[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3559-3579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1341]



========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
week.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 3559]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket No. EERE-2009-BT-TP-0003]
RIN 1904-AB92


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

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rulemaking amends the interim final rule for test 
procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, 
issued on December 16, 2010. Specifically, it amends test procedures at 
subpart B, appendices A and B, by incorporating changes to the interim 
final rule that will apply to all measurements of energy consumption of 
newly manufactured products starting September 15, 2014.
    These amendments modify the required test period for the second 
part of the test for products with cycling compressor systems and long-
time automatic defrost or variable defrost control and adjust the 
default values of maximum and minimum compressor run time for products 
with variable defrost. These changes will ensure a more accurate 
measurement of the energy use of products with variable defrost 
control.

DATES: The amendments are effective February 24, 2012 and are required 
to establish compliance with the applicable energy conservation 
standards starting on September 15, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The docket is available for review at regulations.gov, 
including Federal Register notices, framework documents, public meeting 
attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index 
may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from 
public disclosure.
    A link to the docket web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR%252BPR%252BN%252BO%252BSR;rpp=10;po=0;D=EERE-
2009-BT-TP-0003.
    This web page will contain a link to the docket for this rulemaking 
on the regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov web page will contain 
simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public 
comments, in the docket.
    For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. 
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: 
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Lucas Adin, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC 20585-0121, (202) 287-1317, email: Lucas.Adin@ee.doe.gov or Mr. 
Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 
GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 
586-8145, email: Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Background and Authority
II. Summary of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
    A. Products Covered by the Final Rule
    B. Compliance Dates for the Amended Test Procedures
    C. Test Procedure Amendments Incorporated in This Final Rule
    1. Default Values for CTL and CTM
    2. Modification of Long-Time and Variable Defrost Test Method To 
Fully Capture Energy Use for Temperature Recovery
    D. Other Issues
    1. Anti-Circumvention Language
    2. Refrigeration Products Designed for Sale With or Without 
Icemakers
    3. Wine Storage and Combination Wine Storage Products
    4. Multiple Compressor Systems
    5. Triangulation
    E. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements
    1. Test Burden
    2. Changes in Measured Energy Use
IV. Procedural Requirements
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
    M. Congressional Notification
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Background and Authority

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 
6291, et seq.; ``EPCA'' or, ``the Act'') sets forth a variety of 
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (All references to 
EPCA refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Independence 
and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), Public Law 110-140 (Dec. 19, 
2007)). Part B of title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309), which was 
subsequently redesignated as Part A for editorial reasons, establishes 
the ``Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than 
Automobiles.'' Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers 
(collectively referred to below as ``refrigeration products'') are all 
treated as ``covered products'' under this Part. (42 U.S.C. 6291(1)-(2) 
and 6292(a)(1)) Under the Act, this program consists essentially of 
three parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, and (3) Federal energy 
conservation standards. The testing requirements consist of test 
procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use (1) as the 
basis for certifying to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) that their 
products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards 
adopted under EPCA, and (2) for making representations about the 
efficiency of those products. Similarly, DOE must use these test 
requirements to determine whether the products comply with any relevant 
standards promulgated under EPCA.
    By way of background, the National Appliance Energy Conservation 
Act of 1987 (NAECA), Public Law 100-12,

[[Page 3560]]

amended EPCA by including, among other things, performance standards 
for refrigeration products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)) On November 17, 1989, 
DOE amended these performance standards for products manufactured on or 
after January 1, 1993. 54 FR 47916. DOE subsequently published a 
correction to revise these new standards for three product classes. 55 
FR 42845 (October 24, 1990). DOE again updated the performance 
standards for refrigeration products on April 28, 1997, for products 
manufactured on or after July 1, 2001. 62 FR 23102.
    EISA 2007 amended EPCA by requiring DOE to publish a final rule 
determining whether to amend the energy conservation standards for 
refrigeration products manufactured starting in 2014. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(b)(4)) Consistent with this requirement, DOE issued on September 
18, 2008, a framework document that outlined a series of issues related 
to its examination of potential amendments to the standards for 
refrigeration products. 73 FR 54089. On September 29, 2008, DOE held a 
public workshop to discuss the framework document and the issues it 
raised. The framework document identified several test procedure 
issues, including: (1) Compartment temperature changes; (2) modified 
volume calculation methods; (3) products that deactivate energy-using 
features during energy testing; (4) variable anti-sweat heaters; (5) 
references to the updated AHAM Standard HRF-1-2008, (``HRF-1-2008''), 
``Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances (2008),'' 
developed by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), 
including the ``Errata to Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating 
Appliances, Correction Sheet'' issued on November 17, 2009; (6) 
convertible compartments; and (7) harmonization with international test 
procedures. (``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Framework 
Document for Residential Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 
Freezers,'' RIN 1904-AB79, Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012). DOE 
conducted analyses and developed new energy conservation standards for 
refrigeration products that led to the eventual publication of the 
final rule adopting new energy conservation standards for refrigeration 
products manufactured starting September 15, 2014. See 76 FR 59516 
(Sept. 15, 2011) (``standards final rule'') and 76 FR 70865 (Nov. 16, 
2011) (date correction notice).
    DOE initiated the test procedure rulemaking in part to address the 
issues identified in the framework document, and published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking on May 27, 2010, hereafter referred to as ``the 
NOPR.'' 75 FR 29824. In response to issue (3) above, as applied to 
automatic icemakers, DOE separately published a guidance document 
addressing various aspects related to the icemaker, including the 
proper manner in which to render an icemaker inoperative for the energy 
consumption test. See 75 FR 2122 (Jan. 14, 2010). DOE held a public 
meeting to discuss the NOPR proposals on June 22, 2010 and subsequently 
published the combined final/interim-final rule on December 16, 2010. 
75 FR 78810. The final rule (or ``December 2010 final rule'') 
implemented test procedure amendments applicable to products 
manufactured before the effective date of the new energy conservation 
standards that DOE had been considering, and the interim final rule (or 
``interim final rule'') implemented on an interim basis test procedure 
amendments applicable to products subject to the new energy 
conservation standards--i.e., those products manufactured starting 
September 15, 2014. Id. DOE adopted this split approach in response to 
industry requests to provide an additional opportunity to comment on 
final aspects related to the interim final rule. Id. at 78845.

General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process

    Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures 
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for 
covered products. EPCA provides in relevant part that ``[a]ny test 
procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably 
designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, 
energy use * * * or estimated annual operating cost of a covered 
product during a representative average use cycle or period of use, as 
determined by the Secretary [of Energy], and shall not be unduly 
burdensome to conduct.'' (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
    In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is 
warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the 
public an opportunity to present oral and written comments. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(b)(2)) When considering amending a test procedure, DOE must 
determine ``to what extent, if any, the proposed test procedure would 
alter the * * * measured energy use * * * of any covered product as 
determined under the existing test procedure.'' (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) 
If DOE determines that the amended test procedure would alter the 
measured energy use of a covered product, DOE must also amend the 
applicable energy conservation standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(e)(2))
    With respect to today's rulemaking, DOE has determined that none of 
the amendments adopted in this final rule notice is likely to 
significantly change the measured energy use of refrigeration products 
when compared to the test procedure set forth in the interim final 
rule. In such situations, EPCA does not require a standards rulemaking 
to address such changes in measured energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(e)(2)).
    Today's rule also fulfills DOE's obligation to periodically review 
its test procedures under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A). DOE anticipates that 
its next evaluation of this test procedure will occur in a manner 
consistent with the timeline set out in this provision.

Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers

    DOE's test procedures for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers 
are found at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices A1 (currently in 
effect) and A (required for rating of products starting September 15, 
2014). DOE initially established its test procedures for refrigerators 
and refrigerator-freezers in a final rule published in the Federal 
Register on September 14, 1977. 42 FR 46140. Industry representatives 
viewed these test procedures as too complex and eventually developed 
alternative test procedures in conjunction with AHAM that were 
incorporated into the 1979 version of HRF-1, ``Household Refrigerators, 
Combination Refrigerator-Freezers, and Household Freezers'' (HRF-1-
1979). Using this industry-created test procedure, DOE revised its test 
procedures on August 10, 1982. 47 FR 34517. On August 31, 1989, DOE 
published a final rule establishing test procedures for variable 
defrost control (a control type in which the time interval between 
successive defrost cycles is determined by operating conditions 
indicating the need for defrost rather than by compressor run time), 
dual compressor refrigerator-freezers, and freezers equipped with 
``quick-freeze'' (a manually-initiated feature that bypasses the 
thermostat and runs the compressor continuously until terminated). 54 
FR 36238. DOE amended the test procedures again on March 7, 2003, by 
modifying the test period used for products equipped with long-time 
automatic defrost (a control type in which defrost cycles are separated 
by 14 hours or more of compressor run time) or variable defrost. 68 FR 
10957. The test procedures include provisions for determining the 
annual energy use in

[[Page 3561]]

kilowatt-hours (kWh) and the accompanying annual operating costs.
    DOE further amended the test procedures on December 16, 2010. 75 FR 
78810. These amendments helped clarify how to test products for 
compliance with the applicable standards. The amendments clarified 
certain elements in Appendix A1 to ensure that regulated entities fully 
understand how to apply and implement the test procedure. These changes 
included clarifying how refrigeration products equipped with special 
compartments and/or more than one fresh food compartment or more than 
one freezer compartment should be tested. The amendments also accounted 
for the various waivers granted by DOE, specifically with regard to 
variable anti-sweat heater controls. The final rule also modified the 
regulatory definition of ``electric refrigerator-freezer'' to require 
that storage temperatures in the fresh food compartment be at a level 
that would effectively exclude coverage of combination wine storage-
freezer products. See 10 CFR 430.2. The definition for ``electric 
refrigerator'' was also changed to clarify the characteristics that 
distinguish it from related products such as wine storage products. DOE 
is considering modifying its product definitions to address wine 
storage products in a separate future rulemaking.
    In that same notice, DOE also established a new Appendix A, via an 
interim final rule. The new Appendix A included a number of 
comprehensive changes to help improve the measurement of energy 
consumption of refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. These changes 
included, among other things: (1) New compartment temperatures and 
volume adjustment factors, (2) new methods for measuring compartment 
volumes, (3) a modification of the long-time automatic defrost test 
procedure to ensure that the test procedure measures all energy use 
associated with the defrost function, and (4) test procedures for 
products with a single compressor and multiple evaporators with 
separate active defrost cycles. DOE noted that the compartment 
temperature changes introduced by Appendix A would significantly impact 
the measured energy use and affect the calculated adjusted volume and 
energy factor (i.e. adjusted volume divided by energy use) values. 
Lastly, the interim final rule also addressed icemaking energy use by 
including a fixed value for manufacturers to add when calculating the 
energy consumption of those products equipped with an automatic 
icemaker. DOE may consider revising this approach once a more 
appropriate means of accounting for this feature's energy consumption 
is developed.

