[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 76 (Monday, April 21, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22319-22356]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08644]



[[Page 22319]]

Vol. 79

Monday,

No. 76

April 21, 2014

Part V





Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Parts 429 and 430





Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Refrigerators, 
Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 22320]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

[Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-TP-0016]
RIN 1904-AC76


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

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On July 10, 2013, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to amend the test procedures for 
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. That proposed 
rulemaking serves as the basis for this action. This final rule amends 
the test procedure that will be required for the testing of these 
products starting on September 15, 2014. The amendments include test 
procedures for products with multiple compressors and an alternative 
method for measuring and calculating energy consumption for 
refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators with freezer compartments. DOE 
is also amending certain aspects of the test procedure in order to 
ensure better test accuracy and repeatability. This final rule does not 
address the proposal's approach regarding the measurement of energy use 
associated with ice making, nor does it address the proposed treatment 
of built-in products, as DOE plans to address these topics in a future 
rule.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is May 21, 2014. Manufacturers 
will be required to use the amendments made in this rule to rate their 
products starting October 20, 2014.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 
21, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public 
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at regulations.gov. All 
documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. 
However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing 
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly 
available.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2012-BT-TP-0016. This is a 
link to the docket Web page for this final rule on the regulations.gov 
site. The regulations.gov Web page contains 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. Telephone: (202) 287-1317. Email: Lucas.Adin@ee.doe.gov.
    Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    This final rule incorporates by reference into part 430 the 
following standard:
    AS/NZS 44474.1:2007, Performance of household electrical 
appliances--Refrigerating appliances, Part 1: Energy consumption and 
performance, Second edition, published August 15, 2007.
    Interested parties can purchase copies of Australian/New Zealand 
standards at http://www.standards.org.au/SearchandBuyAStandard/Pages/default.aspx.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
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. Multiple-compressor Test
    2. Triangulation
    3. Anti-Circumvention Language
    4. Incomplete Cycling
    5. Correction of Temperature Measurement Period
    6. Mechanical Temperature Controls
    7. Ambient Temperature Gradient
    8. Elimination of Reporting of Product Height
    9. Definitions Associated With Defrost Cycles
    10. Measurement of Product Volume Using Computer-Aided Design 
Models
    11. Corrections to Temperature Setting Logic Tables
    12. Minimum Compressor Run-Time Between Defrosts for Variable 
Defrost Models
    13. Treatment of ``Connected'' Products
    14. Changes to Confidentiality of Certification Data
    15. Package Loading
    16. Product Clearance to the Wall During Testing
    17. Other Minor Corrections
    18. Relocation of Shelving for Temperature Sensors
    D. Other Matters Related to the Test Procedure and Discussion of 
Proposals not Adopted in this Final Rule
    1. Icemaking Test Procedure
    2. Built-In Refrigeration Products
    3. Specific Volume Measurement Issues
    4. Treatment of Products That Are Operable as a Refrigerator or 
Freezer
    5. Stabilization Period
    E. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements
    1. Test Burden
    2. Changes in Measured Energy Use
    3. Standby and Off Mode Energy Use
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under 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
    N. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 
U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; ``EPCA'' or ``the Act'') sets forth a variety of 
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (All references to 
EPCA refer to the statute as amended through the American Energy 
Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 
(Dec. 18, 2012).) Part B of title III, which for editorial reasons was 
redesignated as Part A upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 
6291-6309, as codified), establishes the ``Energy Conservation Program 
for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.'' These consumer products 
include refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers 
(collectively, ``refrigeration products''), the subject of this final 
rule. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1))
    Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The 
testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of 
covered products must use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that 
their products comply with the

[[Page 22321]]

applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA, and (2) 
making representations about the efficiency of those products. 
Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the 
products comply with any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA.
    By way of background, the National Appliance Energy Conservation 
Act of 1987 (NAECA), Public Law 100-12, amended EPCA by including, 
among other things, performance standards for 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 starting on 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 initiated an effort 
to consider amendments to the standards for refrigeration products. As 
part of this effort, DOE issued a framework document on September 18, 
2008, that discussed the various issues involved with amending the 
standards and potential changes to the test procedure. 73 FR 54089. DOE 
later prepared preliminary analyses that examined in greater detail the 
impacts amended standards would be likely to have on a national basis. 
DOE published a notice of public meeting (NOPM) to initiate a 
discussion of these analyses, 74 FR 58915 (Nov. 16, 2009), and held a 
public meeting on December 10, 2009, to discuss its preliminary 
findings. At that meeting, and in submitted written comments, 
interested parties indicated that the energy conservation standards for 
refrigeration products should address the energy use associated with 
automatic icemakers. They added, however, that a test procedure to 
measure icemaking energy use had not yet been sufficiently developed to 
provide a basis for the standards. (Energy Conservation Standards for 
Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, Docket No. EERE-
2008-BT-STD-0012; American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy 
(ACEEE), No. 46 at p. 1; California Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs), 
No. 39 at p. 2; LG, No. 44 at pp. 2-3; Natural Resources Defense 
Council (NRDC), No. 42 at p. 2; Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership 
(NEEP), No. 41 at p. 1; Northwest Power and Conservation Council 
(NPCC), No. 36 at p. 1; Sub-Zero, No. 43 at pp. 2-3; Appliance 
Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 
at pp. 28-29; Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), No. 
37 at p. 2; General Electric, No. 40 at p. 1)
    DOE also initiated a test procedure rulemaking to help address a 
variety of test procedure-related issues identified in the energy 
conservation standard rulemaking's framework document by publishing a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) on May 27, 2010. 75 FR 29824 
(hereafter referred to as ``the May 2010 NOPR''). The May 2010 NOPR 
proposed to use a fixed value of 84 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year to 
represent the icemaking energy use for those refrigeration products 
equipped with automatic icemakers. The NOPR also indicated that DOE 
would consider adopting an approach based on testing to determine 
icemaking energy use if a suitable test procedure could be developed. 
(Id. at 29846-29847) A broad group of stakeholders \1\ submitted a 
joint comment supporting DOE's proposal to use a temporary fixed 
placeholder value to represent the energy use of automatic icemakers. 
It also urged DOE to initiate a rulemaking no later than January 1, 
2012, and publish a final rule no later than December 31, 2012, to 
amend the test procedures to incorporate a laboratory-based measurement 
of icemaking energy use. The joint comment further recommended that DOE 
publish a final rule by July 1, 2013, and amend the energy conservation 
standards scheduled to take effect in 2014 to account for the 
differences in energy use of icemakers measured using the new test 
procedure as compared with the 84 kWh per year fixed placeholder value. 
(Test Procedure for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, 
Docket Number EERE-2009-BT-TP-0003; Joint Comment, No. 20 at 5-6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The signatories to these comments included the Association 
of Home Appliance Manufacturers, the American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the 
Alliance to Save Energy, the Alliance for Water Efficiency, the 
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, the Northwest Power and 
Conservation Council, the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, 
the Consumer Federation of America, the National Consumer Law 
Center, Earthjustice, and the California Energy Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In keeping with the timeline suggested in the joint comment, AHAM 
provided DOE in early January 2012 with a draft test procedure that 
could be used to measure automatic icemaker energy usage. (AHAM 
Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Freezer and Freezer Ice Making Energy Test 
Procedure, Revision 1.0--12/14/11,\2\ No. 4) Subsequently, consistent 
with the suggestions made by commenters and DOE's previously stated 
intentions, DOE initiated work to develop the NOPR that was published 
on July 10, 2013. Prior to the NOPR's publication, AHAM had drafted a 
revised test procedure and submitted it to DOE for consideration on 
July 18, 2012. (AHAM Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Freezer and Freezer Ice 
Making Energy Test Procedure, Revision 2.0--7/10/12,\3\ No. 5) The 
proposal in the July 10, 2013 NOPR (``July 2013 NOPR'') sought to 
improve the accuracy of certain aspects of the test procedure that DOE 
had recently promulgated in 2012. The NOPR proposed a method for 
measurement of the energy usage associated with icemaking, which was 
based on the revised approach suggested by AHAM. The NOPR also proposed 
several other test procedure amendments designed to clarify the test 
procedures, adopt a test method for multiple-compressor products based 
on an approach DOE had previously permitted certain manufacturers to 
use through test procedure waivers, and allow use of an alternative 
test method for products with both fresh food and freezer compartments 
with separate temperature controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Subsequently referred to as ``AHAM Draft Test Procedure''.
    \3\ Subsequently referred to as ``AHAM Revised Draft Test 
Procedure''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the NOPR, AHAM submitted comments to DOE requesting 
that DOE grant its members more time to respond to (1) the proposal for 
measurement of energy usage associated with icemaking and (2) DOE's 
request for comment regarding testing of built-in products in a built-
in configuration. (AHAM, No. 24 at p. 1) DOE granted the comment period 
extension request for these two topics. See 78 FR 53374 (Aug. 29, 
2013). After having carefully considered these additional comments, DOE 
is finalizing an approach that temporarily declines to address the 
proposed icemaking test procedure amendments and the comments received 
regarding built-in products, while implementing the remainder of its 
proposal.
    Based on available data, this final rule is not expected to alter 
the measured energy use of any covered product as measured under the 
existing test procedures in Appendices A and B. Thus, these changes do 
not require an amendment to the energy conservation standards with 
which these products

