proposing an approach that would determine the appropriate test method for a compartment based on that compartment's physical and performance characteristics. DOE is taking this approach in order to apply an objective set of criteria that would enable a manufacturer or testing facility to readily determine whether a given compartment should be treated as a cellar compartment for testing purposes. This additional level of clarity should provide manufacturers and testing facilities sufficient instruction to ensure that all parties test compartments in a consistent manner. DOE is also interested in whether other, more usage-neutral terms might be better suited in designating this type of compartment other than the term “cellar.”

1. Cellar Compartment Definition

With coverage and definitions proposed for cooled cabinets, DOE also proposes to define the volume within a cabinet that is not designed to maintain compartment temperatures below 39 °F. DOE previously referred to these volumes as wine storage compartments. (

See, e.g.

,

77 FR 3559, 3569 (Jan. 25, 2012).) However, using “wine storage compartment” could potentially conflict with DOE's goal of using terms that do not suggest a specific cooling application. AS/NZS 4474.1-2007 includes a definition for “cellar compartment” to describe a compartment designed to reach temperatures warmer than those of fresh food compartments. DOE proposes adopting this term and defining it as “a refrigerated compartment within a consumer refrigeration product that is capable of maintaining compartment temperatures either (a) no lower than 39 °F (3.9 °C), or (b) in a range that extends no lower than 37 °F (2.8 °C) but at least as high as 60 °F (15.6 °C).”

However, DOE is not proposing to use the same definition as AS/NZS 4474.1-2007, which applies a complicated set of requirements for classifying cellar compartments.

8

DOE believes that its proposed definition sufficiently distinguishes cellar compartments from fresh food and freezer compartments without the need for the more complex requirements set out in the AS/NZ protocol.

8

For example, the average temperature in such a compartment must, for at least one setting of the controls, be within the range 8 °C to 14 °C (46 °F to 57 °F) when tested in a 32 °C (90 °F) ambient temperature condition—however, for some product types, if the product has no fresh food compartment, a temperature within this range must also be attainable when tested in 10 °C and 43 °C ambient temperature conditions.

See

AS/NZS 4474.1-2007, sections 3.6 and 3.6.3 and Table 3.2.

As with the use of the term “compartment” for freezer compartments and fresh food compartments, DOE proposes that the term “cellar compartment” would be used in different ways, as described in section III.E. For example, one would be able to consider a single cellar compartment within a wine chiller that has multiple cellar compartments. However, one would also be able to consider “

the

cellar compartment temperature” or “

the

cellar compartment refrigerated volume,” concepts that would refer to the entire cellar compartment space within the product in the same way that this concept is applied in sections 5.1.3 and 5.3 of Appendix A for fresh food compartments.

DOE invites comment on its definition for cellar compartment.

2. Cellar Compartment Standardized Temperature

In order to ensure that energy test results are both repeatable and representative of consumer use, the DOE test procedures require the use of compartment temperatures that target standardized temperatures representative of those that are typical of consumer usage. For example, the standardized freezer compartment temperature for the DOE test of a freezer is 0 °F (

see

Appendix B, section 3.2). For cellar compartments, DOE proposes to specify a standardized temperature of 55 °F. This temperature has already

been adopted as a standardized test temperature for wine storage compartments in the test procedures for wine chillers adopted by California (2012 Appliance Efficiency Regulations, CEC-400-2012-019-CMF, Table A-1, p. 70), Canada (Energy Performance and Capacity of Household Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, Freezers, and Wine Chillers, Canadian Standards Association, Standard C300-08 (“CSA C300-08”), section 5.3.6.2), and the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) (AHAM HRF-1-2008, section 5.6.2), as well as in DOE test procedure waivers for products combining wine storage and other compartments (

see,

for example, the decision and order notices granting waivers to Liebherr (72 FR 20333 (Apr. 24, 2007)) and Sanyo (77 FR 49443 (Aug. 16, 2012))). It is also very close to the 12 °C (54 °F) temperature already adopted in AS/NZS 4474.1-2007, Table 3.5, for cellar compartments. Because a standardized temperature of 55 °F has already been widely adopted, this requirement is familiar to industry and is based on an engineering approach that has been vetted and reviewed. In addition, DOE market research of products with cellar compartments revealed common temperature ranges of 45 °F to 65 °F, with 55 °F often representing the most common target temperature used. Accordingly, DOE is proposing to modify section 3.2 of Appendix A to require a 55 °F standardized temperature be used for cellar compartments.

DOE requests comment on its selection of 55 °F as the cellar compartment standardized temperature.

3. Cellar Compartment Temperature Measurement

The DOE test procedures provide instructions for measuring compartment temperatures during tests. For example, section 5.1 of Appendix A requires that temperatures be measured at the locations prescribed in Figures 5.1 and 5.2 of AHAM HRF-1-2008. Section 5.1.1 of Appendix A indicates that the compartment temperature at any given time be equal to the average at that time of the temperatures measured by all sensors placed in that compartment. Similarly, section 5.1.2 of Appendix A indicates that the measured compartment temperature for the test is based on a time average of the compartment temperatures recorded during the test period. Finally, section 5.1.3 of Appendix A requires that the fresh food compartment temperature be calculated as the volume average of the temperatures of the fresh food compartments within the product, and section 5.1.4 provides a similar requirement for freezer compartments.

With respect to temperature sensor placement within a compartment, section 5.5.5.4 of AHAM HRF-1-2008, which is referenced in the DOE test procedure, requires that the temperature measurement of wine storage compartments in wine chillers follow the same sensor placement requirements as fresh food compartments. DOE proposes to adopt the same approach for the measurement of cellar compartment temperatures in cooled cabinets and in hybrid refrigeration products. To implement this step, DOE is proposing to add a reference to cellar compartments in section 5.1 of Appendix A, indicating that temperature sensor placement within these compartments would be performed as indicated in Figure 5.1 of AHAM HRF-1-2008. DOE also proposes to require volume-weighted averaging of cellar compartment temperatures in cases where there are multiple cellar compartments, similar to the current requirements for volume-weighted averaging of fresh food and freezer compartments in sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 of Appendix A.