Freezers

    DOE's test procedures for freezers are found at 10 CFR part 430, 
subpart B, appendices B1 (currently in effect) and B (required for the 
rating of products starting in 2014). DOE established its test 
procedures for freezers in a final rule published in the Federal 
Register on September 14, 1977. 42 FR 46140. As with DOE's test 
procedures for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, industry 
representatives viewed the freezer test procedures as too complex and 
worked with AHAM to develop alternative test procedures, which were 
incorporated into the 1979 version of HRF-1. DOE revised its test 
procedures for freezers based on this AHAM standard on August 10, 1982. 
47 FR 34517. The subsequent August 31, 1989 final rule established test 
procedures for freezers with variable defrost control and freezers with 
the quick-freeze feature. 54 FR 36238. A subsequent amendment occurred 
to correct that rule's effective date. 54 FR 38788 (Sept. 20, 1989). 
The current test procedures include provisions for determining the 
annual energy use in kWh and annual electrical operating costs for 
freezers.
    The December 16, 2010 notice also clarified compliance testing 
requirements for freezers under Appendix B1 and created a new Appendix 
B, the latter of which would apply in 2014. That new procedure changed 
a number of aspects to the procedure detailed in Appendix B1, 
including, among other things: (1) The freezer volume adjustment 
factor, (2) methods for measuring compartment volumes, and (3) the 
long-time automatic defrost test procedure. In addition, Appendix B 
also addresses icemaking energy use by implementing the same procedure 
as for refrigerator-freezers in which a fixed energy use value is 
applied when calculating the energy consumption of freezers with 
automatic icemakers.

Finalization of the Test Procedure Rulemaking for Products Manufactured 
Starting in 2014

    The interim final rule established comprehensive changes to the 
manner in which the test procedures are conducted by creating new 
Appendices A and B. In addition to the changes discussed above, these 
appendices incorporate the recent changes made to Appendices A1 and B1. 
These new appendices also incorporate the modifications to Appendices 
A1 and B1 that were finalized and adopted on December 16, 2010.
    DOE had provided an initial comment period on the interim final 
rule that ended on February 14, 2011. DOE subsequently reopened the 
comment period on September 15, 2011 (76 FR 57612) to allow further 
public feedback in response to the promulgation of the final energy 
conservation standards that were published on the same day. 76 FR 
57516. DOE reopened the comment period to permit interested parties to 
comment on the interplay between the test procedure and the energy 
conservation standards in order to permit DOE to make any final changes 
that may be needed to the final test procedure for products that will 
be manufactured starting in 2014. 76 FR 57612-57613 (Sept. 15, 2011). 
The comment period ended on October 17, 2011.
    Three stakeholders submitted comments in response to both 
supplemental comment periods that DOE provided for additional 
feedback--the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), Sub 
Zero-Wolf, Inc. (Sub Zero), and Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool). 
Table I.1 below identifies these commenters and their affiliation. No 
other comments were received.

  Table I.1--Stakeholders That Submitted Comments on the Interim Final
                                  Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Name                        Acronym             Type*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Association of Home Appliance       AHAM.................  IR
 Manufacturers.
Sub Zero-Wolf, Inc................  Sub Zero.............  M
Whirlpool Corporation.............  Whirlpool............  M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* IR: Industry Representative; M: Manufacturer.

    DOE also considered comments related to a petition for a test 
procedure waiver (RF-018, Samsung) that had a direct bearing on 
elements of the test procedures used in Appendix A. See 76 FR 16760 
(March 25, 2011).

II. Summary of the Final Rule

    Today's rulemaking finalizes the test procedures that manufacturers 
must follow when certifying basic models as compliant with the new 
energy conservation standards starting in 2014. In finalizing these 
procedures, DOE made minor changes to the procedure laid out in the 
December 2010 interim final rule to account for comments from 
interested parties. The changes will not result in a significant change 
in measured energy use when compared to

[[Page 3562]]

the procedure detailed in the interim final rule. The December 2010 
amendments for Appendices A1 and B1 are unchanged by today's rulemaking 
and continue to apply to products manufactured through September 14, 
2014. (Those aspects of the December 2010 notice were not reopened for 
comment as they were not part of the interim final rule. 75 FR at 
78813-78815 (Dec. 16, 2010).) In addition, other amendments made in the 
December 2010 final rule, including modified definitions, anti-
circumvention language, applying the anti-sweat heater switch credit to 
energy use measurements, and rounding off energy test results also were 
not part of the interim final rule and were not reopened for comment. 
Accordingly, these aspects of the December 2010 notice remain 
unchanged.
    Today's rulemaking makes a series of changes that include (a) 
modifying the default values of CTL and CTM, 
parameters, which represent the minimum and maximum compressor run time 
between defrosts, for products with variable defrost that do not have 
values for these parameters specified in their control algorithms, and 
(b) modifying the test period for products with cycling compressors and 
long-time or variable defrost to ensure the procedure accurately 
captures energy use associated with temperature recovery after defrost. 
The rulemaking also makes changes to clarify how to apply the second 
part of the test for products with long-time or variable defrost.

III. Discussion

    The following section discusses in further detail the various 
issues addressed by today's rulemaking. These issues center chiefly on 
issues raised in commenter submissions. Section A identifies the 
products covered by the rule; section B specifies the compliance dates 
for the test procedure amendments made; section C discusses the test 
procedure amendments; and section D discusses stakeholder comments not 
associated with new amendments.

A. Products Covered by the Final Rule

    Today's amendments cover those products that meet the definitions 
for refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer, as codified in 10 
CFR 430.2. The definitions for refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer 
were amended in the December 2010 final rule on December 16, 2010. 75 
FR 78810, 78817.
    Today's rulemaking does not change any of the definitions for 
refrigeration products that DOE amended as part of the December 2010 
final rule. While DOE appreciates the concerns raised by commenters, 
these particular issues were not completely vetted through the 
rulemaking process. DOE may, however, revisit and more closely examine 
these issues as part of a future rulemaking activity. Section D.3 
discusses the comments related to wine storage and wine storage 
combination products, including the amended definitions for 
refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer.

B. Compliance Dates for the Amended Test Procedures

    Manufacturers will need to use new Appendices A and B to rate 
refrigeration products once they are required to comply with the 
amended energy conservation standards--i.e. September 15, 2014. 
Likewise, Appendices A and B will be mandatory for representations 
regarding energy use or operating cost of these products starting on 
that date.

C. Test Procedure Amendments Incorporated in This Final Rule

    Today's rulemaking finalizes Appendices A and B, with some 
amendments. These amendments are described in greater detail below.
1. Default Values for CTL and CTM
    Refrigeration products with variable defrost vary the frequency of 
defrost by reducing this frequency to save energy when the frost 
accumulation rate on the evaporator drops--such as when the number of 
door openings is reduced or when ambient humidity is low. Defrost 
frequency is characterized by the compressor run time between defrosts, 
CT, which is expressed in the test procedure in hours rounded to the 
nearest tenth of an hour. Variable defrost control algorithms vary CT 
as the defrost need changes. These algorithms may specify a minimum CT 
value (CTL) and a maximum CT value (CTM), 
consistent with the minimum and maximum defrost frequencies required 
for specific products to provide reliable defrost performance while 
minimizing energy use. The DOE test procedure calculates the energy use 
of variable defrost products using a weighted average of the 
algorithm's CTL and CTM. See 75 FR at 78857, 
78865 (Dec. 16, 2010) (detailing requirements of section 5.2.1.3 of new 
Appendix A and existing Appendix A1, respectively). To address those 
products that may have control algorithms that do not use specific 
maximum and minimum values for the compressor run time between defrost 
cycles, the test procedure specifies a CTL value of 12 hours 
and a CTM value of 84 hours. See id. These values remained 
the same for both Appendix A1 (final rule) and Appendix A (interim 
final rule).
    AHAM argued that the default CTL and CTM 
values for the variable defrost control algorithm should be changed to 
6 and 96 hours in order to maintain consistency with HRF-1-2008. (AHAM, 
No. 39 at p. 5) AHAM did not provide any supporting data to show that 
these values would be more representative of the operation of 
refrigeration products with variable defrost control algorithms without 
specific CT values, nor did it provide any justification for the change 
other than to maintain consistency with HRF-1-2008.
    In light of AHAM's comments, DOE reviewed the certification data 
submitted by refrigeration product manufacturers in August 2011 and 
specifically examined the submissions of those products with variable 
defrost to determine the prevalence of different values for 
CTL and CTM. DOE also investigated whether the 
certification data showed any evidence of products without specified CT 
values, since these would be the products whose energy use measurement 
would be affected by the change suggested by AHAM. Of 2,674 records in 
the database, 1,397 products were identified as having variable 
defrost. None of the records for these products included undeclared 
values for CTL and CTM. Table III.1 below shows 
the default CTL and CTM values of the current 
test procedure and of HRF-1-2008. It also shows the average, mean, and 
most prevalent values for CTL and CTM gleaned 
from available certification records. For each of these CTL 
and CTM combinations, the calculated CT value is also 
presented. The summary table shows that neither the 12 and 84 default 
values nor the AHAM-suggested values of 6 and 96 provide an exact 
representation of the products in the database. However, the data below 
also suggest that using 6 and 96 as default values more closely 
approximates the recorded values of those refrigeration products from 
the database than 12 and 84.

[[Page 3563]]



                                     Table III.1--Values of CTL, CTM and CT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   CTL               CTM               CT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current DOE Test Procedure Default........................              12.0              84.0              38.2
HRF-1-2008 Default........................................               6.0              96.0              24.0
Database Average..........................................               8.0              82.3             *28.8
Database Median...........................................               8.0              96.0              30.0
Database Most Prevalent Values............................               8.0              96.0              30.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This is the CT calculated using the average CTM and CTL values. The average of the CT values calculated
  individually for each database record is 28.2.