[[Page 22322]]

must comply beginning on September 15, 2014. Additional details 
regarding the adjustments made in this final rule are discussed below.

General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process

    Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures 
DOE follows when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered 
products. EPCA provides that any test procedures prescribed or amended 
under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results 
that measure the energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual 
operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use 
cycle or period of use and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. 
(42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
    In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is 
warranted, DOE must publish proposed test procedures and offer the 
public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42 
U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) Finally, in any rulemaking to amend a test 
procedure, DOE must first determine to what extent, if any, the 
proposed test procedure would alter the measured energy efficiency of 
any covered product as determined under the existing test procedure. 
(42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that the amended test 
procedure would alter the measured efficiency of a covered product, 
EPCA specifies the manner in which to amend the applicable energy 
conservation standard. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2))
    This final rule amends the test procedures that manufacturers must 
use to demonstrate compliance with the energy conservation standards 
starting on September 15, 2014 (i.e., 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 
appendices A and B). DOE has determined that none of the amendments to 
the test procedures adopted in this final rule change the measured 
energy use of the products that will be required to use the prescribed 
testing methods. DOE's analyses demonstrate that the amendments to 
Appendices A and B, including the incorporation of an optional 
``triangulation'' method, will not affect measured energy use to an 
extent that would necessitate a change to any of the energy 
conservation standards for the products that would be affected by this 
rule. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)(2)) To demonstrate the effects of these 
amendments under consideration, the July 2013 NOPR discussed the 
anticipated impacts adopted by this rule. This evaluation is discussed 
in further detail in section III.E.2 of this final rule.

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 products starting September 15, 
2014). These procedures are the result of numerous evolutionary steps 
taken since DOE initially established its test procedures for 
refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers in a final rule published in 
the Federal Register on September 14, 1977. See 42 FR 46140. See also 
78 FR 41612-41613 (July 10, 2013) (detailing the regulatory history of 
the DOE test procedures for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers).
    On December 16, 2010, DOE issued a final and interim final rule 
that laid out a revised test procedure for refrigeration products. See 
75 FR 78809. That rule 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) Adding new compartment temperatures and volume-
adjustment factors, (2) adding new methods for measuring compartment 
volumes, (3) modifying the long-time automatic defrost test procedure 
to ensure that the test procedure measures all energy use associated 
with the defrost function, and (4) adding 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 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. Using available 
data submitted by the industry, this value was set at 84 kWh per year. 
See 75 FR 78810, 78859 and 78871 (Dec. 16, 2010) (specifying the daily 
value of 0.23 kWh for products equipped with an automatic icemaker).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Multiplying 0.23 by 365 days per year yields 84 kWh.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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). As with refrigerators and 
refrigerator-freezers, these procedures are the result of numerous 
evolutionary steps taken since DOE established its test procedures for 
freezers in a final rule published in the Federal Register on September 
14, 1977. See 42 FR 46140. See also 78 FR 41612-41613 (July 10, 2013) 
(detailing the regulatory history of the DOE test procedures for 
freezers).
    As with refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, the December 16, 
2010 notice also clarified testing requirements for freezers under 
Appendix B1 and created a new Appendix B, the latter of which must be 
used starting in September 2014. That new test procedure changed a 
number of aspects of 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 addresses 
icemaking energy use by implementing for freezers the same procedure 
adopted for refrigerator-freezers; parties must apply a fixed energy 
use value when calculating the energy consumption of freezers with 
automatic icemakers. 75 FR 78810.