For cellar compartments contained in products such as refrigerators or refrigerator-freezers that are not hybrid refrigeration products, DOE is not proposing to require a cellar compartment temperature measurement. The temperature of the fresh food and/or freezer compartments of such products would be the basis of energy use calculations, without consideration of the temperatures maintained in the cellar compartments. This proposal is consistent with the current testing requirements for special compartments, and for ice freezing compartments of all-refrigerators, which are also compartments representing a small portion of the refrigerated space that do not dominate their products' energy use. The cellar compartments of these products would represent less than half of the refrigerated volume, and the energy use of the product would be dominated by the colder fresh food and/or freezer compartments, making measurement of the cellar compartments' temperatures unnecessary. Also, as proposed in section III.F.4, any temperature controls of these compartments would be set in their coldest position for the test, as required for special compartments by the current test procedure (see section 2.7 of Appendix A).

The requirements for measurement of temperatures in cellar compartments would be placed in a new section 5.1.5.

DOE requests comments on these proposals for the measurement of cellar compartment temperatures.

4. Cellar Compartments as Special Compartments

Section III.F.3 discusses DOE's proposal to not require that cellar compartment temperatures be measured for products that are not cooled cabinets or hybrid refrigeration products. In DOE's view, the fresh food and/or freezer compartments would dominate product energy consumption when compared to cellar compartments both because of the cellar compartments' much warmer standardized temperature and the relative volume size differences between the cellar compartment (which is small) and the remaining colder compartments (

i.e.,

fresh food and freezer compartments). However, cellar compartments that have their own separate temperature control may have a significant influence on product energy use. Hence, in these cases, DOE proposes to treat these types of compartments as special compartments, which would require a manufacturer to apply the existing test procedure requirements for special compartments. These procedures require that special compartments be tested at their coldest temperature setting except for those special compartments for which any portion of the temperature range is achieved through the addition of heat to the compartment. In those cases involving the addition of heat, the measurement would be the average of two sets of tests, with the temperature settings for the special compartments in the coldest setting for one set of tests and in the warmest setting for the other. (

See

Appendix A, section 2.7 or Appendix B, section 2.5.) DOE requests comment on this proposal to require that cellar compartments with their own temperature control within products that are not cooled cabinets or hybrid refrigeration products be treated as special compartments.

5. Temperature Settings and Energy Use Calculations

The refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer test procedure (Appendix A) uses the compartment temperatures measured in fresh food and freezer compartments to determine the temperature settings for additional tests and to calculate the energy use associated with the product at the standardized compartment temperatures. DOE proposes using a similar approach for cellar compartments.

DOE's proposed approach to incorporate cellar compartments into

the temperature control setting and test selection requirements, which are used to calculate energy use, would apply to hybrid refrigeration products and cooled cabinets. The amendments DOE is considering adding to section 3 of Appendix A would consist of the following steps:

(1) The temperature controls for cellar compartments would be placed in the median position for a first test.

(2) The temperature control setting for the second test would depend on all of the measured compartment temperatures, including that of the cellar compartment. The setting would be warm for all compartments, including the cellar compartment, if the compartment temperatures measured for the first test are all below their standardized temperatures; otherwise, the temperature controls would all be set to their coldest settings.

(3) If all of the measured compartment temperatures are lower than their standardized temperatures for both tests, the energy use calculation would be based only on the second test.

(4) If the measured compartment temperature of any compartment is warmer than its standardized temperatures for a test with the controls in the cold setting, the energy use calculation would be based on cold- and warm-setting tests, subject to specific restrictions based on compartment temperatures, measured energy use, except that for non-compressor refrigeration products, the energy use calculation would be based only on the cold-setting test.

(5) If neither (3) nor (4) occur, the energy use calculation would be based on both tests.

(6) The test procedure would also allow an energy use rating to be based simply on the results of a single first test, if that test is conducted with the compartment temperature controls in their warmest setting, provided that the measured compartment temperatures are all cooler than their standardized temperatures.

For cellar compartments that are not part of cooled cabinets or hybrid refrigeration products, these requirements would not apply; as discussed in section III.F.3, the temperatures of such compartments would not be measured.

DOE proposes that the energy use calculations for cooled cabinets and hybrid refrigeration products be based on the measured cellar compartment temperatures (as well as the fresh food and/or freezer compartment temperatures for hybrid refrigeration products), using the measured cellar compartment temperature to calculate a weighted average energy use, as is done in the existing test procedures for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers (see Appendix A, section 6.2). For hybrid refrigeration products, the highest of the energy use calculations would be used as the product's energy use rating. In some cases, this would be the highest of three calculations, one each based on the measured freezer, fresh food, and cellar compartment temperatures.

DOE requests comment on these proposals for incorporating cellar compartment temperature measurements into the test procedure requirements for temperature control settings and the test selections to be used to calculate energy use for cooled cabinets and hybrid refrigeration products.

6. Volume Calculations

Existing test procedures for wine chillers prescribe capacity ratings that are based on volume (see for example, AHAM HRF-1-2008, section 4). The test procedures generally explain how to calculate the volume of a wine chiller. These instructions are the same as those used when calculating the volume of a refrigerator.

See, e.g.,

AHAM HRF-1-2008, section 4.1, and CSA C300-2008, section 4.1. In addition, the existing test procedures provide that the adjusted volume for wine chillers is equal to the total refrigerated volume. Similarly, these procedures indicate that the volume adjustment factor for wine chillers is equal to 1.0.

See, e.g.,

AHAM HRF-1-2008, section 6.3.5 and CSA C300-2008, sections 7.3.1 and 7.3.2. Consistent with this approach, DOE proposes to require that calculating the refrigerated volume of a cellar compartment be conducted the same way as for the refrigerated volume of a fresh food compartment. In calculating the adjusted volume of cooled cabinets, the volume adjustment factor for cellar compartments would be set equal to 1.0.

However, DOE proposes to apply a volume adjustment factor for those cellar compartments in refrigeration products that combine cellar compartments with other types of compartments to account for the warmer temperature and reduced thermal load of the cellar compartments. Similar to the determination of the volume adjustment factor for freezer compartments, DOE proposes to set a volume adjustment factor for cellar compartments based on the difference between the 55 °F standardized compartment temperature and the 90 °F ambient temperature required for testing. The adjustment factor is equal to the ratio between this difference for a compartment type and the temperature difference for a fresh food compartment. Hence, the volume adjustment factor for cellar compartments of hybrid products would be determined as follows.