    Further, the use of the default CTL and CTM 
values is prescribed for those products that do not have specific 
values for these parameters in the product's control algorithm. Since 
the algorithm for such a product presumably does not explicitly set a 
minimum value for this time period, it is conceivable that the 
compressor run time between defrosts could at times be lower than the 6 
hours specified in the test procedure as a minimum for CTL 
(see section 5.2.1.3 of Appendix A1 or A). When operating in this mode, 
such a product would be using more energy for defrost than would a 
product with an algorithm-defined CTL of 6 hours, due to the 
higher defrost frequency. Hence, DOE concludes that to ensure that the 
test procedure provides a conservative estimate of energy use 
associated with defrost (i.e. at least as high as the actual energy 
use), it is reasonable to require use of a lower default CTL 
value when calculating energy use for products that do not have 
algorithm-specified CTL values. For this reason, because the 
HRF-1-2008 default values are more representative of the refrigeration 
products in the database than the current default values, and in order 
to maintain consistency with this industry standard, DOE is changing 
the default values to 6 and 96 in this final rule. This change is being 
made for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers in both 
Appendices A and B.
2. Modification of Long-Time and Variable Defrost Test Method To Fully 
Capture Energy Use for Temperature Recovery
Background
    The interim final rule amended the test procedure for products with 
long-time and variable defrost by modifying the second part of the test 
to better capture energy use associated with precooling and temperature 
recovery. 75 FR 78810, 78832-78836 (Dec. 16, 2010). A test procedure 
waiver petition submitted by Samsung (see 76 FR 17670 (March 25, 2011)) 
has raised the question of whether DOE should consider further changes 
to the second part of the test procedure for these products.
    As described in DOE's December 2010 notice, precooling involves 
cooling the compartment(s) of a refrigerator-freezer to temperatures 
significantly lower than the user-selected temperature settings prior 
to an automatic defrost cycle. Id. at 78832. The document also noted 
that the two-part test served as a means to reduce the burden on 
testing long-time and variable defrost products. Id. These products 
initiate defrost cycles after significantly longer periods of 
compressor run time than conventional automatic defrost products. Long-
time defrost products initiate defrost after more than 14 hours of 
compressor run time, and variable defrost products adjust defrost 
frequency based on whether defrost is needed, potentially delaying the 
next defrost up to 96 hours of compressor run time. The second part of 
the test measures the energy use consumed during a defrost cycle.
    The two-part test and procedures for the second part of the test 
were initially established in 1982. 47 FR 34521-34522 (Aug. 10, 1982). 
Since that time, more sophisticated controls have replaced the 
mechanical defrost timers that were generally used. 68 FR 10958 (March 
7, 2003). Consequently, the initial procedures for the second part of 
the test did not fully capture or consider the high level of 
sophistication that is now possible and made available with the use of 
modern electronic control systems. The defrost controls in use when the 
second part of the test was first established consisted of a mechanical 
defrost timer energized to advance when the compressor is energized. 
The initial two-part test specified that the second part starts when 
the heater energizes, which is coincident with the time the compressor 
turns off in a product using a mechanical timer control. 68 FR 10957-
10958 (March 7, 2003). The first adjustment of the test procedure 
considering the potential for more sophisticated control was made on 
March 7, 2003. This amendment of the test procedure revised the second 
part of the test to allow it to start when the compressor turns off 
prior to activation of the defrost heater, which is typical of an 
approach enabled by more sophisticated electronic controls. Id.
    The interim final rule made additional amendments to the second 
part of the test to address precooling, another defrost control feature 
requiring more sophisticated control than a mechanical timer. 75 FR 
78832-78836 (Dec. 16, 2010). The amendments also addressed partial 
temperature recovery, which refers to a case in which the compartment 
temperatures of a refrigerator partially recover, but do not reach, 
their steady-state operating temperatures. For the purposes of testing, 
a product is considered to reach a state of partial temperature 
recovery when compartment temperatures do not reach the steady-state 
operating temperature by the end of the second part of the test (as 
previously specified in the test procedure) after the rise in 
compartment temperature associated with defrost. The amendments 
require, for a system with a cycling compressor, that the average 
compartment temperatures for the compressor cycles occurring 
immediately before and after the test period for the second part of the 
test be within 0.5 [deg]F of the compartment temperature measured for 
the first part of the test. Under the interim final rule's procedure, 
the modified test period would start at the end of a compressor ``on'' 
cycle and end at the start of a compressor ``on'' cycle. Id. at 73885
Additional Issue Identified During Review of Samsung Waiver
    After publication of the interim final rule, an additional issue 
associated with the two-part test was raised during the agency's review 
of a test procedure waiver petition submitted by Samsung Electronics 
America, Inc. (Samsung). That petition sought a waiver from the current 
test requirements for the company's products that use dual evaporators. 
76 FR 16760 (March 25, 2011).\1\ These products use a variable

[[Page 3564]]

defrost strategy that employs multiple defrost cycle types, which the 
interim final rule's procedure addresses for products starting in 2014. 
75 FR at 78836-78838 (Dec. 16, 2010). DOE explained in the December 
2010 notice that Appendices A1 and B1 do not address such products and 
manufacturers seeking to certify these types of products as compliant 
prior to 2014 must first obtain a test procedure waiver to enable them 
to test these products. Id. at 78838. Samsung sought a waiver to permit 
the company to use the Appendix A procedures for products with multiple 
defrost cycle types when rating current products. 76 FR at 16763 (March 
25, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The evaporator is the component of a refrigeration system 
that cools the cabinet air. Most conventional refrigerators use a 
single evaporator that cools the freezer compartment, transferring 
cold freezer air to the fresh food compartment to cool the latter 
compartment. Samsung's dual evaporator approach uses separate 
evaporators in the freezer and fresh food compartments and does not 
exchange air between the compartments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Whirlpool commented in response to Samsung's waiver petition that 
applying the second part of the test to the fresh food defrost of one 
of these products results in an energy credit. (Whirlpool, Samsung 
Petition for Test Procedure Waiver, Case No. RF-018, Docket No. EERE-
2011-BT-WAV-0017, No. 4 at p. 3) \2\ Whirlpool's waiver comments 
discuss the data from testing performed by the Canadian Standards 
Association that examined the energy consumption of a Samsung model 
that uses multiple defrost cycles--Samsung model No. RFG297AAPN. 
Whirlpool asserts that the test results are illogical because the 
energy use contribution of the fresh food compartment defrost is 
negative (i.e. an energy credit), and adds that the energy use 
contribution of the freezer compartment defrost is underestimated. (Id. 
at p. 4) Whirlpool recommended that the test period for the second 
(defrost) part of the test for the fresh food defrost should end at the 
end of the second compressor ``on'' cycle after defrost, and that such 
a change to the test procedure only for the fresh food defrost would 
increase the measured energy use of the product by 1.6 percent. (Id. at 
pp. 5-6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Samsung waiver docket items have been consolidated and 
loaded into the docket for this refrigerator test procedure 
rulemaking, see ``Documents Related to Samsung Waiver--Case No. RF-
018, Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-WAV-0017'', No. 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Samsung's response to Whirlpool's comment pointed out that the 
potential energy credit issue had been raised by DOE in its test 
procedure NOPR public meeting on June 22, 2010. (Samsung, Samsung 
Petition for Test Procedure Waiver, Case No. RF-018, Docket No. EERE-
2011-BT-WAV-0017, No. 5 at p. 2) In its view, this issue had been 
presented by DOE for discussion and consideration by all interested 
parties--including Whirlpool. The company pointed out that the test 
procedure DOE ultimately selected had received the support of 
Whirlpool. Id. See also Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 6.
DOE's Previous Discussion Regarding the Appropriate End of the Test 
Period
    As indicated by Samsung, DOE raised this issue of Appendix A1's 
potential inability to capture all energy usage during defrost cycles 
when using the second (defrost) part of the test. (NOPR Public Meeting 
Presentation, No. 9 at p. 53) DOE recognized this possibility during 
its evaluation of the energy use associated with the fresh food 
compartment defrost of a Samsung product similar to the products 
addressed in the company's test procedure waiver request. That 
evaluation indicated that the calculated energy use contribution from 
the fresh food defrost was often negative, which resulted in an energy 
use ``credit''. DOE evaluated alternative test periods and concluded 
that more reasonable results are obtained when the test period ends at 
the end of a compressor cycle after the defrost cycle. (Id.) DOE sought 
comment during its public meeting to seek additional information on the 
issues associated with the long-time defrost test method that were 
presented. (Id. at p. 55)
    DOE's presentation also indicated that it projected that the impact 
on measured energy use of the test procedure change would be an 
increase of approximately 3 percent, if applied to both defrosts of the 
Samsung product that was the focus of the discussion. (Id. at p. 53) 
This 3 percent impact was determined based on moving the end of the 
test period for the second part of the test from the second compressor 
start after defrost to the second compressor stop. DOE again reviewed 
the same data and concluded that the test procedure change associated 
with this final rule would reduce this measured energy use differential 
by half (i.e. 1.5 percent). (``Summary of Energy Use Measurements for a 
Refrigerator-Freezer with two Defrost Cycle Types'', No. 46) The 
interim final rule test procedure applied to this product does not 
allow the second part of the test to end at the second compressor start 
after defrost, due to the requirement that the average temperature for 
the compressor cycle immediately following the test period be within 
0.5 [deg]F of the average temperature measured for the first part of 
the test. (See Appendix A, section 4.2.1.1) Hence, the impact on energy 
use measurement associated with test procedure changes to address the 
observed negative energy use measurement associated with fresh-food-
only defrost cycles depends on details of the compared test periods.
    Stakeholders generally supported the test procedure approach as 
proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR)--and as adopted in 
the interim final rule--and none suggested that the test period of the 
second part of the test should be changed to address the anomaly 
presented, i.e. that measurements for a specific product showed a 
negative energy use contribution associated with the fresh food 
defrost. Hence, DOE concluded that the anomaly was associated with an 
insignificant number of products and thus not generally significant to 
the test procedure for products tested using the two-part test. 
Consequently, in the interim final rule, DOE did not amend the end of 
the test period for the second part of the test to coincide with the 
end of a compressor ``on'' cycle (rather than the start of that cycle).
Comment Submitted in Response to the Reopening of the Comment Period
    After considering Whirlpool's waiver petition comments suggesting 
that DOE modify the second part of the test, DOE specifically requested 
comment on this topic when it reopened the interim final rule comment 
period. 76 FR 57613-57614 (Sept. 15, 2011). DOE received one comment on 
this topic, from Whirlpool, which suggested that the end of the second 
part of the test be moved so that it coincides with the end of a 
compressor ``on'' cycle. (Whirlpool, No. 44 at pp. 1-2) Whirlpool 
asserted that this change should be made for all defrosts, whether they 
are for fresh food compartments or freezer compartments.
    Whirlpool indicated that, for at least one product, the impact of 
this test procedure change on the measured energy use for a product 
having a separate defrost for the fresh food compartment would be an 
increase of approximately 3 percent. Although Whirlpool did not 
identify the manufacturer of that product, it mentioned that its 
concerns are an extension of those concerns it raised earlier in 
response to a waiver request made by a competitor--i.e. Samsung. The 3 
percent impact cited by Whirlpool matches the CSA data presented in 
Whirlpool's comments regarding the Samsung waiver petition: the waiver 
comments indicate that the tested product's energy use increases from 
572.5 kWh to 592.1 kWh per year (an increase of 3.4 percent) with the 
modified test procedure, i.e. when ending the second part of the test 
at the