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

    The December 2010 interim final rule established comprehensive 
changes to the manner in which refrigeration products are tested by 
creating new Appendices A and B. In addition to the changes discussed 
above, these new appendices also include the modifications to 
Appendices A1 and B1 that were finalized and adopted on December 16, 
2010. DOE provided an initial comment period on the interim final rule, 
which ended on February 14, 2011, and subsequently reopened the comment 
period on September 15, 2011 (76 FR 57612) to allow for further public 
feedback in response to the promulgation of the final energy 
conservation standards that were published on the same day. 76 FR 
57516. This re-opening permitted interested parties to comment on the 
interplay between the test procedures and the energy conservation 
standards, and provided DOE with additional information to consider 
before making any final changes to the test procedures of Appendices A 
and B prior to their mandatory use. 76 FR 57612-57613. That comment 
period ended on October 17, 2011.
    DOE also considered comments related to a petition for a test 
procedure waiver that had a direct bearing on elements of the test 
procedures used in

[[Page 22323]]

Appendix A. See 76 FR 16760 (March 25, 2011) (Petition No. RF-018, 
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Samsung)).
    During the comment periods that DOE provided, interested parties 
raised a number of issues for DOE to consider. The submitted comments 
included the following suggested changes: (1) Modifying the test 
procedure for multiple-compressor systems to reduce test burden; (2) 
modifying the test period for the second part of the test for products 
with long-time or variable defrost to assure proper accounting of all 
energy use associated with defrost; (3) developing separate test 
procedures and standards for products combining wine storage with fresh 
food compartments; (4) allowing an alternative three-test interpolation 
approach as an option to potentially improve measurement accuracy at 
the cost of greater test burden for those manufacturers choosing to use 
it; (5) adjusting the test procedure's anti-circumvention provisions; 
and (6) adjusting the default values for CTL and 
CTM (the longest and shortest duration of compressor run 
time between defrosts) used in the energy use equations for products 
that do not have defined values for these parameters in their control 
algorithms. (Test Procedure for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, 
and Freezers, Docket Number EERE-2009-BT-TP-0003; Sub-Zero, No. 42; 
AHAM, No. 43, Whirlpool, No. 44) Stakeholders recommended that all of 
these changes be adopted as part of Appendices A and B. In the final 
rule published on January 25, 2012 (``January 2012 Final Rule''), DOE 
considered the changes recommended by stakeholders. 77 FR 3559. DOE 
declined to adopt certain changes recommended for Appendices A and B 
because the nature of those recommendations had not, in DOE's view, 
been presented in a manner that would have afforded the public with a 
sufficient opportunity to comment on those issues. (Id.)
    Nevertheless, after finalizing the rule setting out Appendices A 
and B, DOE reviewed these various suggestions and considered including 
them as part of the test procedures for refrigeration products. As a 
result of this review, DOE proposed some of these recommended 
amendments in the July 2013 NOPR. In that NOPR, DOE proposed (1) 
modified test procedures for products with multiple-compressor systems, 
(2) use of an alternative method for measuring and calculating energy 
use at standardized temperatures for refrigerator-freezers and 
refrigerators with freezer compartments, and (3) the modification of 
the anti-circumvention language currently applicable to testing of 
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. This final rule 
adopts these proposed amendments into the test procedures.

Waivers

    DOE granted a limited number of petitions for waiver from the test 
procedures for refrigeration products between the publication of the 
December 2010 final rule and the publication of the July 2013 NOPR. On 
January 10, 2012, DOE published a decision and order (D&O) responding 
to two waiver petitions from Samsung addressing products with multiple 
defrost cycle types. 77 FR 1474. That notice prescribed a procedure to 
account for the energy use from the multiple defrost cycles of a 
single-compressor-based system. The approach is identical to the 
procedure established for Appendix A in the January 25, 2012 Final 
Rule. 77 FR 3559. DOE also issued a D&O that granted a waiver to GE 
Appliances (GE) to use the same test procedure for similar products. 
See 77 FR 75426 (Dec. 20, 2012) (GE waiver). In effect, these waivers 
permit these companies to test certain products that, due to their 
characteristics, cannot be tested according to the prescribed test 
procedure (i.e., Appendix A1) or for which use of the prescribed test 
procedure evaluates the model in a manner so unrepresentative of its 
true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially 
inaccurate comparative data. (See 10 CFR 430.27(a)(1))
    DOE also granted a waiver to Sub-Zero, Inc. (Sub-Zero) to address 
that company's multiple-compressor products. See 77 FR 5784 (Feb. 6, 
2012) (Sub-Zero waiver). That waiver permitted Sub-Zero to use the same 
test procedure that AHAM had recommended that DOE adopt for both 
Appendix A1 and Appendix A. (Test Procedure for Refrigerators, 
Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, Docket Number EERE-2009-BT-TP-
0003; AHAM, No. 43 at pp. 2-3) DOE also granted similar waivers 
permitting the use of the same procedure to GE, LG, and Samsung.\5\ 
This final rule adopts a test procedure for multiple-compressor 
products that is based on the initial Sub-Zero waiver procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 78 FR 18327 (March 26, 2013) (LG Decision and Order), 78 
FR 35899 (June 14, 2013) (Samsung Decision and Order), and 78 FR 
38699 (June 27, 2013) (GE Decision and Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, on August 16, 2012, DOE granted a waiver to Sanyo E&E 
Corporation (Sanyo) to address a hybrid refrigeration product, i.e., a 
product combining wine storage compartments in a product otherwise 
defined by DOE as a refrigerator. See 77 FR 49443 (D&O granting Sanyo's 
petition for waiver (Sanyo waiver)). The waiver cites a guidance 
document that DOE published in February 2011, which indicates that 
products combining a wine storage compartment and a fresh food 
compartment are considered refrigerators and should be tested as 
such.\6\ The waiver further explains that the Sanyo hybrid product 
cannot be tested with its wine storage compartment at the standardized 
temperature required for testing refrigerators using Appendix A1 (i.e., 
38[emsp14][deg]F), and that doing so would result in a non-
representative energy use measurement. Hence, DOE granted Sanyo's 
request that it be allowed to test its product using a standardized 
temperature of 55 [deg]F for the wine storage compartment. Id. Because 
the Sanyo waiver is based upon testing in accordance with the Appendix 
A1 test procedure, it will terminate on September 15, 2014, when use of 
the Appendix A1 test procedure is no longer permitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This guidance is posted in DOE's online Guidance and FAQ 
database, and is available for viewing at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/guidance/default.aspx?pid=2&spid=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After DOE grants a waiver, the agency must, pursuant to its waiver 
provisions, initiate a rulemaking to amend its regulations to eliminate 
the continued need for the waiver. 10 CFR 430.27 (m). This final rule 
addresses this requirement for the Sub-Zero waiver by amending Appendix 
A to include a test procedure for multiple-compressor products that is 
based on the Sub-Zero waiver procedure. The Sub-Zero, Samsung, LG, and 
GE waivers for multiple-compressor products will terminate on September 
15, 2014, the same date that manufacturers must use the test procedures 
in Appendix A for testing. DOE does not currently anticipate that 
additional products on the market with single-compressor-based systems 
using multiple defrost cycles will be introduced prior to September 15, 
2014, since it is DOE's understanding that this is a system design 
unique to those manufacturers who are currently covered by these 
waivers. Hence, at this time, DOE will not amend Appendix A1 to include 
this particular alternative test procedure.