EP16DE14.003

The adjustment factor would reduce the weighting of a cellar compartment in calculating the adjusted volume to account for its reduced thermal load, similar to the way the adjustment factors for freezer compartments increase the weighting of their volume in the calculation. DOE requests comments on the proposals for calculating cellar compartment volume and for using a volume adjustment factor of 1.0 for these compartments for cooled cabinets and a volume adjustment factor of 0.69 for other refrigeration products.

7. Convertible Compartments

The DOE test procedures have special requirements for compartments that are convertible between fresh food and freezer compartment temperature ranges. With the proposed amendments to account for cellar compartments, some compartments may also be convertible between fresh food and cellar compartment temperature ranges, or they may be convertible over all three temperature ranges (

i.e.,

cellar, fresh food, and freezer compartment temperatures). To address these possibilities, DOE proposes to modify the requirements for convertible compartments. The proposed changes would include establishing target temperature ranges in Appendix A, section 3.2.3 for convertible compartments that are appropriate for compartments that can achieve cellar compartment temperature ranges. The existing requirement that the convertible compartment be tested in its highest energy use position would not change, nor would the requirement that separate auxiliary convertible compartments be tested with the convertible compartment set as the compartment type (freezer, fresh food, or cellar) that represents the highest energy use position. DOE requests comments on these proposed test procedure changes to address compartments that are convertible between the cellar compartment temperature range and fresh food and/or freezer temperature range.

G. Test Procedures for Cooled Cabinets

1. Ambient Temperature and Usage Factor

The DOE test procedures require testing of refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers in an environmentally controlled room at 90 °F temperature conditions, with the cabinet doors kept closed to simulate operation in more typical room temperature conditions (72 °F (22.2 °C)) with door openings (see 10 CFR 430.23(a)(10)). The test procedures for freezers also require testing with closed doors in a 90 °F room, but the test procedures apply adjustment factors to the measurements of energy use during the test to adjust for average household usage (

see

Appendix B, section 5.2.1.1). The adjustment factors account for the overestimation of the impacts from door-openings and related thermal loads associated with the 90 °F test condition. Appendix B corrects for this overestimation by applying correction factors equal to 0.7 for chest freezers and 0.85 for upright freezers (see Appendix B, section 5.2.1.1). These correction factors acknowledge that the added load associated with door openings and other field use thermal loads are significantly less for freezers than for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, because the doors of products such as upright freezers and chest freezers are expected to be opened less frequently than the doors of a typical household refrigerator or refrigerator-freezer.

California initially established test procedures unique for wine chillers in its 2002 Appliance Efficiency Regulations. (Appliance Efficiency Regulations, California Energy Commission, P400-02-021F, Nov. 2002) These test procedures used a 55 °F standardized compartment temperature and a 0.85 adjustment factor. In material presented in the October 19, 2000 California workshop discussing the potential establishment of energy standards for wine chillers, Sub-Zero suggested using the 0.85 adjustment factor. Sub-Zero indicated that because the door opening frequency for wine chillers is much more similar to that of freezers than refrigerators, the 0.85 adjustment for upright freezers would be appropriate for wine chillers. (Comments Presented at the California Energy Commission October 19, 2000, Workshop, No. 1 at p. 10) California adopted this usage factor for wine chillers, and it was also adopted in wine chiller test procedures contained in AHAM HRF-1-2008 and CSA C300-08.

DOE considered adopting a test procedure for cooled cabinets using a 90 °F ambient temperature condition and a 0.85 usage factor. To investigate whether these would be appropriate parameters for the test procedure, DOE evaluated a limited amount of field energy use data for wine chillers and tested a number of wine chillers, including products using vapor-compression refrigeration systems and thermoelectric refrigeration systems.

9

9

Vapor-compression refrigeration systems use a compressor and condenser unit integrated into the product's cabinet assembly. This type of system is used for the vast majority of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.

DOE conducted field testing for two vapor-compression wine chillers. The test results for these products are summarized in Table III-3 below. DOE calculated the average annual field energy use by adjusting the energy use measured for the test period, which was several months in duration, multiplying by hours in a year and dividing by the number of hours in the test period. DOE used these field data to calculate the adjustment factor to apply to the laboratory test measurement to correctly predict the observed field test energy use. The field data suggest that the 0.85 adjustment factor is too high for wine chiller-type products, such as the cooled cabinets DOE is considering regulating.

Table III-3—Wine Chiller Field Test Data

Unit No.

Rated

energy use

(kWh/year)*

Laboratory

energy

consumption

(kWh/year, without 0.85 adjustment factor)**

Average field energy use

(kWh/year)

Field/

Laboratory

energy

consumption

ratio

1

368

433

181

0.42

2

320

376

144

0.38

* Ratings obtained from the California Energy Commission's Appliance Efficiency Database, available at

http://www.appliances.energy.ca.gov/AdvancedSearch.aspx.

** The laboratory energy consumption measurement without the 0.85 factor is calculated by dividing the rated energy use by 0.85.

DOE tested eight vapor-compression wine chillers, using a standardized temperature of 55 °F, with the products' light switches turned off. Each unit was tested at two ambient temperatures: 90 °F, the temperature that DOE is currently proposing, and 72 °F, a temperature selected to represent typical field usage conditions. This temperature had been selected as an appropriate one to represent room temperature in the waiver test procedure initially proposed by GE for refrigerator-freezers with variable anti-sweat heater controls. (73 FR 10425, 10427 (Feb. 27, 2008)). DOE's laboratory test data is presented in Table III-4. This data is presented without any adjustment for usage or other correctional factors.

Table III-4—Vapor-Compression Wine Chiller Laboratory Test Data

DOE sample number

Total

refrigerated

volume

(ft

3

)

72 °F ambient energy use

(kWh/year)

90 °F ambient energy use

(kWh/year)

Ratio of 72 °F & 90 °F

energy tests

1

1.7

120

238

0.50

2

5.9

165

375

0.43

3

5.7

225

564

0.40

4

5.4

106

268

0.40

5

5.9

134

315

0.42

6

5.9

85

189

0.45

7

15.4

238

423

0.56

8

17.3

224

430

0.53

Average

0.46

Note: Energy use is as measured, without multiplying by usage adjustment factors.