[[Page 3565]]

end rather than the start of the second compressor ``on'' cycle after 
the defrost. (Whirlpool, Samsung Petition for Test Procedure Waiver, 
Case No. RF-018, Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-WAV-0017, No. 4 at p. 5) This 
projected impact on the measured energy use is consistent with DOE's 
own conclusions regarding Samsung products with multiple defrosts. See 
NOPR Public Meeting Presentation, No. 9 at p. 53. However, as discussed 
above, it overestimates the measurement impact associated with the 
amendments made in this final rule.
Assessment of the Suggested Test Period Modification
    Whirlpool's interim final rule comments provided little or no 
explanation of how and why the suggested test period will result in 
more accurate test results. Instead, the comments indicate that the 
``underlying principle when measuring the energy consumption of any 
product which operates in cycles is to measure from the same point in 
one cycle to the same point in a successor cycle,'' and assert that the 
test procedure of Appendix A measures from a compressor stop to a 
compressor start for products with cycling compressors. However, 
Whirlpool did not provide any explanation supporting the concept of 
measuring from a point in one cycle to the same point in a successor 
cycle. (Whirlpool, No. 44 at pp. 1-2) Nevertheless, Whirlpool's waiver 
comments note the unintended consequences associated with the negative 
energy use contribution measured for the fresh food defrost of the 
Samsung product when using the interim final rule's version of the 
Appendix A test period as demonstrating that the test period contained 
in the interim final rule is inappropriate. (Whirlpool, Samsung 
Petition for Test Procedure Waiver, Case No. RF-018, Docket No. EERE-
2011-BT-WAV-0017, No. 4 at p. 5)
    DOE had provided data in its NOPR public meeting presentation 
supporting the use of the modified test period, ending when the 
compressor stops. This situation was illustrated both for the fresh 
food defrost contribution alone and for the total defrost energy use 
contribution, including both fresh food and freezer compartment 
defrosts. The data showed that a test period that both starts and ends 
when the compressor stops matched the energy expended by the defrost 
heater during a fresh food defrost--and provided a closer match of 
energy use measured from one initiation of the combined defrost cycle 
(the defrost cycle involving both the fresh food and freezer 
compartments) to the next initiation of the combined defrost cycle than 
the Appendix A1 procedure. (NOPR Public Meeting Presentation, No. 9 at 
p. 53) More recently, DOE prepared an assessment demonstrating that a 
test period for the second part of the test both starting and ending at 
the end of a compressor ``on'' cycle is consistent with the full-cycle 
measurement specified for testing non-variable automatic defrost 
products. See (``Refrigerator Test Procedure: Adjustments to Second 
Part of Test'', No. 47) This document shows mathematically that a 
calculation of energy use using the ``section 4.2'' test period (``full 
test period'') matches the two-part calculation only when the second 
part of the test ends at the end of a compressor ``on'' cycle.
    Part of the justification for modifying the test procedure in the 
manner suggested by Whirlpool is based on the observation that when 
using the test period prescribed by the interim final rule, the average 
compartment temperature would be warmer at the end of the test period 
than at its start for a system with a cycling compressor. The interim 
final rule test procedure includes a provision to verify that the 
product does not employ partial recovery. Using this provision requires 
examining the full compressor cycle immediately after the test period 
to ensure that it is a regular compressor cycle, i.e. a compressor 
cycle associated with steady state operation. However, the test does 
not account for the additional temperature recovery associated with a 
regular compressor ``on'' cycle. The December 2010 notice indicates 
that the test period T2 starts when the compartment is at its typical 
minimum temperature associated with steady state cycling operation. 
This minimum temperature is represented by the lower horizontal line of 
the temperature plot in Figure 1 of Appendix A. 75 FR at 78855 (Dec. 
16, 2010) (see temperature plot of Figure 1, ``Long-time Automatic 
Defrost Diagram for Cycling Compressors'').
    On the other hand, the compartment temperature is at its typical 
steady-state cycling maximum (the higher horizontal line of the 
temperature plot) when test period T2 ends. Hence, while the 
compartment temperature has recovered to the range within which it 
varies during steady state operation, it has not recovered to the 
temperature state associated with the start of the test period--i.e. 
the temperature is warmer than at the start of the test period. In 
order to allow recovery to the start-of-test-period temperature, the 
test period would have to continue till the end of the compressor 
``on'' cycle. These arguments illustrate that the test period 
prescribed by the interim final rule for the second part of the test is 
unlikely to fully account for energy use associated with temperature 
recovery.
    DOE concludes that the test period for the second part of the test 
that is specified in the interim final rule for products with cycling 
compressors and long-time or variable defrost may not accurately 
represent energy use associated with defrost, which necessitates a 
change to enhance the accuracy of the measurement. DOE received no 
other comments on this topic. Hence, in light of this new information, 
and its own review, DOE is adopting the approach suggested by Whirlpool 
to help ensure the procedure in Appendix A provides a greater level of 
accuracy.
Four-Hour Time Limit
    DOE also considered whether to retain the four-hour time limit that 
the current test imposes on the second part of the test. This limit 
applies to the elapsed time after the defrost heater is energized.\3\ 
(See Appendix A section 4.2.1.1 or Figure 1) The four-hour limit 
terminates the test period when recovery from defrost and return to 
steady-state cycling operation takes an unusually long time. During its 
review of the test period for the second part of the test, DOE noticed 
that for some products, the extension of the test period associated 
with the test period revision recommended by Whirlpool led to a test 
period invoking the four-hour limit (i.e. the desired end of the test 
period was more than four hours later than activation of the defrost 
heater).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Note that the elapsed time after the defrost heater is 
energized is not the same as T2, since the test period generally 
starts prior to activation of the heater for testing in accordance 
with Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that modern data collection is performed almost 
exclusively using automated data acquisition systems. This approach to 
recording data significantly reduces the test burden that could 
potentially be associated with extending the test beyond the four-hour 
limit, allowing a product to fully complete its temperature recovery 
after defrost during testing. Test technicians do not need to observe 
product behavior during the test from minute to minute to ensure that 
data are recorded. Instead, technicians are more likely to periodically 
check the status of a given test once or twice a day to determine 
whether a defrost has occurred and whether the test period has been 
completed. With modern variable-defrost products, a full refrigerator 
test

[[Page 3566]]

can take a week to complete because of the duration of the time 
intervals between defrosts. The compressor run time between defrosts 
can last as long as 96 hours for variable defrost products (see 
Appendix A, section 5.2.1.3 regarding the maximum allowable duration 
for CTM, the maximum compressor run time between defrosts). 
At a typical compressor on-time of 50 percent, the time involved in 
waiting for a defrost cycle can be days. With the use of automated data 
acquisition equipment by test labs necessitating only periodic status 
checks, the need for 24-hour staffing for data recording has been 
effectively eliminated.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Personal communication, Detlef Westphalen of Navigant 
Consulting, Inc. with Terry Drew, CSA International, 12/5/11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the continued application of the four-hour limit is likely 
to reduce measurement accuracy, since the limit could cause a 
significant portion of the compressor ``on'' cycle to be dropped from 
the measurement.\5\ In light of the more advanced capabilities of 
testing labs and the operation of modern refrigeration products, DOE 
believes that the four-hour time limit of the second part of the test 
is obsolete as a means to limit test burden and may in fact prevent the 
accurate measurement of energy consumption of these products. Because 
of the impact of the four-hour time limit on test measurement accuracy, 
and because it is no longer needed to reduce test burden, DOE is 
eliminating this provision of the test procedure for Appendices A and B 
in this notice. Making this change will also fully address the 
potential problem identified by Whirlpool by eliminating any incentives 
by some manufacturers to exploit potential limitations presented by a 
procedure that artificially limits the overall testing duration without 
fully capturing that product's energy consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example, suppose the test period criteria for 
temperature recovery are met at the end of the third compressor 
``on'' cycle after the defrost, but the four hour limit ends the 
test period just after the start of the third compressor ``on'' 
cycle. In this case, a significant portion of compressor energy use 
is eliminated from the measurement for the second part of the test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recovery for Both Compartments of a Refrigerator or Refrigerator-
Freezer
    The interim final rule requirements for confirming that the second 
part of the test does not include events associated with precooling and 
temperature recovery provide a means to compare the temperatures of 
``the compartment'' measured during the first part of the test with the 
average temperatures of ``the compartment'' for compressor cycles 
preceding and following the second part of the test. (See Appendix A, 
section 4.2.1.1) The language does not specify which compartment must 
be evaluated in this fashion. In order to assure that the test 
procedure properly accounts for energy use associated with precooling 
and temperature recovery of the entire product, the language of section 
4 of Appendix A is modified to clarify that these requirements apply to 
both compartments (i.e. the freezer compartment and the fresh food 
compartment), regardless of which compartment's evaporator undergoes 
defrost. DOE is making this clarification to assure testing accuracy.
Modification of Figure 2 of Appendices A and B
    The interim final rule includes a figure for both Appendices A and 
B that illustrates the second part of the test for products with non-
cycling compressors. That figure, Figure 2, includes two horizontal 
lines in the temperature plot that have no meaning. In this final rule, 
these lines of Figure 2 have been removed. DOE is making this change to 
avoid confusion and to ensure the accuracy of the measured test 
results. This amendment represents no change to the specified test 
procedure.
Addition of Minor Edits for Clarification
    While reviewing the modified new sections 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.1.2 
incorporating the changes discussed above, DOE concluded that some 
minor adjustments to the language would be needed to clarify the test 
procedure and to ensure the overall consistency of the procedure. These 
adjustments include the following:
     In the first and second lines of both sections, changing 
``* * * the second part starts * * *'' to ``* * * the second part of 
the test starts * * *''.
     In section 4.2.1.1, changing ``* * * first part's 
temperature * * *'' to ``* * * average temperature for the first part 
of the test * * *''
    These changes are made in parallel sections to both Appendices A 
and B.
Impact of the Test Procedure Change on Measured Energy Use
    Whirlpool estimated that modifying the test procedure to address 
the observed negative energy use associated with fresh food compartment 
defrosts would increase the measured energy use of a tested 
competitor's product by 3 percent. (Whirlpool, No. 44 at p. 2) These 
results are consistent with the results DOE observed, as reported in 
the NOPR public meeting. (NOPR Public Meeting Presentation, No. 9 at p. 
53). However, as discussed above, DOE has re-examined the available 
data and now projects that the increase in energy use for such a 
product is only 1.5 percent applying the amended procedure made in this 
final rule. This latter estimate more accurately reflects the 
differences in the test period of the second part of the tests as 
represented by the interim final rule and today's final rule. 
(``Summary of Energy Use Measurements for a Refrigerator-Freezer with 
two Defrost Cycle Types'', No. 46) In addition, as discussed further 
below, DOE has determined that the impact of the test procedure change 
on energy use measurement for most affected products is near 1 percent. 
DOE also notes that the energy use impact of this change would apply 
only for those variable defrost products that use cycling compressors.
    To assess the potential impact on the measured energy use 
associated with the test procedure change suggested by Whirlpool, DOE 
reviewed the data it collected to support the test procedure's 
development and data collected as part of its compliance efforts. The 
analysis DOE conducted drew from two separate sets of test reports. The 
first set included tests conducted using the current test procedures of 
Appendix A1. For this set of tests, the applicable temperature settings 
did not permit one to calculate a weighted-average energy use at the 
Appendix A standardized compartment temperatures of 0 [deg]F for the 
freezer compartment, and 39 [deg]F for the fresh food compartment, 
because the measured compartment temperatures for the two tests 
conducted at different temperature control settings (i.e. median 
setting and either warmest or coldest settings prescribed in the 
temperature control setting requirements of Appendix A1, section 3) did 
not generally bound these standardized temperatures. The second set of 
tests, in contrast, included measurements at temperature settings 
allowing calculation of results consistent with the Appendix A 
standardized compartment temperatures. These tests involved the use of 
temperature control settings suitable for the Appendix A standardized 
temperatures.
    For the first set of tests, DOE evaluated the impact of the test 
procedure change only for the coldest compartment temperature setting 
used in the test, which was typically the median setting. The 
compartment temperatures of these tests fell within 3[deg]F of the 
Appendix A standardized temperatures. While this difference represents 
a deviation from the Appendix A test requirements, DOE still considers 
these results to be a good predictor of the expected operation of

[[Page 3567]]

these products under standardized compartment temperature conditions 
for two reasons--(1) the small size of the temperature deviations and 
(2) the measured data demonstrate that the influence of compartment 
temperature on the estimated impact of the test procedure change was 
negligible.
    The analysis focused on four key refrigerator-freezer product 
classes: class 3 (refrigerator-freezers--automatic defrost with top-
mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service), class 5 products 
without exception relief (refrigerator-freezers--automatic defrost with 
bottom-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service), class 5 
with exception relief to account for through-the-door ice service (for 
the purposes of this discussion, designated product class 5A under the 
recently promulgated standards for 2014), and class 7 (refrigerator-
freezers--automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-
door ice service). These product classes were chosen because they 
represent significant market share, have automatic defrost, and are the 
most likely products to have variable defrost, thus indicating that 
they would be more likely candidates to be tested using the two-part 
test. The assessment focused solely on products with cycling 
compressors and variable defrost, since the test procedure change does 
not affect energy use measurement for other products.
    DOE re-evaluated the test results for both sets of data using the 
modified test period for the second part of the test as described in 
this section, including both shifting the end of the test period to a 
compressor stop (rather than a compressor start) and removing the four-
hour time limit. Table III.2 summarizes the results of this assessment 
for both sets of data and does not include any data covering Samsung 
products. The average measurement impact for these 25 products is under 
1 percent.