Stakeholder Summary

    At the public meeting held on July 25, 2013, DOE discussed the 
NOPR, detailed the proposed revisions, and solicited oral comments from 
meeting

[[Page 22324]]

participants. Numerous stakeholders attended the meeting and/or 
provided written comments. These parties are identified in Table I.1 
below.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Because the comments of Michael Fitzgibbon and Allen 
Cornelison address subjects not associated with the proposals 
detailed in the NOPR, this rule will not discuss those comments in 
detail.

                    Table I-1--Stakeholders That Submitted Comments on the Interim Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Written
                Name                          Acronym                Type *       Oral  comments     comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Association of Home Appliance         AHAM...................  IR                          [squ]           [squ]
 Manufacturers.
BSH Home Appliances Corporation.....  BSH....................  M                  ..............           [squ]
Felix Storch, Inc...................  FSI....................  M                  ..............           [squ]
GE Appliances & Lighting............  GE.....................  M                           [squ]           [squ]
Panasonic Appliances Refrigeration    PAPRSA.................  M                           [squ]           [squ]
 Systems Corporation of America.
American Council for an Energy-       ACEEE..................  EA                          [squ]
 Efficient Economy.
Sub Zero Group, Inc.................  Sub Zero...............  M                  ..............           [squ]
Whirlpool Corporation...............  Whirlpool..............  M                           [squ]           [squ]
Michael Fitzgibbon..................  Mr. Fitzgibbon.........  I                  ..............           [squ]
Allen Cornelison....................  Mr. Cornelison.........  I                  ..............           [squ]
Liebherr-Canada Ltd.................  Liebherr...............  M                  ..............           [squ]
Underwriters Laboratory.............  UL.....................  TL                          [squ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* IR: Industry Representative; M: Manufacturer; EA: Efficiency/Environmental Advocate; I: Individual; TL: Test
  Laboratory.

II. Summary of the Final Rule

    DOE's most recent amendments to the test procedures for 
refrigeration products made a number of significant improvements. Even 
with these amendments, there remained a number of pending issues that 
DOE was unable to address. This final rule addresses those remaining 
issues and finalizes the test procedure for manufacturers to use when 
certifying their basic models as compliant with the energy conservation 
standards starting on September 15, 2014. In finalizing these 
procedures, DOE accounted for comments interested parties made in 
response to the July 2013 NOPR. These amendments will not result in a 
significant change in measured energy use as compared with the test 
procedures as established by the previous January 2012 Final Rule.
    Some of the improvements in this final rule could also have been 
implemented in the current test procedures as well as the procedures 
that will be required for certification starting September 15, 2014. 
However, the current test procedures will continue to be used only for 
a limited time. Hence, DOE did not make any substantive amendments to 
these test procedures, which are contained in Appendices A1 and B1. 
(The notice does, however, include amendments that would correct 
certain cross-references in these appendices to sections of 10 CFR Part 
429.) The amendments and issues that have been adopted are summarized 
in Section III.
    This rule makes a series of changes that include incorporation of a 
multiple-compressor test procedure, an optional triangulation test 
procedure, and other clarifications to the test procedure. This 
rulemaking does not address the ice making test procedure and built-in 
testing topics due to the more complex analysis required to evaluate 
the merits of the proposals. DOE also extended the comment period for 
those topics, as requested by interested parties. DOE expects to 
publish a separate final rule addressing those topics after the 
extended comment period comes to a close.

III. Discussion

    This final rule contains a number of amendments to the 
refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer test procedures. The 
following section discusses in further detail the various issues 
addressed by this final rule. Table III-1 below lists the subsections 
of this section and indicates where the amendments are located. Section 
A identifies the products covered by the final rule; section B 
specifies the compliance dates that apply to the amendments; section C 
discusses the key test procedure amendments made in this final rule; 
section D discusses additional test procedure topics, including DOE 
interpretations of certain test procedure issues; and section E 
discusses compliance of the final rule with other EPCA requirements.

                                       Table III-1--Discussion Subsections
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Affected appendices
                  Section                                  Title               ---------------------------------
                                                                                       A                B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.A.....................................  Products Covered by the Final Rule             No changes
                                                                               ---------------------------------
III.B.....................................  Compliance Dates for the Amended                 X                X
                                             Test Procedures.
III.C.1...................................  Multiple-compressor Test..........               X   ...............
III.C.2...................................  Triangulation.....................               X   ...............
                                                                               ---------------------------------
III.C.3...................................  Anti-Circumvention Language.......                  *
                                                                               ---------------------------------
III.C.4...................................  Incomplete Cycling................               X                X
III.C.5...................................  Correction of Temperature                        X                X
                                             Measurement Period.
III.C.6...................................  Mechanical Temperature Controls...               X                X
III.C.7...................................  Ambient Temperature Gradient......               X                X

[[Page 22325]]

 
III.C.8...................................  Elimination of Reporting of                      X                X
                                             Product Height.
                                                                               ---------------------------------
III.C.9...................................  Definitions Associated with                        **
                                             Defrost Cycles.
                                                                               ---------------------------------
III.C.10..................................  Measurement of Product Volume                    X                X
                                             using Computer-Aided Design
                                             Models.
III.C.11..................................  Corrections to Temperature Setting               X                X
                                             Logic Tables.
III.C.12..................................  Default Minimum Compressor Run-                  X                X
                                             Time Between Defrosts for
                                             Variable Defrost Models.
III.C.13..................................  Treatment of ``Connected''                       X                X
                                             Products.
                                                                               ---------------------------------
III.C.14..................................  Changes to Confidentiality of                      ***
                                             Certification Data.
                                                                               ---------------------------------
III.C.15..................................  Package Loading...................  ...............               X
III.C.16..................................  Rear Clearance During Testing.....               X                X
III.C.17..................................  Other Minor Corrections [dagger]..               X                X
III.C.19..................................  Relocation of Shelving............               X                X
                                                                               ---------------------------------
III.D.1...................................  Icemaking
III.D.2...................................  Built-In Products
III.D.3...................................  Volume Measurement Issues
III.D.4...................................  Treatment of Products That are                 No changes
                                             Operable as a Refrigerator or
                                             Freezer
III.D.5...................................  Stabilization Period
III.E.1...................................  Test Burden
III.E.2...................................  Change in Measured Energy Use
III.E.3...................................  Standby and Off Mode Energy Use
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 * This amendment appears in 10 CFR 430.23, but affects testing using all four appendices.
** This amendment appears in 10 CFR 429.14, but affects certification reporting for products tested using
  Appendices A and B.
*** This amendment includes proposed modifications to 10 CFR 429.14.
[dagger] This section also discusses an amendment to 10 CFR 430.2.