The table also presents the ratios between the energy use measured in 72 °F temperature conditions and the energy use measured in 90 °F conditions. These energy use ratios can be considered to represent the correction factors that would be appropriate to apply to measurements made in 90 °F temperature, in order to estimate energy use at 72 °F with no door openings. These ratios were determined to vary from 0.40 to 0.56, with a 0.46 average. If door openings for wine chillers are limited, and represent a modest load, a usage factor that accounts for not only the difference in ambient temperature between test and field conditions, but also for these door openings, would therefore likely be slightly higher than 0.46.

The usage factor of 0.85 currently adopted in existing wine chiller test procedures is based on the test procedure for upright freezers, and was initially suggested for use with wine chillers based on a claim that upright freezers and wine chillers had similar usage frequencies—specifically with respect to door openings. However, the elevated ambient temperature most likely does not have as significant of an effect on freezer energy consumption as it does on cooled cabinet energy consumption due to the higher standardized compartment temperature of the latter. Specifically, for a freezer compartment at 0 °F, the difference between the compartment and the ambient temperatures increases by 25 percent between 72 °F and 90 °F; whereas, for a wine chiller, this same elevation in ambient temperature represents a 106-percent increase in the temperature difference between the ambient and a compartment temperature of 55 °F. From this information, DOE tentatively concludes that the current test procedures for wine chillers overcompensate for added loads, and that the appropriate adjustment factor for a test conducted in a 90 °F condition should be significantly lower than 0.85.

Because of the precedent set by the California Energy Commission (CEC) and AHAM procedures for testing vapor-compression wine chillers in a 90 °F ambient condition, DOE proposes to use this same condition for its procedure for testing vapor-compression cooled cabinets. Unlike non-compressor refrigerators, discussed later in this section, vapor-compression wine chillers generally are able to maintain the 55 °F target temperature in a 90 °F ambient temperature test condition, so testing at this ambient temperature would be representative of their energy use. However, DOE proposes to use an adjustment factor of 0.55 for vapor-compression cooled cabinets. This factor is more consistent with the expected actual energy use of these products, based upon the laboratory and field data that DOE has obtained, than the 0.85 factor used in the current CEC, Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), and AHAM tests. Specifically, this 0.55 factor is based on the 0.46 ratio of measured energy use values observed between the closed-door energy test results in typical room conditions (72 °F) and the 90 °F ambient test condition, multiplied by the 1.2 usage factor representing additional loads (0.46 times 1.2 equals 0.55). This approach would be consistent with current testing for vapor-compression wine chillers, but would provide a more appropriate estimate of field energy use.

In the case of thermoelectric-based wine chillers, the available data present a less clear picture. DOE's laboratory test data for thermoelectric wine chillers is presented in Table III-5. DOE tested three thermoelectric products in both 72 °F and 90 °F ambient temperature conditions, using a 55 °F standardized temperature. The energy use results for both 72 °F and 90 °F ambient temperature conditions are presented without any adjustment factor. The results are for tests with the products' light switches turned off. The table presents the ratios between the energy use measured in 72 °F temperature conditions and the energy use measured in 90 °F conditions.

Table III-5—Thermoelectric Wine Chiller Laboratory Test Data

DOE sample number

Total

refrigerated

volume

(ft

3

)

72 °F Ambient energy use

(kWh/year)

90 °F Ambient energy use

(kWh/year)

Ratio of 72 °F & 90 °F

energy tests

1

0.6

118

485

0.24

2

1.1

366

647

0.57

3

2.3

553

552

1.00

Average

0.60

Notes: Energy use is as measured, without multiplying by usage adjustment factors.

The energy use of the thermoelectric wine chillers measured in 72 °F conditions increased in a fashion that is roughly consistent with the product volume. However, the same was not true for the tests conducted in 90 °F conditions. Test samples 1 and 3 were not able to maintain a 55 °F compartment temperature in 90 °F

ambient tests. For sample 1, the compartment temperature was 57 °F at both the cold and the median temperature control settings, and 66 °F for the warm setting, while for sample 3, the compartment temperature was 71 °F for any selected setting. The energy use of these products did not increase consistently with elevated ambient temperature because the thermoelectric refrigeration systems did not have sufficient refrigeration capacity to maintain a 55 °F compartment temperature. In contrast, Sample 2, which was able to maintain a compartment temperature of 55 °F in the 90 °F ambient condition while operating in the median temperature control setting, used the most energy. This unit has sufficient refrigeration system capacity to maintain the target temperature, which correspondingly caused its energy use to be higher.

The results show that testing these products in a 90 °F ambient temperature condition does not provide a representative indication of their energy use in typical field use conditions. This observation is also consistent with the varying field/laboratory energy use ratios exhibited for these products. Test sample 3 used no more energy in 90 °F testing than it did in 72 °F testing, which suggests that it was already operating at its maximum refrigeration capacity at the 72 °F ambient condition. The energy use of this product would be significantly underestimated by testing it in 90 °F temperature conditions and applying an appropriate adjustment factor. While a different usage adjustment factor could be chosen to provide a proper prediction of the unit's energy use in 72 °F field conditions, some products may have sufficient refrigeration system capacity for operation in 90 °F conditions, and such products would require a lower usage adjustment factors to accurately predict energy use in 72 °F conditions. In other words, based on these data, a single adjustment factor may not necessarily apply to all thermoelectric-based wine chiller units.

To address the problems noted above, DOE proposes that non-compressor cooled cabinets be tested with closed doors in a 72 °F ambient temperature, with an upward adjustment in the measured energy use to account for the added load associated with door openings. DOE does not have data that would provide direct evidence of the energy use impact associated with added field loads typical for wine chillers (or upright freezers, which are claimed to have usage similar to wine chillers) as compared to operation with doors closed in the same ambient conditions. However, DOE considered the 0.7 and 0.85 adjustment factors used for chest and upright freezers, respectively, and noted that the adjustment factor for upright freezers is 1.2 times the adjustment factor for chest freezers. DOE believes that chest freezers experience less frequent door openings than upright freezers, which is likely to yield a negligible impact on their energy use in the field. While DOE does not have data to support this view, DOE believes it is a reasonable assumption, one which leads to the conclusion that the ratio of 1.2 mentioned above would be an appropriate usage factor to represent the energy use impact associated with door-opening and related loads at the usage frequency typical of upright freezers, and, by extension, wine chillers. Hence, multiplying by 1.2 the energy use measured in a closed-door test in normal room temperature conditions,

i.e.,

72 °F, would provide a projection of typical field energy use for upright freezers or wine chillers. In the absence of additional data demonstrating the impact, DOE proposes to apply a 1.2 adjustment factor for testing thermoelectric and other non-compressor cooled cabinets tested with closed doors in a 72 °F ambient condition.