                                    Table III.2--Measured Energy Use Increase
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  First set of tests                  Second set of tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Average energy                      Average energy
              Product class                Number of units     use impact      Number of units     use impact
                                                                (percent)                           (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.......................................                 6              0.99                 2              0.90
5.......................................                 2              1.05                 1              0.89
5A......................................                 3              1.08                 2              1.21
7.......................................                 6              0.73                 3              0.85
All Units...............................                17              0.92                 8              0.95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also separately evaluated data for six Samsung products falling 
into classes 5A and 7, for which the overall average measured impact 
was 1.55 percent. DOE believes that the reason for the greater 
sensitivity of Samsung products to this test procedure change as 
compared with other products is that these products have two defrosts 
(one combined defrost of both the freezer and fresh food compartment 
evaporators and one defrost of only the fresh food evaporator) 
occurring in the same amount of time that other products use one 
defrost.
Shipment-Weighted Impact of the Test Procedure Change on Measured 
Energy Use
    DOE developed estimates of shipment-weighted impacts on the 
measured energy use of the test procedure change for the four product 
classes highlighted in Table III.2. The test procedure amendments apply 
only to variable defrost products with cycling compressors. Table III.3 
summarizes the percentage of models with variable defrost for the 
evaluated refrigerator-freezer product classes as reported to DOE in 
August 2011 as part of the annual certification data submission. DOE 
used these percentages of basic models as a proxy for shipment-weighted 
average percentages. Because the certification data do not distinguish 
between cycling and non-cycling compressor systems, these percentages 
include both types and for that reason provide a conservative (i.e. 
larger) estimate regarding the market share of affected products. (As 
discussed above, only products with variable defrost and cycling 
compressors will be affected by the test procedure change.) The table 
also shows the market share of Samsung products by product class based 
on sales data purchased from the NPD Group\6\ for the years 2007 and 
2008. DOE calculated the shipment-weighted average impact of the test 
procedure change as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NPD Group, Inc. http://www.npd.com/corpServlet?nextpage=corp_welcome.html.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA12.009

    In this equation, SS is the Samsung market share and 
SV is the variable defrost market share. DOE assumed that 
the Samsung products all have variable defrost. Table III.3 shows the 
results of this calculation of weighted average energy use impact for 
the four product classes. The percentage impact varies from less than 
0.5 percent to just above 1 percent. From these projections, DOE 
concludes that the level of change in the measurement does not 
necessitate a change in the energy conservation standards, as discussed 
in section III.E.2.

[[Page 3568]]



                                          Table III.3--Weighted Impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Percent of
                                                              basic models    Percent  Samsung      Weighted
                       Product class                          with variable        products      average energy
                                                                 defrost                           use impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.........................................................                36                 0              0.36
5.........................................................                90                18              1.00
5A........................................................               100                24              1.13
7.........................................................                95                 6              0.98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Other Issues

    This section discusses comments made by stakeholders regarding 
items for which DOE has not made corresponding changes in the test 
procedure.
1. Anti-Circumvention Language
    In the December 2010 final rule, DOE added anti-circumvention 
language to 10 CFR 430.23, in section (a)(10) addressing refrigerators 
and refrigerator-freezers and in section (b)(7) addressing freezers. 75 
FR 78818-78820 (Dec. 16, 2010). AHAM commented that the anti-
circumvention language has significant differences as compared with the 
language of HRF-1-2008 and that the exact language of HRF-1-2008 should 
be adopted. (AHAM, No. 39 at p. 4) The language identified by AHAM 
appears in a section that provides general guidance for manufacturers 
to consider with respect to potential anti-circumvention issues. The 
specific language changes AHAM recommended include the following:
    1. ``Energy saving features that are designed to be activated by a 
lack of door openings shall not be functional during the energy test.'' 
should read ``Energy saving features that are designed to operate when 
there are no door openings for long periods of time shall not be 
functional during the energy test.''
    2. ``The defrost heater should not either function or turn off 
differently during the energy test than it would when operating in 
typical room conditions.'' should read ``The defrost heater shall not 
either function or turn off differently during the energy test than it 
would when operating in typical room conditions. Also, the product 
shall not recover differently during the defrost recovery period than 
it would in typical room conditions.''
    3. In ``Electric heaters that would normally operate at typical 
room conditions with door openings should also operate during the 
energy test.'' the ``should'' should be replaced with ``shall.''
    As noted earlier, amendments to 10 CFR 430.23 as part of the 
December 16, 2010 notice were made as part of the December 2010 final 
rule. These issues were not fully vetted as part of the re-opening 
notice, which focused on issues related to Appendices A and B. DOE 
notes, however, that it developed this limited guidance in reliance on 
the 2007 version of HRF-1. (Compare section HRF-1-2007, section 1.2 
with HRF-1-2008, section 1.2). Should DOE need to clarify the 
application of these conditions, it may do so in the future.
2. Refrigeration Products Designed for Sale With or Without Icemakers
    In the standards final rule, DOE discussed issues raised by AHAM 
regarding refrigeration products designed for sale with or without 
icemakers (``kitable models''). Such products may leave the factory 
with an icemaker installed, but could also leave the factory without an 
icemaker and instead have an icemaker installed downstream in the 
distribution chain, by the retailer, or even by a customer after 
purchase of the product. 76 FR at 57538 (Sept. 15, 2011). Icemakers can 
also be produced by third-party manufacturers separate from the 
refrigeration products' manufacturers. (For example, the third party 
brand Aquafresh is advertised as a replacement for all major icemaker 
brands. See ``Aquafresh RIM900 Ice Maker Information,'' No. 48 at p. 1) 
AHAM commented in response to the energy standards NOPR that kitable 
models should be treated as if they have the icemaker installed. (AHAM, 
Refrigeration Products Energy Conservation Standard Rulemaking, Docket 
Number EE-2008-BT-STD-0012, No. 73 at p. 6) DOE responded to these 
claims by noting that such products could be purchased either with or 
without the icemaker, that the field energy use for products without an 
icemaker would be less by the amount of energy use associated with 
icemaking (which is represented by a fixed value of 84 kWh in the 
interim final rule test procedure) and that better consistency with the 
test procedure would be established if such products were required to 
be certified both with and without the icemaker. 76 FR at 57538-57539 
(Sept. 15, 2011).
    AHAM strongly opposed the DOE approach and its comments to DOE 
stressed that the approach would create unnecessary burden and cost 
with no public benefit. AHAM cited the following reasons in support of 
its position:
     As far as AHAM is aware, manufacturers typically assign 
kitable models a single model number regardless of whether the icemaker 
is installed when the product leaves the factory. Requiring 
certification of the model with and without the icemaker might require 
establishing a second model number for each such product, which would 
represent a great cost to manufacturers.
     The approach is overly burdensome because it requires 
twice the test burden and twice as much reporting.
     Consumers that install an icemaker after purchase of a 
refrigerator would not be aware of the additional energy use associated 
with icemaking.
     If manufacturers maintain a single model number for the 
product with and without the icemaker, there might be confusion if 
consumers see two different energy use values indicated for the same 
model (i.e. one for the unit with the icemaker and one for the unit 
without the icemaker).
     The manufacturer may not have any control over whether an 
icemaker is installed in the unit after it leaves the factory, making 
it difficult to ensure that the correct energy label is included with 
the unit.
    AHAM's approach would be to treat kitable models as if they have an 
icemaker. Such an approach would ensure that a purchaser of a kitable 
model would receive a product that would have energy use no more than 
the rated value. This approach would also mean that there would be only 
one energy use value associated with each model number, and would avoid 
multiple testing and reporting. (AHAM, No. 43 at pp. 6-7)
    DOE is declining to adopt AHAM's approach within the context of 
today's notice.

[[Page 3569]]