A. Products Covered by the Final Rule

    These amendments cover those products that meet the definition for 
refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer, as codified in 10 CFR 
430.2. The definitions for refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer were 
amended in the December 16, 2010 final rule. See 75 FR 78817 and 78848.

B. Compliance Dates for the Amended Test Procedures

    The amendments in this final rule are made to sections 429.14, 
429.72, 429.134, 430.2, 430.3, and 430.23 and in Appendices A and B. 
Manufacturers are required to use the amendments made to Appendices A 
and B to rate their products starting October 20, 2014.
    Some of the proposed amendments that aim to improve measurement 
accuracy by clarifying certain aspects of the test procedures or to 
reduce test burden could potentially be considered for adoption in the 
current test procedures (i.e., Appendices A1 and B1). However, these 
appendices will be obsolete after September 15, 2014, so DOE did not 
propose to amend them. DOE requested comments on this approach in the 
July 2013 NOPR. No stakeholders indicated that DOE should adopt any of 
the proposed amendments in the current test procedures. Whirlpool 
commented that it did not support making changes to Appendices A1 and 
B1. (Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 2) This final rule does not make any 
changes to the current test procedures of Appendices A1 and B1.
    The proposed amendments that apply to Appendices A and B will be 
effective 30 days after issuance of a final rule, but manufacturers 
will not be required to use this procedure until September 15, 2014. 
Beginning on that date, Appendices A and B will be mandatory for 
certifying that products comply with the applicable energy conservation 
standards and for making representations regarding the energy use or 
operating costs of covered refrigeration products. Pursuant to guidance 
issued by DOE on June 29, 2012,\8\ DOE permits manufacturers to use 
Appendices A and B before this 2014 date if they choose to do so, 
provided that they indicate in their certification submissions that 
their ratings are based on Appendix A or B and that the products comply 
with the 2014 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This and other DOE guidance documents are located in the 
Guidance and Frequently Asked Questions database, at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/guidance/default.aspx?pid=2&spid=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Test Procedure Amendments Incorporated in This Final Rule

1. Multiple-compressor Test
    DOE proposed to replace the existing dual compressor test 
procedures in Appendix A with test procedures for multiple-compressor 
products, based on procedures developed by Sub-Zero and AHAM and 
permitted for use in test procedure waivers for Sub-Zero (see 77 FR 
5784 (Feb. 6, 2012)), GE (see 78 FR 38699 (June 27, 2010)), Samsung 
(see 78 FR 35901 (June 14, 2013)), and LG Electronics, Inc. (see 78 FR 
18327 (Mar. 26, 2013)). The July 2013 NOPR discussed the necessity of 
using a unique test procedure to accommodate multiple-compressor 
products to reduce the so-called ``truncation error'' that can occur 
when measuring the energy use of multiple compressors whose cycles are 
not synchronized. 78 FR 41629-30 (July 10, 2013). The following 
sections discuss each aspect of DOE's proposal and the changes 
finalized in this final rule.
Multiple-Compressor Definition
    DOE proposed to define the term ``multiple-compressor'' in lieu of 
the term ``dual compressor'' to provide general applicability to all 
refrigeration products that have more than one compressor. Although DOE 
is not aware

[[Page 22326]]