DOE requests comment on its proposals for ambient temperatures and usage adjustment factors for both vapor-compression and non-compressor cooled cabinets. DOE requests information regarding field energy use of wine chillers and other cooled cabinets which it could use to confirm or adjust the proposed adjustment factors.

2. Light Bulb Energy

Cooled cabinets such as wine chillers often have glass doors that permit consumers to display stored items and manually-operated lighting to illuminate these items for better viewing. The procedures under Appendices A and B provide that electrically-powered features not required for normal operation and that are manually-initiated and manually-terminated, must be set in their lowest energy use position during the energy test.

See, e.g.,

HRF-1-2008, section 5.5.2(e) (incorporated by reference in Appendix A). However, for wine chillers with manual light switches, CSA C300-08 requires two tests, one with the lights turned on and one with the lights turned off, and averaging the results. See CSA C300-08, section 5.3.7.1. In contrast, the CEC and AHAM tests do not provide instructions for light switches for testing wine chillers. Instead, these test procedures include or refer to language similar to that cited above, which indicates that such features should be set in their lowest energy use position for testing.

Field survey data collected by LBNL suggests that testing with the lights off would be more representative of field use than testing with the lights on or using the average of the results of tests conducted with the lights on and off. Specifically, the survey found that roughly 63 percent of respondents indicated that their wine chillers or beverage coolers had internal lights, and of these, 10 percent indicated that the lights are usually on compared with 90 percent who indicated that the lights are usually off. (U.S. Residential Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products: Results from Amazon Mechanical Turk Surveys, LBNL-6194E, No. 10 at pp. 43-44)

Because the survey data point to the limited use of interior lighting in these products, and the added test burden of conducting tests both with the lights switched on and off, DOE proposes to require that cooled cabinets be tested only with the light switches in their lowest energy use position, consistent with the test procedures for other refrigeration products and the wine chiller test procedures of the CEC and AHAM. DOE requests comment on this proposal.

H. Non-Compressor Refrigeration Products

1. Ambient Temperature for Non-Compressor Refrigerators

As discussed in section III.G.1, DOE is proposing to require that non-compressor cooled cabinets be tested in 72 °F ambient temperature conditions because testing in 90 °F conditions would not be representative of field energy use. However, DOE has concerns about adopting a similar approach for non-compressor refrigerators. Refrigerators are designed for storing perishable food items and must maintain their standardized compartment temperatures in 90 °F closed door testing conditions to ensure food safety. The 90 °F ambient test conditions are an accepted method for simulating the thermal loads on household refrigerators that would occur in more typical room temperature conditions with the expected door openings and insertion of warm food. This situation is in contrast to cooled cabinets, which are not expected to have a door opening frequency and usage pattern consistent with refrigerators. Consequently, DOE proposes that non-compressor refrigerators be tested in 90

°F ambient conditions, similar to conventional vapor-compression refrigerators. The usage factor for non-compressor refrigerators would also be consistent with vapor-compression refrigerators, equal to 1.0.

However, DOE notes that in its testing of products marketed as non-compressor refrigerators, none was able to maintain its internal compartment temperature within 9 °F of 39 °F, which is the standardized temperature for fresh food compartments in the DOE test procedure and the temperature cited in the definition for refrigerator in 10 CFR 430.2 as the storage temperature that these products must be able to achieve. However, unlike non-compressor cooled cabinets, non-compressor refrigerators would be expected to have a usage intensity (

i.e.,

added load associated with door openings and other factors) in the field that would push their refrigeration systems to work at full capacity. Similarly, such a product would be operating at full capacity in a test if its temperature controls are set in the coldest position and the compartment temperature is above 39 °F. Hence, DOE expects that testing thermoelectric or absorption-based “refrigerators” in a 90 °F ambient temperature condition would be representative of their energy use, and that the energy measured for the cold-setting test would be the appropriate measurement if the compartment temperature rises above the standardized temperature in this setting.

When measured compartment temperatures are warmer than the applicable standardized temperatures, Appendices A and B specify that product energy use cannot be rated. The previous test procedures in Appendices A1 and B1, which DOE proposes to remove from subpart B to 10 CFR part 430 in this notice, used an “extrapolation” approach to calculate energy use when compartment temperatures are warmer than their standardized temperatures in the cold setting (see, for example, Appendix A1, section 3.2.3). Extrapolation in this case means that the energy use is calculated for a compartment temperature that is not between the two compartment temperatures measured during the two tests. DOE has concerns about adopting the extrapolation approach for non-compressor refrigerators for two reasons. First, the compartment temperatures for these products, as shown in Table III-2, are much higher than the standardized temperature. Hence, the energy use calculated for the standardized temperature would be much higher than the highest level of energy use actually measured for the product. As discussed above, the product would be running at maximum capacity for the cold-setting test, and would not be expected to operate with higher energy use. Second, DOE testing of non-compressor refrigerators shows that these products often yield compartment temperatures during the cold- and warm-setting tests used in the extrapolation approach that are very close to each other, which can result in energy use calculated at the standardized temperature (see, for example, Appendix A1, section 6.2.1.2) that is unrealistically high or low, and sometimes negative. For these products, DOE believes that a more consistent result that is more representative of field energy use would be obtained by simply using the cold-setting test energy use measurement, rather than both sets of measurements.

Hence, to comply with EPCA requirements that test procedures be consistent with a representative average use cycle (see 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)), DOE proposes that non-compressor refrigerators be tested in a 90 °F ambient temperature, similar to refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, and that the test result be the energy use measured in the cold setting test if one or more compartment temperatures are warmer than their standardized temperature for this setting.

On the other hand, DOE recognizes that test measurements for non-compressor refrigerators for which the coldest compartment temperatures are far above the standardized temperatures would effectively be rated at a condition that theoretically should require less energy use than for operation at the standardized temperature. DOE may consider implementing an adjustment in the allowable maximum energy use for such products as part of the ongoing energy conservation standard rulemaking in order to compensate for this potential difference in measured energy use. In order to prepare for such a possibility, DOE proposes to require that certification reports for non-compressor refrigerators indicate the coldest fresh food compartment temperature achieved by the product in the cold setting during the test, if this is warmer than 39 °F. The reported value would be the average of the coldest compartment temperatures observed for the tests used as the basis for the certification. DOE proposes that this information would be part of the public product-specific information required to be reported for non-compressor refrigerators.