    DOE acknowledges, however, that manufacturers may have no control 
of events occurring after a product leaves their factory, and, hence, 
may not know which label to ship with a product, if the label were 
required to accurately reflect whether the product has an icemaker 
installed. Further, although AHAM claims that this approach is 
burdensome, its claim that such products would have to be tested twice 
is incorrect--a single test would indicate product performance with and 
without the icemaker, because it would include a measurement of the 
product without an icemaker. Calculating the energy use for an 
icemaker-equipped product would be a matter of adding a fixed value to 
calculate this value, as specified by the Appendix A test procedure 
(see section 6.2.2.2). Additionally, AHAM did not quantify the burden 
involved. Without such quantification, or a meaningful explanation as 
to why a second set of tests would be needed, DOE has little 
information with which to judge the merits of AHAM's recommendations or 
its claims. DOE also notes that product labeling is the jurisdiction of 
the FTC and that any contents of those labels lie primarily within the 
province of that agency's rulemaking authority.
    Further, DOE notes that any approach eventually adopted for kitable 
models must ensure that both versions of the kitable model (i.e. sold 
either with or without the icemaker) meet their respective energy 
standards. DOE notes that this goal would automatically be achieved 
with the new standards and the new test procedures as represented by 
the September 2011 standards final rule and this test procedure final 
rule notice, since both the test procedure and the standards apply a 
fixed value of 84 kWh (to represent icemaker energy consumption) to the 
measured energy use of a product when configured without an icemaker--
this new value represents the energy use of an icemaker-equipped 
version of that product. This situation will likely change once a 
laboratory-based procedure is implemented for measuring icemaking 
energy use, as is contemplated in a future rulemaking. Consideration of 
an approach to address kitable models would, in all likelihood, be more 
appropriately addressed as part of a future rulemaking to decide 
whether to incorporate such a laboratory-based icemaking energy use 
measurement. DOE adds that the full rulemaking process would allow the 
issues associated with kitable models to be thoroughly considered and 
reviewed by stakeholders, thus ensuring that the adopted approach is 
vetted and acceptable to all affected parties. Accordingly, DOE is 
declining to adopt AHAM's suggestion.
3. Wine Storage and Combination Wine Storage Products
    This section addresses issues associated with wine storage products 
and combination wine storage products. The latter are refrigeration 
products combining wine storage with fresh food and/or freezer 
compartments.
Definitions for Refrigerator and Refrigerator-Freezer
    DOE amended the definitions for refrigerator and refrigerator-
freezer as part of the final rule published in the December 16, 2010 
notice. See 75 FR at 78817. The modified definitions did two things 
that the previous definitions did not. First, they clarified that 
products that combine freezer compartments with compartments not 
designed to be capable of 39 [deg]F storage temperature (but include no 
other types of compartments) are not refrigerator-freezers. Second, the 
definitions clarified the requirements for fresh food compartments of 
refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. Regarding this second item, 
the revised definitions clarified that a product is not necessarily 
disqualified from status as a refrigerator or refrigerator-freezer if 
its fresh food compartments can maintain average temperatures above 39 
[deg]F for some temperature control settings. Id.
    The amendments did not include language specifying that products 
incorporating wine storage compartments--for the purpose of this 
discussion, compartments that are not designed to be capable of 
maintaining storage temperatures below 39 [deg]F--in products that 
would otherwise be refrigerators or refrigerator-freezers under the 
definition would be treated as something other than these covered 
products. Id. at 78817. Wine chillers are typically designed to operate 
between 50 [deg]F and 60 [deg]F to ensure the proper storage 
temperature for bottled wine. DOE subsequently posted on its Web site a 
guidance document explaining its interpretation of the amended 
definitions. (``Guidance on Scope of Coverage for Hybrid (Wine Storage) 
Refrigeration Products Issued Feb. 10, 2011'', No. 49). The Guidance 
clarified DOE's interpretation of the definitions and explained that 
adding a wine storage compartment to a refrigerator or a refrigerator-
freezer does not change its status as a refrigerator or refrigerator-
freezer under the regulations.
    AHAM objected to this interpretation of the test procedure final 
rule definitions. (AHAM, No. 43 at pp. 4-5). It argued that DOE's 
interpretation is inequitable because it treats freezers differently 
than refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. AHAM also argued that the 
Guidance was, in its view, inconsistent with the separate rulemaking 
approach that DOE had indicated it was considering applying to wine 
chillers. AHAM argued further that establishing coverage through 
interpretation, which it believed was performed by the Guidance, was 
inappropriate, and stated that such steps should be taken only through 
the established rulemaking process.
    At the outset, DOE notes that these definitions were established as 
part of the December 2010 final rule. Because of the limited nature of 
the re-opening of the comment period, which focused on those issues 
related to the conduct of the test procedures detailed in Appendices A 
and B, these particular issues were not completely vetted through the 
rulemaking process. Hence, DOE may revisit and reconsider these issues 
as part of a future rulemaking activity.
    DOE further notes that AHAM does not contest the validity of the 
text of the definitions themselves but only how DOE may choose to apply 
these definitions to a small group of products that have yet to 
comprise any significant share of the overall refrigeration product 
market. DOE's research was able to identify only seven distinct 
products that are clearly part of this product group. (``Wine Storage 
Combination Products'', No. 50).
    With respect to the definitions, the coverage of refrigeration 
products has been clarified through guidance to help explain that 
products that meet a specific set of performance criteria would be 
treated as covered products. Any product meeting these criteria are 
subject to the regulations covering these products. These criteria were 
established through a lengthy notice and comment process associated 
with this test procedure rulemaking that began in May 2010 and on which 
manufacturers had ample opportunity to comment. DOE adds that, 
consistent with its prior statements, it fully intends to initiate a 
wine-chiller-specific rulemaking to address potential standards for 
these products.
    DOE also notes that there are some key technical differences 
between freezers and refrigerators/refrigerator-freezers. These 
differences require that different approaches be considered when 
deciding how to treat those refrigeration products that include a wine 
storage compartment. In particular, the standardized temperature

[[Page 3570]]

for a freezer is 0 [deg]F, while the standardized temperature for the 
fresh food compartment of a refrigerator-freezer is 45 [deg]F under 
current test procedures and 39 [deg]F under test procedures that 
manufacturers will need to use for compliance purposes in 2014. A wine 
storage compartment can be expected to approach a 45 [deg]F temperature 
during testing, but approaching 0 [deg]F would be extremely unlikely 
given the nature of the product--specifically, the technical 
requirements for designing a compartment of a product to achieve a 0 
[deg]F temperature differs significantly from those required to achieve 
the much higher temperature (39 [deg]F) needed for the safe storage of 
fresh food--or the even higher standardized temperature (45 [deg]F) 
required by the current test procedure during the testing of these 
products. These differences not only require different design 
considerations, but they also result in very different energy 
consumption characteristics.
    Moreover, the definitions for these three products (refrigerator, 
refrigerator-freezer, and freezer), which DOE adopted with full input 
from the public, including manufacturers, contain clear differences 
with respect to the inclusion of separate compartments. Both the 
refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer definitions explicitly 
contemplate the inclusion of compartments with more than one 
temperature range, while the freezer definition does not. See 10 CFR 
430.2. As a result, a freezer-wine chiller combination product does not 
fall squarely into any of these definitions. In contrast, a wine 
chiller combined with either a refrigerator or refrigerator-freezer 
would fall within the definitions for those two products. Treating 
these three products in the exact same manner as suggested by AHAM--
i.e., to exclude them from any coverage--would ignore these differences 
as well as the technical differences noted above. Accordingly, because 
of these differences, a freezer-wine chiller product should not be 
treated in the same manner as a refrigerator-wine chiller or 
refrigerator-freezer-wine chiller products.
    DOE recognizes, however, that some combination wine storage 
products may have characteristics that would make attempts at testing 
them with the wine storage compartment approaching 45 [deg]F provide 
non-representative results. For such products, manufacturers may still 
market such items by first petitioning DOE for an appropriate test 
procedure waiver. DOE highlighted this option when it issued its 
February 2011 Guidance. Also, in the case of those products that may be 
unable to comply with the applicable standards, manufacturers have the 
option of applying for exception relief with the Office of Hearings and 
Appeals. See 42 U.S.C. 7194 and 10 CFR part 1003.
Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Wine Chillers
    In the energy conservation standards NOPR (``standards NOPR''), and 
again in the standards final rule, DOE explained its interpretation 
that wine chillers are not covered products under the definition for 
electric refrigerator, and thus are not covered by the energy 
conservation standards for refrigeration products. 75 FR 59470, 59486 
(Sept. 27, 2010) and 76 FR 57516, 57534 (Sept. 15, 2011). As noted in 
the standards final rule, several stakeholders submitted comments 
favoring the regulation of wine chiller products. DOE noted that it may 
consider initiating a rulemaking to establish coverage and energy 
standards for these products. Id.
    In its comments on the interim final rule, AHAM reiterated its 
support for a rulemaking to regulate wine storage products, and 
indicated that such a rulemaking should include products in which wine 
storage compartments are combined with fresh food and/or freezer 
compartments. (AHAM, No. 43 at p. 4). Sub Zero requested that DOE 
conduct a comprehensive analysis, with full stakeholder input, leading 
to a Federal efficiency standard for all wine storage products and 
combination/hybrid that include wine chillers. (Sub Zero, No. 42 at p. 
2).
    Consistent with earlier statements, DOE will consider conducting 
rulemakings addressing coverage, test procedures, and energy 
conservation standards for wine chiller and related products. DOE has 
already taken an initial step in this process by publishing a coverage 
determination proposal to establish coverage for refrigeration products 
that do not have compressors and condensers integrated with their 
cabinets--many of which include wine chillers. 76 FR 69147 (Nov. 8, 
2011). Such products cannot be immediately covered under the authority 
granted to DOE by EPCA to regulate conventional refrigeration products, 
which necessitates a separate coverage determination to address these 
non-condenser/compressor products. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1)).
4. Multiple Compressor Systems
    In the test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to address certain 
inconsistencies in the test procedure for dual compressor systems. 75 
FR at 29841 (May 27, 2010). These systems have separate refrigeration 
systems serving the fresh food and freezer compartments. AHAM commented 
that DOE should simplify this test procedure and suggested an 
alternative test procedure addressing such products. (AHAM, No. 16 at 
p. 7). DOE explained that it could not adopt the AHAM proposal in the 
interim final rule because the AHAM procedure represents a significant 
departure from the proposal that was presented in the NOPR, and that 
stakeholders were not provided an adequate opportunity to comment on 
the procedure to allow its adoption. 75 FR at 78831 (Dec. 16, 2010). 
DOE noted, however, that it may consider this approach in a future 
rulemaking that would more fully revise the test procedure. See id.
    AHAM raised this issue in all three of its written comments 
submitted in response to the interim final rule. (AHAM, No. 39 at p. 4; 
AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 1-2; AHAM, No. 43 at pp. 2-3). AHAM's 
recommendations regarding how this test procedure should measure the 
energy consumption of multiple compressor-based systems has changed 
each time it has provided specific test procedure recommendations. See 
AHAM, No. 16 at p. 7 (Aug. 10, 2010), AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 1-2 (March 4, 
2011), and AHAM, No. 43 at pp. 2-3 (Oct. 17, 2011). In spite of its 
continually evolving position, AHAM urged DOE to modify the dual 
compressor test procedure because, in its view, the DOE test procedure 
contains specific problems that relate to its requirement that a 
manufacturer separately measure the energy use of the two separate 
systems.\7\ The group made two assertions in support of its view. 
First, AHAM argued that this requirement posed a significant test 
burden. Second, AHAM asserted that many dual compressor products do not 
work in the manner that the test procedure assumes they do--i.e. as 
separate independent systems. Instead, AHAM argued that many of these 
products use shared systems. (AHAM, No. 40 at p. 2). Sub-Zero supported 
the alternative approach incorporated in AHAM's October 17, 2011 
comments and asserted that it provided a practical, accurate, and 
repeatable test procedure that should be incorporated into the final 
rule.\8\ (Sub Zero, No. 42 at pp. 1-2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ DOE notes that the requirement for separate measurement of 
the two systems for dual compressor products is not new. It was 
initially established in the test procedure on August 31, 1989. 54 
FR 36238.
    \8\ Sub Zero's comments mention that they have submitted a 
petition for a test procedure waiver to obtain relief for their 
dual-compressor products from use of the current test procedure (see 
76 FR 71335 (Nov. 17, 2011)), which they claim are difficult or 
impossible to conduct. (Sub Zero, No. 44 at pp. 1-2). The waiver 
process is the appropriate step in addressing such products that 
cannot properly be tested using the DOE test procedures.