of any current refrigeration products with more than two sealed 
compressor systems, taking this broader approach in defining this 
particular term would ensure that products using more than two sealed 
refrigeration systems that might be manufactured and sold in the future 
are addressed by DOE's regulations. Because DOE did not receive any 
comments objecting to this proposal, and for the reasons discussed 
above, DOE is adopting its proposed definition of ``multiple-
compressor'' products in a new section 1.16 of Appendix A.
Temperature Cycles
    DOE proposed to allow test periods for multiple-compressor 
refrigeration products to be determined based on compartment 
temperatures as an alternative to relying on compressor cycles. For 
multiple-compressor products, it may be difficult to determine which 
individual compressor is associated with events such as compressor 
cycle starts and stops. Thus, reliably identifying individual 
compressor cycles by examining power measurement data may prove 
difficult. As an alternative, DOE proposed to permit test periods to be 
selected based on the cycles of the compartment temperatures associated 
with the compressor systems. In proposing this alternative approach, 
DOE expressed its belief that complete temperature cycles are 
equivalent to complete compressor cycles because temperature cycle 
endpoints coincide nearly exactly with the relevant compressor cycle 
endpoints. Since the operation of the compressor causes the 
refrigeration system to reduce compartment temperatures, compressor and 
temperature cycles are inherently equivalent. In general, these 
temperature cycles would coincide with their corresponding compressor 
cycles (i.e., the compartment temperature falls as the compressor 
operates and rises when the compressor is not operating). However, 
using an approach based on temperature cycles may be easier to apply 
because the compartment temperature measurements of separate compressor 
systems are not combined like total product power inputs are, 
potentially making identification of test periods easier than when 
using the power input measurements to identify compressor cycles.
    In its comments on the NOPR, GE opposed DOE's proposal. It 
indicated that using temperature cycles instead of compressor cycles to 
determine the endpoints of a test period could impact the measured 
energy use. GE provided data demonstrating that the impact on the 
overall energy use measurement could be as large as 9.6 percent in some 
cases. (GE, No. 31 at p. 2) AHAM also opposed DOE's proposal for five 
reasons: (1) Temperature and compressor cycles do not always correlate 
with each other, (2) selecting temperature cycle starts and stops are 
more subjective than for compressor cycles, (3) unlike compressor 
cycles, temperature cycles could not be used for every product, (4) 
variable speed compressor products may not have true temperature cycles 
reflective of operation, and (5) software for identifying temperature 
cycle maxima and minima would be complicated to develop and may rely on 
compressor cycles. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 11-12)
    DOE notes that it proposed its temperature cycle-based approach 
based on the belief that the approach may be beneficial in some 
circumstances, by making identification of appropriate cycles easier. 
However, the stakeholder comments clearly indicate that allowing this 
alternative is unnecessary and, in some cases, potentially detrimental 
to the accuracy of the energy consumption measurement of a given 
product. Accordingly, DOE is not adopting its proposed temperature 
cycle approach and is continuing to require that the identification of 
test periods be accomplished using compressor cycles.
    However, DOE will adopt the proposed definition for temperature 
cycles. As described later in section III.C.9, DOE's definition for 
``stable operation'' allows for confirmation of stability for products 
with non-cycling compressors that have cycling temperatures; the 
concept of temperature cycles is needed for this reason and is being 
adopted.
Measurement Frequency
    The current test procedure allows compartment temperature 
measurements to be taken at up to four-minute intervals (See Appendix 
A, sections 2.9 and 5.1.1). This approach, because of its lower 
measurement precision, permits more truncation error to occur while 
testing multiple-compressor products than would occur with shorter 
measurement intervals. Truncation error occurs when a test period 
comprising a whole number of one compressor's cycles includes an 
incomplete portion of the other compressor's cycles. The test 
procedures developed by Sub-Zero and AHAM reduce the potential 
magnitude of truncation error by requiring the measurements of 
multiple-compressor systems to be recorded at regular intervals not to 
exceed one minute. (Test Procedure for Residential Refrigerators, 
Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, Docket No. EERE-2009-BT-TP-0003, 
AHAM, No. 43 at p. 3) Therefore, the July 2013 NOPR proposed to 
decrease the maximum time between subsequent measurements by decreasing 
the time period between intervals to not exceed one minute in duration 
when testing multiple-compressor products.
    Both AHAM and GE supported DOE's proposal to increase the 
measurement frequency to at least once per minute. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 
12; GE, No. 31 at p. 3) With no stakeholder opposition to DOE's 
proposal, DOE is adopting its proposal that the measurement frequency 
for multiple-compressor products be no less than once per minute to 
limit truncation error.
    Neither the test procedure contained in the dual- and multiple-
compressor test procedure waivers (e.g., the Sub-Zero waiver) nor the 
NOPR proposal explicitly indicated which measurements would be required 
to be recorded every minute. It is DOE's understanding that the data 
collected on a once-per-minute basis would include product power input, 
product energy use, and compartment temperature. These are the 
measurements that would require higher-frequency collection in order to 
improve the precision of the energy use measurement: The power input 
measurement is needed to identify the applicable test period (i.e., the 
time when compressors stop and start), and the measured energy use and 
compartment temperature are used in the calculation of annual energy 
use. To improve the clarity of the data collection requirement, this 
final rule clarifies that the requirement for once-per minute 
acquisition frequency applies to these three measurements. These 
changes appear in a new section 4.2.3.1 of Appendix A, which addresses 
measurement frequency for multiple-compressor products.
Stabilization Period
    DOE proposed to apply the stabilization requirement of section 2.9 
of Appendix A to multiple-compressor products instead of requiring the 
24-hour stabilization period that is used in recent waivers. (The 
stabilization requirement in Appendix A, required for single-compressor 
products, stipulates that the average rate of temperature change of the 
product's compartments must not exceed 0.042 [deg]F per hour.) DOE 
proposed use of the section 2.9 approach for multiple-compressor 
products to reduce the burden when testing these products, the majority 
of which achieve stabilization in under 24 hours, and to ensure that

[[Page 22327]]

the existing stabilization requirement is met for any product that 
requires more than 24 hours to achieve stabilization. The proposal 
would also have allowed the use of temperature cycles rather than 
compressor cycles to determine steady-state conditions, for example, 
for products that might have non-cycling compressors but whose 
compartment temperatures may cycle.
    GE and AHAM opposed the DOE proposed stabilization requirements for 
multiple-compressor products, claiming such products have no true 
stabilization period. (GE, No. 31 at p. 4; AHAM, No. 30 at p. 13) DOE 
notes that all products have a period of operation after plug-in or a 
change in temperature settings during which compartment temperatures 
gradually approach and eventually equate with, or at least fluctuate 
near, the targeted temperatures determined by user operable controls. 
The test procedures have specific provisions to ensure that 
measurements are made during stable operation. This is true even for 
the test procedures for multiple-compressor products that are covered 
under waivers.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., ``Decision and Order Granting a Waiver to GE 
Appliances From the Department of Energy Residential Refrigerator 
and Refrigerator-Freezer Test Procedures'', Case No. RF-029, 78 FR 
38699 (June 27, 2013). This waiver test procedure has specific 
requirements for stability and steady state, including, for example, 
``Steady State for EP1: The temperature average for the first and 
last compressor cycle of the test period must be within 1.0 degrees 
F (0.6 degrees C) of the test period temperature average for each 
compartment.'' (Id. at pp. 38700-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevertheless, DOE believes that the 24-hour stabilization 
requirement found in these waivers--and as suggested by commenters--
would adequately ensure stabilization is achieved for multiple-
compressor products. DOE notes that commenters have suggested that 
reducing the test burden associated with a 24-hour duration for the 
stabilization period is less important than avoiding the potential 
complications that may arise from added test procedure complexity when 
verifying stability. Therefore, this final rule adopts the longer, but 
simpler, 24-hour stabilization period for multiple-compressor products, 
as recommended by AHAM and GE. Because the stabilization period will be 
a fixed number of hours, the proposed use of temperature cycles as an 
alternative to compressor cycles to define the stabilization period is 
unnecessary and is not adopted.
First Part of the Test
    For multiple-compressor products with at least two cycling 
compressors, DOE proposed that the first part of the test last at least 
24 hours with no defrost cycle interruption. For cases in which defrost 
cycles do not allow a full 24-hour test period, the July 2013 NOPR 
proposed allowing a shorter 18-hour test period. In other words, if a 
potential test period extends to only 18 hours before being interrupted 
by a defrost, this 18-hour test period could be used as the first part 
of the test rather than waiting for the next period of operation 
between defrosts, which would add at least a day to the test time. 
However, if the initial candidate test period extends fully to 24-hours 
before being interrupted by a defrost, the full 24 hours would be used 
for the test period. DOE did not propose to adopt AHAM's approach, 
which allows aggregating multiple separate segments of running time to 
increase the total test period time to accrue the minimum of 24 hours. 
DOE explained that each individual segment of running time would 
introduce its own truncation error, thus defeating the purpose of 
requiring a long 24-hour test period. After quantifying the maximum 
possible truncation error for refrigerators in the DOE test sample, DOE 
tentatively determined that allowing an 18-hour period would be a 
reasonable compromise to balance test burden and accuracy.
    In response to the DOE proposal, AHAM indicated that DOE's approach 
would be more complicated than the waiver approach and that some 
products may require several weeks of testing to satisfy the minimum 
18-hour requirement of the proposal. (AHAM, No. 30 at p.14) AHAM also 
stated that the energy use differences presented in the NOPR showing 
the difference between AHAM's aggregated approach and the proposed 
single-segment approach were not necessarily entirely attributable to 
truncation error. (Id.) In addition, AHAM stated that DOE may have 
proposed not to allow multiple segments because DOE is concerned about 
test circumvention. (Id.) AHAM also stated that it did not agree with 
DOE's characterization of the maximum of one percent error in the 
energy measurement as insignificant, asserting that such measurement 
error could represent the difference between a product satisfying or 
failing to meet the energy conservation standards. (Id.)
    While a one percent error may, in certain cases, potentially be 
significant, increasing the precision of a test can also introduce 
additional test burden, and the competing demands of precision and 
managing test burden generally require that compromises be made in 
establishing test procedures. It is for this reason that DOE proposed 
that the first part of the test be a continuous period of stable 
operation. As described in the NOPR, DOE's analysis shows that 
truncation error can approach and/or exceed one percent of the 
measurement when the first part of the test is allowed to be less than 
24 hours and/or when the first part of the test is allowed to include 
separate time periods, each with an average duration under 24 hours. 
(The average duration of the time period would be the total test period 
time divided by the number of time segments used (e.g., the average 
duration would be 12 hours if two intervals were used to comprise a 24-
hour test period).) If two time segments are included in a 24-hour 
total test period, two truncation events are included, and the 
potential truncation error is twice as large compared to a single, 
continuous period of stable operation. Likewise, if three segments are 
used, the potential truncation error is three times as large.
    DOE notes that the analysis presented in the NOPR calculates 
truncation error directly--it does not represent multiple measurements 
for which other parameters might affect the measurement, as suggested 
by AHAM. See 78 FR 41633 (July 10, 2013).
    DOE believes that allowing an 18-hour test period would be an 
acceptable compromise between test precision and test burden in cases 
in which a defrost interrupts a candidate test period. Rather than 
require waiting through the defrost and the next 24 hours of steady 
operation, DOE decided to adopt an approach that allows use of the 18-
hour period as the test period for the first part of the test. In so 
doing, DOE opted to make a small reduction in precision to avoid having 
to add 24 hours or more test time. On the other hand, if defrosting 
does not interrupt a candidate test period, allowing it to extend to 24 
hours, the additional six hours of test time would be justified to 
enhance the test precision. This is why DOE proposed to allow the 18-
hour test period only when the test period is interrupted by a defrost.
    AHAM stated that some products could require weeks of extra testing 
to sufficiently satisfy even a requirement of an 18-hour minimum 
duration for the test period. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 14) However, AHAM did 
not provide sufficient detail regarding this possibility to allow 
quantification of the related test burden. To the extent that a product 
cannot obtain 18 hours of steady operation between defrosts, 
alternative test methods for such products may have to be developed. As 
indicated by AHAM, should a one percent error occur with test periods 
shorter than 18 hours or with test periods comprised of separate 
running