DOE seeks comment on its proposal to require testing of non-compressor refrigerators in 90 °F ambient temperature conditions, and to require that their energy use be calculated with a usage factor equal to 1.0. Further, DOE requests comment on its proposal to require reporting of the coldest fresh food compartment temperature achieved in the test if such a product cannot maintain an internal temperature of 39 °F or cooler during a test in 90 °F conditions. Finally, DOE requests comment on its potential consideration of adjustments to the energy conservation standards to be developed for non-compressor cooled cabinets that would address the reduced stringency of a test in which the compartment temperature is warmer than the standardized temperature.

2. Refrigeration System Cycles

The DOE test procedures for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers use test periods based on the operation of the component within the product that consumes the most energy—typically, the compressor.

See, e.g.,

Appendix A, section 4.1. The test procedures specifically require that the test periods comprise a whole number of complete “compressor cycles.” Applying a similar approach to non-compressor products, even though they do not have compressors and would instead have alternative refrigeration systems that may cycle to maintain compartment temperatures, would be based on similar reasoning—

i.e.,

to help capture the energy usage of the tested product by focusing on the most energy consumptive component. To ensure that non-compressor products have clear test procedure requirements, DOE proposes to indicate, in 10 CFR 430.23(cc)(8), that, in the context of non-compressor products, the term “compressor cycle” means a “refrigeration cycle” and that the term “compressor” refers to a “refrigeration system.” DOE views this as a simpler approach than establishing parallel identical test procedures for non-compressor products or inserting the term “or refrigeration system cycles for non-compressors products” in the existing test procedures where compressor cycles are discussed. DOE seeks comment on this proposal.

DOE notes that it recently modified its test procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers to more accurately measure the energy consumption of multiple-compressor products. See 79 FR 22320, 22325-22330 (April 21, 2014). DOE is also aware of non-compressor products that use multiple refrigeration systems. The recently promulgated test procedures for multiple-compressor products would also be suitable for application to products with multiple refrigeration

systems. Hence, DOE is proposing to apply these same procedures to non-compressor products if DOE establishes coverage over them. This step would require no further amendments in the test procedures, other than the proposed change discussed above (

i.e.,

modifying 10 CFR 430.23) that the term “compressor” would refer more generally to a “refrigeration system” when used in the context of testing non-compressor products.

I. Extrapolation for Refrigeration Products Other Than Non-Compressor Refrigerators

Section III.H.1 above discusses proposed test procedure requirements for non-compressor refrigerators, which generally do not maintain temperatures near fresh food compartment standardized temperatures when operating in 90 °F ambient temperature conditions. DOE proposes that their calculated energy use be calculated as the energy used during the test for the cold temperature setting. In contrast with this approach, the test procedures of Appendices A and B indicate that a product that fails to meet its standardized temperature in any compartment during a test cannot be rated, even if it otherwise would meet the definition of a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer in 10 CFR 430.2 based on operation at ambient conditions of typical consumer use. This approach was established by DOE an interim final rule published December 16, 2010. See 75 FR 78810, 78840-78842.

DOE considered whether to propose adopting the extrapolation approach that was previously used in Appendices A1 and B1 as a means for testing and rating such products. This approach involved calculating energy use for the product at the standardized temperature using the measured energy use and compartment temperatures for two tests, one conducted using the cold temperature control settings and the other using the warm temperature control settings. For this calculation, the compartment temperatures measured for both tests are warmer than the standardized temperature. The equations used for the calculations are found in section 6.2.1.2 of Appendix A for all-refrigerators and section 6.2.2.2 for refrigerators with freezer compartments or refrigerator-freezers—these equations are mathematically identical to those used when the standardized temperature falls between the compartment temperatures. As discussed in section III.H.1, DOE is concerned that in some cases the extrapolation approach can result in energy use measurements that are unrealistically high or low. In order to safeguard against this possibility, DOE proposes to restrict use of the extrapolation approach to tests in which the compartment temperature for the warm temperature setting is higher than the compartment temperature for the cold temperature setting, and the energy use measured for the warm setting is lower than the energy use measured for the cold setting.

DOE expects the proposed restriction to resolve potential issues for most refrigeration products that use vapor-compression refrigeration technology. For these products, DOE expects that the cold-setting compartment temperatures are unlikely to be significantly warmer than their standardized temperatures in cases that require use of the extrapolation approach—perhaps up to 5 °F higher, rather than the overshoot of 9 °F or more observed for non-compressor products, as discussed in section III.H.1. Further, DOE expects that the warm temperature control settings for these products will generally allow operation at compartment temperature more than 5 °F higher than the standardized temperature. Hence, the potential crossover of observed compartment temperatures (

i.e.,

measuring compartment temperature in the warm setting that is not higher than the temperature measured in the cold setting) would not likely occur for such products. There may be some vapor-compression refrigeration products for which such crossover does occur. However, DOE expects that few if any products with such characteristics are likely to exist. In such cases, a test procedure waiver would be required.

As discussed in section III.H.1, DOE notes that for non-compressor refrigerators, where the cold-setting compartment temperature is 9 °F or more higher than the standardized compartment temperature, the chance that the compartment temperatures are nearly the same for both cold and warm temperature control settings is much higher. DOE also notes that the very large deviation from typical operating compartment temperature for non-compressor refrigerators means that the measured energy use associated with extrapolation would not be representative of field energy use. Hence, while DOE is proposing to add the extrapolation approach to Appendices A and B for use with vapor-compression products, DOE is not proposing this approach for non-compressor refrigerators for the reasons noted above.

DOE requests comments on its proposal to adopt the extrapolation approach for measurement of energy use in Appendices A and B for refrigeration products other than non-compressor refrigerators, subject to the requirement that the measured warm-setting compartment temperature(s) must be warmer than the cold-setting compartment temperatures and that the measured energy use must be lower in the warm setting.