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

[[Page 3571]]

    AHAM added that Appendix A1 should be modified to include the 
revised test procedure for dual compressor system products it suggested 
that DOE adopt. (AHAM, No. 43 at p. 2).
    DOE notes that modifications to the Appendix A1 test procedure for 
dual compressor systems implemented in the December 16, 2010 notice 
were made as part of the final rule. Because of the limited nature of 
the reopening notice, which focused on issues related to Appendices A 
and B, these suggested changes to Appendix A1 were not fully vetted for 
consideration in this rulemaking.
    DOE further notes that the current procedure's requirement that 
each compressor system of a dual compressor system be separately 
measured was first established in 1989. See 54 FR 36238, 36241 (Aug. 
31, 1989). Manufacturers are, by now, very familiar with this procedure 
and how to most efficiently and accurately perform it. The issues that 
AHAM initially raised in its August 10, 2010, comments regarding the 
burden associated with this test (which AHAM did not detail) require 
additional consideration and a more fulsome evaluation. Additionally, 
the constantly changing nature of AHAM's recommended approach 
highlights the unsettled nature of that approach and underscores the 
complexity of this issue. In DOE's view, these facts tend to indicate 
that the adoption of any one of AHAM's three suggested alternatives 
would likely be premature, particularly without further public input. 
Hence, DOE is declining to adopt any of AHAM's suggestions at this 
time.
    DOE notes that AHAM did not indicate that its approach will be 
applicable to freezers. Consequently, DOE did not evaluate the 
appropriateness of this approach for those products. DOE is unaware of 
any freezer products that employ a dual compressor system.
5. Triangulation
    During the test procedure NOPR public meeting, stakeholders 
introduced the concept of triangulation in the context of setting a 
refrigeration product's temperature controls for testing. The 
triangulation approach involves conducting tests at three temperature 
control setting combinations as opposed to the two settings generally 
required in the current test procedures. By properly setting the 
controls for the three tests and calculating the appropriate weighted 
average of the energy use measurements of those tests, triangulation 
allows one to calculate the projected level of energy use if both the 
fresh food and freezer compartment temperatures matched their 
standardized temperatures (i.e. 0 [deg]F in the freezer compartment and 
39 [deg]F in the fresh food compartment for a refrigerator-freezer 
tested according to Appendix A). In comparison, the current DOE test 
procedure provides a more conservative measurement (i.e. potentially 
higher value) of energy use at the standardized temperatures that 
reduces the overall testing burdens by limiting the number of required 
tests from three under the triangulation approach to two.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A more conservative (i.e. larger) estimate of energy usage 
is most likely to occur in situations where a tested product's 
temperature controls have not been tuned--without such tuning, the 
two calculations of energy use of Appendix A, section 6.2.2.2 using 
the fresh food compartment temperature for one calculation and the 
freezer compartment temperature for the other can differ 
significantly from each other. For such a product, the two 
compartments attain their standardized temperatures at very 
different positions within the range of their temperature controls 
(e.g. the fresh food compartment may attain 39 [deg]F with its 
control at the mid setting while the freezer compartment control may 
have to be in its coldest position to achieve 0 [deg]F in the 
compartment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Stakeholders suggested in oral and written comments on the NOPR 
that triangulation should be introduced into the DOE test procedures. 
See 75 FR at 78822 (Dec. 16, 2010). DOE indicated in the interim final 
rule that this test procedure approach has not been subject to 
stakeholder evaluation and comment and that it could not be adopted at 
the time for that reason. Id.
    AHAM commented again that triangulation should be adopted in the 
test procedures, indicating that it should be introduced as an optional 
approach for setting temperature controls for testing. AHAM also 
indicated that DOE could have put this topic up for stakeholder comment 
in the interim final rule, and added that if the DOE adopts 
triangulation for certification purposes, it should also be required 
for enforcement purposes. (AHAM, No. 39 at pp. 3-4)
    DOE believes the triangulation approach departs enough from current 
procedures for setting temperature controls that it would have been 
inappropriate for DOE to incorporate it based solely on the strength of 
the NOPR comments, which were sparse and contained little to no 
supporting data. Those technical differences, coupled with the lack of 
any opportunity for all interested parties to fully evaluate this 
issue, weigh in favor of not incorporating the triangulation approach 
into DOE's test procedure at this time. Consequently, DOE did not adopt 
it in either the December 2010 final rule or the interim final rule.
    Additionally, introducing triangulation could have unforeseen 
implications, as alluded to in AHAM's comments, which suggested that, 
if adopted, it should also be used for enforcement purposes. (Id. at p. 
4) Testing using triangulation could, in certain circumstances, yield 
different results as compared with the approach of the current DOE test 
procedure. Those differences could be significant enough to affect 
whether a given product complies with an applicable standard. This 
complication alone merits a more thorough consideration by the agency 
before the triangulation approach is adopted. For these reasons, DOE is 
declining to adopt the triangulation method into the test procedures of 
Appendix A at this time. DOE, may, however, consider the incorporation 
of this method when it considers potential changes to the test 
procedure as periodically required under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b).

E. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements

    In addition to the issues discussed above, DOE examined its other 
obligations under EPCA in developing the amendments in today's notice. 
These requirements are addressed in greater detail below.
1. Test Burden
    EPCA requires that the test procedures DOE prescribes or amends be 
reasonably designed to produce test results which 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. 
These procedures must also not be unduly burdensome to conduct. See 42 
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3). DOE has concluded that the amendments being adopted 
today satisfy this requirement. In large part, today's rule simply 
finalizes the interim final rule of December 16, 2010. Where the 
interim final rule has been modified, the amendments require no changes 
to the current requirements for equipment and instrumentation for 
testing.
    While the amendments adopted today have the potential to slightly 
extend the testing time for some products that use long-time or 
variable defrost, this extended duration is likely to represent an 
insignificant impact on the overall test burden. In particular, while 
the duration of the second part of the test

[[Page 3572]]

will extend for those products that use cycling compressors--the test 
period will be extended typically for the duration of a compressor 
``on'' cycle, but may be longer in the limited number of cases where 
the four-hour time limit between defrost heater activation and the end 
of the test period under the current test procedure applies. The 
amended procedure will, in the vast majority of cases, not extend the 
testing duration for products. DOE estimates that any products that 
would be affected by these changes would have an extended testing 
duration of between 1 and 2 hours. Given that most, if not all, modern 
testing is conducted using automated data acquisition equipment and 
that these tests typically last a full week for a typical product, the 
addition of this amount of time is unlikely to result in any 
significant added burden.
    As described in section C.2, in tests conducted using automated 
data acquisition, a test technician does not actively monitor the test 
minute to minute. Instead, the test status is checked periodically 
during the test, perhaps once or twice per day. At the time of such a 
check, the test generally would have completed the next defrost cycle 
to be measured, or alternatively, the next defrost cycle would not yet 
have started, in which case the test would be checked again later. In 
few, if any, cases would extension of the defrost part of the test by 1 
or 2 hours significantly lengthen the overall test time. The extension 
of the test period of the second part of the test would cause delay 
only if, during such status check, the latest defrost cycle has started 
but not ended. Also, for such a case, a two-hour extension of the test, 
if it did occur, would represent about a 1 percent increase in test 
time, assuming a one-week average test duration. Consequently, DOE 
concludes that the possible small increase in test time is more than 
outweighed by the improved accuracy of the test represented by the test 
procedure amendment.
    The test procedure changes modifying the default values for 
CTL and CTM and revising the reference to the 
test data records requirements impose no changes in test burden.
2. Changes in Measured Energy Use
    In this final rule, DOE is amending the test period for the second 
part of the test. This test is conducted as part of the two-part test 
for products with long-time or variable-defrost and cycling compressor 
systems. DOE estimates that this test procedure change will increase 
measured energy use roughly 1 percent for affected standard-size 
refrigerator-freezers. The other test procedure amendments made in this 
final rule will not affect energy use measurement.
    When DOE modifies test procedures, it must determine to what 
extent, if any, the new test procedure would alter the measured energy 
use of covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) In this case, DOE has 
determined that the projected impact on the measured energy use of 
covered products that are affected would be altered by approximately 1 
percent. DOE considers this an insignificant impact on measured energy 
use. Accordingly, DOE has determined that an adjustment to the 
applicable standard is not required.

IV. Procedural Requirements

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has determined that test 
procedure rulemakings do not constitute ``significant regulatory 
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB).

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule 
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency 
certifies that the proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small 
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE 
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that 
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its 
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's Web site (http://www.gc.doe.gov).
    DOE reviewed the test procedures in today's final rule under the 
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and 
policies published on February 19, 2003. This final rule prescribes 
test procedures that will be used to test compliance with energy 
conservation standards for the products that are the subject of this 
rulemaking.
    The Small Business Administration (SBA) considers an entity to be a 
small business if, together with its affiliates, it employs less than a 
threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121, which relies 
on size standards and codes established by the North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS). The threshold number for NAICS code 
335222, which applies to Household Refrigerator and Home Freezer 
Manufacturing, is 1,000 employees.
    DOE searched the SBA Web site (http://dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm) to identify manufacturers within this NAICS code that 
produce refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and/or freezers. Most of 
the manufacturers supplying these products are large multinational 
corporations with more than 1,000 employees. There are several small 
businesses involved in the sale of refrigeration products that are 
listed on the SBA Web site under the NAICS code for this industry. 
However, DOE believes that only U-Line Corporation of Milwaukee, 
Wisconsin is a small business that manufactures these products. U-Line 
primarily manufactures compact refrigerators and related compact 
products such as wine chillers and stand-alone icemakers--these 
icemakers differ from the automatic icemakers installed in many 
refrigeration products in that they are complete icemaking appliances 
designed solely for the production and storage of ice, using either 
typical residential icemaking technology or a reduced-scale version of 
the icemaking technology used extensively in commercial icemakers.
    DOE had initially concluded in its December 2010 notice that the 
final rule will not have a significant impact on small manufacturers 
under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. DOE received no 
comments objecting to this conclusion.
    DOE concludes also that the test procedure amendments of today's 
notice will not have a significant impact on small manufacturers under 
the provisions of the Act. These amendments do not require use of test 
facilities or test equipment that differ in any substantive way from 
the test facilities or test equipment that manufacturers currently use 
to evaluate the energy efficiency of these products. Further, the 
amended test procedures will not be significantly more difficult or 
time-consuming to conduct than current DOE energy test procedures.
    For these reasons, DOE concludes and certifies that the rule would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility 
analysis for this rulemaking. DOE has transmitted the

[[Page 3573]]

certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of refrigeration products must certify to DOE that 
their products comply with any applicable energy conservation standard. 
In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products 
according to the DOE test procedure for refrigeration products, 
including any amendments adopted for that test procedure. The 
collection-of-information requirement for the certification and 
recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been submitted to 
OMB for approval. DOE received OMB approval to collect this information 
and has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping 
requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial 
equipment, including the refrigeration products addressed by today's 
final rule. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). The public reporting burden 
for the certification is estimated to average 20 hours per response, 
including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data 
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and 
reviewing the collection of information.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this notice, DOE amends its test procedure for refrigerators, 
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. These amendments will improve the 
ability of DOE's procedures to more accurately account for the energy 
consumption of products that incorporate a variety of new technologies 
that were not contemplated when the current procedure was promulgated. 
The amendments also will be used to develop and implement future energy 
conservation standards for refrigeration products. DOE has determined 
that this final rule falls into a class of actions that are 
categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing 
regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this rule amends an 
existing rule without changing its environmental effect, and, 
therefore, is covered by the Categorical Exclusion in 10 CFR part 1021, 
subpart D, appendix A6. See 76 FR 63764, 63788 (Oct. 13, 2011). The 
exclusion applies because this rule establishes a strictly procedural 
requirement by revising existing test procedures. These revisions will 
not affect the amount, quality, or distribution of energy usage, and, 
therefore, will not result in any environmental impacts. Accordingly, 
neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact 
statement is required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' imposes certain requirements 
on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that 
preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. 64 FR 43255 
(Aug. 10, 1999). The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess 
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires 
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 
consultation process that it will follow in developing such 
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final rule and determined 
that it will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State 
regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the 
subject of today's final rule. States can petition DOE for exemption 
from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in 
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No further action is required by Executive Order 
13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation 
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal 
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) 
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to 
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected 
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification 
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable 
effort to ensure that the regulation specifies the following: (1) The 
preemptive effect, if any; (2) any effect on existing Federal law or 
regulation; (3) a clear legal standard for affected conduct while 
promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) the retroactive 
effect, if any; (5) definitions of key terms; and (6) other important 
issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines 
issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 
requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of 
applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether 
they are met or whether it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. 
DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the 
extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards 
of Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. 
L. 104-4; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) requires each Federal agency to assess 
the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal 
governments and the private sector. For a regulatory action resulting 
in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million 
or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 
of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish estimates of the resulting 
costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 
1532(a)-(b)) UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an 
effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, 
local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially-affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect such governments. On March 18, 1997, 
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. (The policy is 
also available at www.gc.doe.gov). Today's final rule contains neither 
an intergovernmental mandate nor a mandate that may result

[[Page 3574]]

in an expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these 
requirements do not apply.