[[Page 22328]]

periods, such an error could potentially make the difference between 
compliance and non-compliance for a borderline-compliant product. 
(AHAM, No. 30 at p. 15) Consequently, it would be inadvisable to allow 
the potential error to be greater than this by allowing use of multiple 
run segments or a reduction in the minimum test period duration. To 
mitigate this risk, this final rule retains the first-part test period 
requirements proposed in the NOPR. In response to AHAM's comment 
regarding circumvention, DOE notes that although the agency is 
concerned about circumvention, DOE evaluated the proposal primarily 
based on balancing test precision and test burden.
    The July 2013 NOPR also proposed that products with cycling 
compressors be tested using a test period for the first part of the 
test comprising a whole number of compressor or temperature cycles of a 
``primary'' compressor. DOE proposed that the freezer compressor would 
be considered the ``primary'' compressor if it cycles, and the fresh 
food compressor would be considered the ``primary'' compressor if the 
freezer compressor does not cycle. The test procedures of the multiple-
compressor product waivers require that the test period for the first 
part of the test consist of a whole number of freezer compressor 
cycles.\10\ The proposal was consistent with the waiver procedure, 
except that it specified that the test period would be based on cycles 
of the fresh food compressor if the freezer compressor does not cycle. 
DOE received no comments on this topic, other than AHAM's objection to 
the use of temperature cycles, which is discussed above. As a result, 
DOE will adopt the proposal for basing the first-part test period on 
the cycles of a primary compressor, and the proposed requirement for 
selecting the primary compressor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., ``Decision and Order Granting a Waiver to GE 
Appliances From the Department of Energy Residential Refrigerator 
and Refrigerator-Freezer Test Procedures'', Case No. RF-029, 78 FR 
38699, 38700 (June 27, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the July 2013 NOPR proposed to require that the first part 
of the test be a period of stable operation. AHAM strongly opposed this 
approach, arguing that it would be too restrictive, particularly for 
products with variable speed compressors. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 15) AHAM 
indicated that ``it does not matter whether the product reaches 
stability during that period or not--stability is not needed for the 
existing waiver approach.'' AHAM further indicated that DOE should not 
mandate the design of products by requiring stability. (Id.) The DOE 
test procedures--including those set forth in DOE waivers for multiple-
compressor products \11\--have specific provisions to ensure that 
measurements are made during stable operation. DOE further notes that 
in the waiver test procedures, the test period for the first part of 
the test, ``is calculated for a whole number of freezer compressor 
cycles . . .'' and that testers are instructed to, ``make this 
determination [i.e., that the unit under test has reached steady state 
for the first part of the test] for the fresh food compartment for the 
fresh food compressor cycles closest to the start and end of the test 
period.'' 78 FR 38700, 38701 (June 27, 2013). This language clearly 
implies that it is written for a system with cycling compressors, and 
that it requires stability to ensure that compartment temperatures do 
not rise or fall significantly during the test period. The DOE 
proposal, being based on the test procedure waivers, is consistent with 
the requirement for stability, but it also anticipates the potential 
for non-cycling compressors by providing a method to verify steady 
operation for the first part of the test for such products. The test 
procedure established by this final rule retains this approach. If 
there are products in existence that cannot properly be tested using 
this method, DOE believes that they would also not be properly tested 
using the waiver test procedure and, hence, DOE believes such products 
would require a different waiver with a different alternative test 
procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., ``Decision and Order Granting a Waiver to GE 
Appliances From the Department of Energy Residential Refrigerator 
and Refrigerator-Freezer Test Procedures'', Case No. RF-029, 78 FR 
38699 (June 27, 2013). This waiver test procedure has specific 
requirements for stability and steady state, including, for example, 
``Steady State for EP1: The temperature average for the first and 
last compressor cycle of the test period must be within 1.0 degrees 
F (0.6 degrees C) of the test period temperature average for each 
compartment.'' Id. at pp. 38700-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second Part of the Test
    For the second part of the test, the July 2013 NOPR proposed a test 
period in which either the starting or stopping of the compressor can 
be used to determine both the beginning and end of the test period. For 
example, if a compressor start is used to determine the beginning of a 
test period, a later compressor start would be used to determine the 
end of the test period. Alternatively, a test period could begin and 
end when the compressor stops. Thus, a test period could extend from a 
compressor start to a compressor start or a compressor stop to a 
compressor stop, but not from a compressor start to a compressor stop 
or vice versa. In addition, the start and end of the test period must 
take place during stable operation before and after the target defrost 
cycle. DOE did not propose a 24-hour test period for the second part of 
the test because it concluded that increasing the period duration would 
not reduce the magnitude of the truncation error that might occur. 78 
FR 41634-41636 (July 10, 2013).
    The DOE proposal for multiple-compressor systems was consistent 
with Appendix A's requirement that the test period for the second part 
of the test for products with long-time or variable defrost must start 
and end during stable operation. Appendix A requires that the 
compartment temperatures for the compressor cycles prior to and after 
the second part of the test be within 0.5 [deg]F of their temperature 
averages for the first part of the test (See Appendix A, section 
4.2.1.1), as opposed to the 1.0 [deg]F requirement of the Sub-Zero 
waiver and the AHAM proposal. DOE stated in the July 2013 NOPR that 
this same tolerance for ensuring that the test period does not include 
any events associated with the defrost cycle (such as precooling or 
recovery) should apply to multiple-compressor systems as well as 
single-compressor systems because the events before, during, and after 
the defrost cycles of both types of products have the same basic 
functions (removing frost from the evaporator) and same basic control 
sequence (optional precooling, heating, temperature recovery). However, 
DOE proposed a multiple-compressor system test procedure that would 
also require that the compressor cycles examined to confirm stable 
operation at the start and end of the second part of the test be the 
first and last compressor cycles (or temperature cycles) within the 
test period, consistent with the granted waivers. DOE believed that 
this approach would better ensure that the test period begins and ends 
during stable operation because the examination of compressor or 
temperature cycles would occur within the test period, and would not 
involve cycles that may fall outside the test period. In the special 
case where there are no cycling compressors, DOE proposed to require 
that the test period start and end when the compartment temperatures 
are within 0.5 [deg]F of their averages for the first part of the test, 
which is also consistent with the Appendix A test procedure (See 
Appendix A, section 4.2.1.2).
    Both AHAM and GE supported DOE's attempt to reduce the burden of 
the second part of the test for multiple-compressor products by not 
requiring that the test period last 24 hours.