J. Hybrid Refrigeration Product Test Procedure Amendments

To adequately address the testing issues involved with assessing the energy usage of hybrid refrigeration products, DOE examined a number of factors. These factors included appropriate ambient temperatures, usage adjustment factors, standardized temperatures, temperature control settings, and energy use calculations. These different elements, along with DOE's proposals in addressing them, are discussed in detail below.

1. Ambient Temperature and Usage Factor

DOE proposes to require that hybrid refrigeration products be tested in 90 °F ambient temperature conditions. These products do not have the combination of characteristics that led DOE to consider an alternative ambient temperature for testing non-compressor cooled cabinets. Most hybrid refrigeration products have vapor-compression refrigeration systems that should have sufficient capacity to maintain the product's intended compartment temperatures in 90 °F ambient temperature conditions. Although DOE is not aware of any hybrid non-compressor products that can safely store food, such products (if developed) should reasonably be expected to maintain compartment temperatures at or below the 39 °F standardized temperature for fresh food compartments, even with elevated use that would be simulated with closed door operation in 90 °F ambient temperature conditions, as would be expected for the types of refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers that are currently covered. Consequently, DOE sees no reason to deviate from this specified test condition, which is currently used for all regulated consumer refrigeration products.

DOE also proposes a usage adjustment factor of 0.85 for hybrid refrigeration products. Because at least half of the refrigerated volume of these products is occupied by the cellar compartment, which is often for wine storage, DOE believes that the door opening frequency of these products would be

closer to that of wine chillers than refrigerators. As discussed in section III.G.1, a number of test procedures prescribe a usage adjustment factor of 0.85 for wine chillers. Although that section suggests that a lower adjustment factor than 0.85 may be more appropriate for cooled cabinets because of the differing impact of testing in 90 °F ambient temperature compared to testing of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, the same argument would not necessarily apply to hybrid products because a substantial portion of the refrigerated space of hybrid products would be dedicated to fresh food and/or freezer compartments. Because hybrid products include fresh food and or freezer compartments, using an elevated ambient temperature would not produce as dramatic an impact on energy use of a hybrid product compared to a cooled cabinet. Also, the refrigeration system of a hybrid product would generally be working to cool the coldest compartment in the product, while the warmer compartments would be cooled by transferring air from the cooler compartments, which means the refrigeration system operating efficiency (coefficient of performance, “COP”) of a hybrid product would be more typical of the refrigeration systems of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, or freezers than that of cooled cabinets. Hence, the COP trend while operating in an elevated ambient temperature environment for a hybrid refrigeration product should be more consistent with the COP behavior for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, than for cooled cabinets. These arguments suggest that the greater sensitivity to elevated ambient temperature for cooled cabinets would not necessarily apply to hybrid products. DOE does not have data indicating that a 0.85 usage adjustment factor would be inappropriate for hybrid refrigeration products. In the absence of such data, DOE proposes to use this factor for calculating energy use for hybrid products.

DOE seeks comments on its proposal to specify that hybrid refrigeration products be tested in 90 °F ambient temperature conditions, and that their energy use be calculated using a 0.85 usage adjustment factor.

2. Standardized Temperature, Temperature Control Settings, and Energy Use Calculations for Hybrid Refrigeration Products

Hybrid refrigeration products have cellar compartments, in addition to fresh food and/or freezer compartments. As discussed in section III.F.2, DOE proposes that 55 °F be used as the standardized temperature for cellar compartments. Consistent with this approach, this proposal would require testing of the cellar compartments found in hybrid refrigeration products using the same standardized temperature.

When testing hybrid refrigeration products, there may be two or three compartment temperatures to compare with standardized temperatures, including the cellar, fresh food, and freezer compartment temperatures. DOE proposes to require that the procedures for setting temperature controls and test selection be consistent with the current test procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers (

see, e.g.,

Appendix A, sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2), as described below:

(1) A first test would be conducted with all temperature controls set in their median position.

(2) If the measured compartment temperatures during the first test are all lower than the compartments' standardized temperatures, a second test would be conducted with all temperature controls set in their warmest positions. If the measured compartment temperatures for the second test are still lower than the compartments' standardized temperatures, the energy use would be calculated based on the results of the second test only. Otherwise, the energy use would be calculated based on the results of both tests.

(3) Conversely, if one or more of the measured compartment temperatures during the first test are warmer than the standardized temperature(s), the second test would be conducted with all temperature controls set in their coldest positions. If, for this second test, the measured compartment temperatures are all lower than the compartments' standardized temperatures, the results of both tests would be used to calculate the energy consumption. If one or more of the compartment temperatures are still warmer than the standardized temperatures, the energy use would be calculated based on cold- and warm-setting tests, subject to restrictions on measured compartment temperatures, measured energy use, and product status as a non-compressor refrigerator.

(4) Alternatively, the energy use could be calculated based on a single test conducted with all temperature controls set in their warmest position, if the measured compartment temperatures are all lower than their compartments' standardized temperatures.

DOE also proposes to calculate energy use in a manner consistent with the procedures currently specified in the test procedures for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers (

see, e.g.,

Appendix A, section 6.2). Specifically, if the compartment temperatures measured for a test conducted with all temperature controls set in their warmest positions are all lower than their compartments' standardized temperatures, the results of this test alone would be used to determine energy use. Also, if two tests were used to determine energy use as described above, a weighted average of the test results would first be determined based on each of the compartment temperatures individually. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix A, section 6.2.2.2. For hybrid refrigeration products, this calculation would be performed for the cellar compartment temperature as well as the fresh food and/or freezer compartment temperature. The rated energy use for the product would be based on the highest of the three calculations performed in this fashion, or the higher of the two calculations performed. DOE proposes to add a third table describing the temperature setting logic in section 3 of Appendix A. The table would describe the test sequence and the tests to be used for the energy use calculation, similar to the existing tables in this section, but for a generalized case in which the product may have one, two, or three compartments of different standardized temperatures. Also, DOE proposes to restructure section 3.2.1 for better clarity.

DOE requests comment on these proposed procedures for setting temperature controls, conducting tests, and calculating product energy consumption.

K. Ice Maker Test Procedure Amendments

In developing a means to reliably test the energy usage of ice makers, DOE is considering adding new provisions to its testing regulations. These provisions, which would be located in 10 CFR 430.23 and a new Appendix BB, would detail the testing, measuring, and calculation of energy usage of these products. DOE would also add a definition to describe the scope of those products that would be treated as ice makers. Additional detail regarding these provisions follows.