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

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
Today's final rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or 
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking 
Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation would not 
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

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

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most 
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines 
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by 
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has 
reviewed today's rule under OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded 
that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA 
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A 
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency 
that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule 
and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 
12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is 
designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. 
For any significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed 
statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use 
if the regulation is implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the 
action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and 
use. Today's regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866. It has likewise not been designated as a 
significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Moreover, it 
would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it is not a significant 
energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of 
Energy Effects.

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

    Under section 301 of the DOE Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91; 42 
U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal 
Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy 
Administration Authorization Act of 1977 (FEAA). (15 U.S.C. 788) 
Section 32 essentially provides in part that, where a rule authorizes 
or requires use of commercial standards, the rulemaking must inform the 
public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, 
section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the 
Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the impact of 
the commercial or industry standards on competition.
    Today's action does not incorporate testing methods contained in 
any new commercial standards not already referenced by the current 
regulations on which the Attorney General and FTC have not already been 
previously consulted earlier during this rulemaking process.

M. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation of today's rule before its effective date. The report will 
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule'' 
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of these final 
rules.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, 
Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 9, 2012.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends part 430 of 
chapter II of title 10, of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set 
forth below:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.


0
2. Appendix A to subpart B of part 430 is amended by:
0
a. Revising section 4.2.1.1, including figure 1;
0
b. Revising section 4.2.1.2, including figure 2;
0
c. Revising 4.2.4; and
0
d. Revising sections 5.2.1.3 and 5.2.1.5.
    The revisions read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Electric Refrigerators and Electric 
Refrigerator-Freezers

* * * * *

4. Test Period

* * * * *
    4.2.1.1 Cycling Compressor System. For a system with a cycling 
compressor, the second part of the test starts at the termination of 
the last regular compressor ``on'' cycle. The average temperatures 
of the fresh food and freezer compartments measured from the 
termination of the previous compressor ``on'' cycle to the 
termination of the last regular compressor ``on'' cycle must both be 
within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C) of their average temperatures 
measured for the first part of the test. If any compressor cycles 
occur prior to the defrost heater being energized that cause the 
average temperature in either compartment to deviate from its 
average temperature for the first part of the test by more than 0.5 
[deg]F (0.3 [deg]C), these compressor cycles are not considered 
regular compressor cycles and must be included in the second part of 
the test. As an example, a ``precooling'' cycle, which is an 
extended compressor cycle that lowers the temperature(s) of one or 
both compartments prior to energizing the defrost heater, must be 
included in the second part of the test. The test period for the 
second part of the test ends at the termination of the first regular 
compressor ``on'' cycle after both compartment temperatures have 
fully recovered to their stable conditions. The average temperatures 
of the compartments

[[Page 3575]]

measured from this termination of the first regular compressor 
``on'' cycle until the termination of the next regular compressor 
``on'' cycle must both be within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C) of their 
average temperatures measured for the first part of the test. See 
Figure 1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA12.004

    4.2.1.2 Non-cycling Compressor System. For a system with a non-
cycling compressor, the second part of the test starts at a time 
before defrost during stable operation when the temperatures of both 
fresh food and freezer compartments are within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 
[deg]C) of their average temperatures measured for the first part of 
the test. The second part stops at a time after defrost during 
stable operation when the temperatures of both compartments are 
within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C) of their average temperatures 
measured for the first part of the test. See Figure 2.

[[Page 3576]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA12.005

* * * * *
    4.2.4 Systems with Multiple Defrost Frequencies. This section 
applies to models with long-time automatic or variable defrost 
control with multiple defrost cycle types, such as models with 
single compressors and multiple evaporators in which the evaporators 
have different defrost frequencies. The two-part method in 4.2.1 
shall be used. The second part of the method will be conducted 
separately for each distinct defrost cycle type.
* * * * *

5. Test Measurements

* * * * *
    5.2.1.3 Variable Defrost Control. The energy consumption in 
kilowatt-hours per day shall be calculated equivalent to:

ET = (1440 x EP1/T1) + (EP2 - (EP1 x T2/T1)) x (12/CT),

Where:

1440 is defined in 5.2.1.1 and EP1, EP2, T1, T2, and 12 are defined 
in 5.2.1.2;
CT = (CTL x CTM)/(F x (CTM - 
CTL) + CTL);
CTL = least or shortest compressor run time between 
defrosts in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour (greater 
than or equal to 6 but less than or equal to 12 hours);
CTM = maximum compressor run time between defrosts in 
hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour (greater than 
CTL but not more than 96 hours);
F = ratio of per day energy consumption in excess of the least 
energy and the maximum difference in per-day energy consumption and 
is equal to 0.20.

    For variable defrost models with no values for CTL 
and CTM in the algorithm, the default values of 6 and 96 
shall be used, respectively.
* * * * *
    5.2.1.5 Long-time or Variable Defrost Control for Systems with 
Multiple Defrost cycle Types. The energy consumption in kilowatt-
hours per day shall be calculated equivalent to:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA12.006


[[Page 3577]]


Where:

1440 is defined in 5.2.1.1 and EP1, T1, and 12 are defined in 
5.2.1.2;
i is a variable that can equal 1, 2, or more that identifies the 
distinct defrost cycle types applicable for the refrigerator or 
refrigerator-freezer;
EP2i = energy expended in kilowatt-hours during the 
second part of the test for defrost cycle type i;
T2i = length of time in minutes of the second part of the 
test for defrost cycle type i;
CTi is the compressor run time between instances of 
defrost cycle type i, for long-time automatic defrost control equal 
to a fixed time in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour, 
and for variable defrost control equal to

(CTLi x CTMi)/(F x (CTMi - 
CTLi) + CTLi);

CTLi = least or shortest compressor run time between 
instances of defrost cycle type i in hours rounded to the nearest 
tenth of an hour (CTL for the defrost cycle type with the 
longest compressor run time between defrosts must be greater than or 
equal to 6 but less than or equal to 12 hours);
CTMi = maximum compressor run time between instances of 
defrost cycle type i in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an 
hour (greater than CTLi but not more than 96 hours);

    For cases in which there are more than one fixed CT value (for 
long-time defrost models) or more than one CTM and/or 
CTL value (for variable defrost models) for a given 
defrost cycle type, an average fixed CT value or average 
CTM and CTL values shall be selected for this 
cycle type so that 12 divided by this value or values is the 
frequency of occurrence of the defrost cycle type in a 24 hour 
period, assuming 50% compressor run time.

F = default defrost energy consumption factor, equal to 0.20.

    For variable defrost models with no values for CT Li 
and CTMi in the algorithm, the default values of 6 and 96 
shall be used, respectively.

D is the total number of distinct defrost cycle types.


0
3. Appendix B to subpart B of part 430 is amended by:
0
a. Revising section 4.2.1.1 including figure 1;
0
b. Revising section 4.2.1.2, including figure 2; and
0
c. Revising section 5.2.1.3.
    The revisions read as follows:

Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Freezers

* * * * *

4. Test Period

* * * * *
    4.2.1.1 Cycling Compressor System. For a system with a cycling 
compressor, the second part of the test starts at the termination of 
the last regular compressor ``on'' cycle. The average temperature of 
the compartment measured from the termination of the previous 
compressor ``on'' cycle to the termination of the last regular 
compressor ``on'' cycle must be within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C) of 
the average temperature of the compartment measured for the first 
part of the test. If any compressor cycles occur prior to the 
defrost heater being energized that cause the average temperature in 
the compartment to deviate from the average temperature for the 
first part of the test by more than 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C), these 
compressor cycles are not considered regular compressor cycles and 
must be included in the second part of the test. As an example, a 
``precooling'' cycle, which is an extended compressor cycle that 
lowers the compartment temperature prior to energizing the defrost 
heater, must be included in the second part of the test. The test 
period for the second part of the test ends at the termination of 
the first regular compressor ``on'' cycle after the compartment 
temperatures have fully recovered to their stable conditions. The 
average temperature of the compartment measured from this 
termination of the first regular compressor ``on'' cycle until the 
termination of the next regular compressor ``on'' cycle must be 
within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C) of the average temperature of the 
compartment measured for the first part of the test. See Figure 1.

[[Page 3578]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA12.007

    4.2.1.2 Non-cycling Compressor System. For a system with a non-
cycling compressor, the second part of the test starts at a time 
before defrost during stable operation when the compartment 
temperature is within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C) of the average 
temperature of the compartment measured for the first part of the 
test. The second part stops at a time after defrost during stable 
operation when the compartment temperature is within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 
[deg]C) of the average temperature of the compartment measured for 
the first part of the test. See Figure 2.

[[Page 3579]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JA12.008

* * * * *

5. Test Measurements

* * * * *
    5.2.1.3 Variable Defrost Control. The energy consumption in 
kilowatt-hours per day shall be calculated equivalent to:

ET = (1440 x K x EP1/T1) + (EP2-(EP1 x T2/T1)) x K x (12/CT),

Where:

ET, K, and 1440 are defined in section 5.2.1.1;
EP1, EP2, T1, T2, and 12 are defined in section 5.2.1.2;

CT = (CTL x CTM)/(F x (CTM-
CTL) + CTL)

Where:

CTL = least or shortest compressor run time between 
defrosts in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour (greater 
than or equal to 6 hours but less than or equal to 12 hours);
CTM = maximum compressor run time between defrosts in 
hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour (greater than 
CTL but not more than 96 hours);
F = ratio of per day energy consumption in excess of the least 
energy and the maximum difference in per-day energy consumption and 
is equal to 0.20.

    For variable defrost models with no values for CTL 
and CTM in the algorithm, the default values of 6 and 96 
shall be used, respectively.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-1341 Filed 1-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P