1. Establishment of New Paragraph 10 CFR 430.23(dd) and New Appendix BB for Ice Makers

DOE believes that testing ice makers would require a substantially different procedure from the approach proposed for refrigerator-freezers and freezers, products that DOE already regulates. In light of these differences, DOE proposes to add a new paragraph (dd) to 10 CFR 430.23 and a new Appendix BB to

contain the test procedures for ice makers. The new paragraph (dd) would explain how to calculate the annual energy consumption for ice makers, which would involve multiplying the daily average energy consumption by the number of days in a year (365). The new Appendix BB would describe how to measure ice maker energy use.

2. Definitions for Ice Makers

DOE proposes to add several new definitions to clarify components or characteristics of ice makers, as described below. Some of the definitions would be added to 10 CFR 430.2 while others would be added to a new section 1 within the new Appendix BB.

The definitions being proposed for 10 CFR 430.2 would distinguish among the different types of ice makers that DOE is considering addressing in a separate effort to evaluate potential energy conservation standards for these products. First, DOE proposes to distinguish between “batch-type” and “continuous-type” ice makers. The proposed definitions for these two ice maker categories are identical to those used in DOE's ACIM test procedure and are commonly understood in the industry: In the context of consumer ice makers, “batch-type ice maker” would mean an ice maker having alternate freezing and harvest periods, and “continuous-type ice maker” would mean an ice maker that continually freezes and harvests ice at the same time. Although most ice makers are batch-type, DOE is aware of at least one continuous-type product. (Continuous-Type Ice maker, No. 2) The operating characteristics of these products are sufficiently different to require different testing methods. Hence, distinguishing between the types is necessary in establishing the procedures that apply to a given model of ice maker.

Furthermore, the energy use characteristics of these two types of ice makers may be different, which may justify establishing different product classes. DOE may establish different product classes of a given category of product if they have performance-related features that justify a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B)) If DOE decides to propose separate product classes for batch-type and continuous-type ice makers, further discussion and an opportunity for comment would be provided in the appropriate rulemaking proceeding.

Second, DOE proposes to establish definitions to distinguish “cooled-storage” and “uncooled-storage” ice makers. DOE proposes to define a “cooled-storage ice maker” as an ice maker that maintains ice storage bin temperatures below 32 °F. A cooled-storage ice maker would be distinct from an “uncooled-storage ice maker,” which DOE proposes to define as an ice maker that does not maintain ice storage bin temperatures below 32 °F between periods of ice production. Such units often, but not always, have a drain connection to remove the melt water that collects in the bin.

Although the terms “cooled-storage ice maker” and “uncooled-storage ice maker” are not widely used in industry, DOE proposes to use them to distinguish between these two types of ice makers because they have different operating characteristics requiring unique test procedures. For example, cooled-storage ice makers consume energy after filling their ice storage bins with ice by operating their refrigeration systems to cool their ice storage bins and prevent the melting of ice. Consequently, cooled-storage ice makers only need to replace the ice removed by the user.

In contrast, uncooled-storage ice makers do not operate their refrigeration systems after filling their ice storage bins and may consume very little energy when they are not actively producing ice. However, because the ice in the bin melts, uncooled-storage ice makers need to replace the ice that melts in the uncooled ice storage bin in addition to replacing the ice that is removed by the user. Although the proposed test procedure has very similar provisions for measuring icemaking energy use for both of these types of ice makers, the proposal has different provisions for measuring the energy associated with ice storage. For cooled-storage ice makers, ice storage energy use comprises the energy required to maintain the ice storage bin at its below-freezing temperature, whereas for uncooled-storage ice makers, it comprises the energy required to replace melted ice. The differences between these products may extend to specific features, such as the production of different types of ice, and others that may affect energy usage, which may help justify the creation of separate product classes. Consequently, in DOE's view, the proposed definitions should help address these different operating characteristics and the potential that these products may constitute different product classes.

Finally, DOE proposes to define the term “portable ice maker” as an ice maker that does not require connection to a water supply and instead has one or more reservoirs that would be manually supplied with water. This style of ice maker is also generally small (Portable Ice Maker, No. 8); hence, both the lack of a fixed water connection and the small size of these units contribute to their portability. Not using a water supply represents a difference in operation of portable ice makers that requires differences in the test procedure as compared with procedures with water inlet connections. In addition, as described in section III.K.9, DOE proposes to apply an adjustment factor of 0.5 for portable ice makers to account for the likelihood that they would not be energized throughout the year, due to their portability.

DOE requests comments on the proposed definitions delineating different types of ice makers. DOE also seeks comment on whether there exists common industry terminology that would be more suitable for distinguishing cooled-storage and uncooled-storage ice makers.

DOE is also proposing to include a number of definitions as part of a new Appendix BB that would relate to icemaking and be used to describe the icemaking operation and the test procedures necessary to measure icemaking energy use. In particular, DOE is proposing to define the terms “harvest,” “harvest rate,” “ice hardness factor,” “ice storage bin,” “icemaking cycle,” and “replacement cycle.” Some of these definitions exist in similar forms in the test procedures for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, or in the test procedures for ACIM. With the exception of the proposed definition for “replacement cycle,” which DOE included to clarify the duration of the ice storage test period for uncooled-storage ice makers, these proposed definitions are all commonly understood in the industry. The proposed definitions for “harvest rate” and “ice hardness factor” are identical to those used in DOE's ACIM test procedure.

DOE requests comment on these proposed definitions.

3. Energy Use Metric for Ice Makers

DOE's regulations do not currently incorporate a test procedure for consumer ice makers. While DOE is aware that manufacturers are using the current ACIM test procedure (see 10 CFR part 431, subpart H) to represent the energy use of consumer ice makers, DOE is unaware of any procedure that has been specifically developed for these ice makers. DOE's research indicates that there is very little reporting of energy use information for consumer ice makers.

In developing the test procedures for ice makers, DOE considered its approach for ACIM (see 10 CFR

431.134) and the proposed approach for consumer refrigeration products with ice makers. 78 FR 41609 (July 10, 2013). The DOE test procedure for ACIM incorporates by reference the test procedures of AHRI Standard 810-2007 with Addendum 1, Performance Rating of Automatic Commercial Ice-Makers, March 2011 (“AHRI 810”), as well as ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009, Method of Testing Automatic Ice Makers, (including

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