[[Page 22329]]

(AHAM, No. 30 at p. 15; GE, No. 31 at p. 5) However, AHAM and GE 
indicated that DOE's dataset was not large enough to support the 
proposal as is. (Id.) AHAM also stated that DOE's proposal would cause 
an equal number of (if not more) concerns and complexity. (Id.) 
However, rather than detailing any specific concerns, AHAM recommended 
that DOE adopt the approach for the second part of the test found in 
the test procedure waivers for multiple-compressor products. AHAM 
offered to develop an improved procedure in the future.
    Although the stakeholders did not clarify which aspect of DOE's 
proposal could not be supported by the limited dataset, DOE assumes 
that the key issue was the reduction of the test period for the second 
part of the test, eliminating the need for a duration of 24 hours. DOE 
notes that its conclusion that the 24-hour duration was unnecessary was 
based primarily on consideration of the energy use equations, and that 
its supporting data served as confirmation and demonstration of its 
initial conclusions that a 24-hour test period duration did not improve 
test accuracy. As discussed in the July 2013 NOPR, the term in the 
energy use equation that represents the contribution of defrost is not 
divided by the duration of the second part of the test, as is the term 
in the equation that represents the contribution of steady-state 
operation, which is divided by the duration of the first part of the 
test. This means that any truncation error introduced when measuring 
the energy usage for the second part of the test would not be reduced 
by selecting a longer test period, as would occur for the first part of 
the test. While DOE would not object to testers using continuous test 
periods as long as 24 hours for the second part of the test, DOE 
believes that combining multiple non-continuous running periods to 
accrue 24 hours of test period duration is inappropriate, because 
adding any additional running period has the potential to add 
additional truncation error to the calculation. Hence, DOE is adopting 
its proposed approach for the second part of the test for multiple-
compressor products.
One-Part Test Simplification
    In the July 2013 NOPR, DOE proposed a one-part test for multiple-
compressor products for which (a) only one compressor system has 
automatic defrost and (b) that defrost is neither long-time defrost nor 
variable defrost. DOE noted in the July 2013 NOPR that the proposed 
test period would start at a point during a defrost period and end at 
the same point during the subsequent defrost period, which is the same 
approach taken by the existing test procedure for single-compressor 
products with automatic defrost that is neither long-time nor variable 
(See Appendix A, section 4.2). DOE proposed using a single test period 
to minimize the test burden for products with short-time automatic 
defrost for only one of the compressor systems.
    GE commented that it is not aware of these types of products. (GE, 
No. 31 at p. 4) AHAM also questioned whether there are enough (or any) 
products that satisfy DOE's description to warrant a separate procedure 
or whether it would instead be sufficient to use the existing waiver 
approach. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 13) DOE proposed this simplification to 
reduce test burden. However, the stakeholder comments indicate that 
there is no need for such a reduction in burden, due to the lack of 
applicable products, so DOE is not adopting this proposal. Instead, all 
products will have to be tested using the two-part test method as 
described in this final rule.
Test Simplifications for Tests With One or No Cycling Compressors
    In the July 2013 NOPR, DOE proposed another test simplification for 
multiple-compressor products with either one or no cycling compressors. 
That proposal would allow use of the provisions in sections 4.1 and 4.2 
of Appendix A for the first and second part of the test. Specifically, 
if only one of the compressors cycles, the test period for the first 
part of the test would be at least three hours long and comprise two or 
more complete cycles of the cycling compressor. Further, if none of the 
compressors cycle, the test period for the first part of the test would 
be three hours long. Both GE and AHAM indicated that DOE's proposal may 
not accurately account for the energy use of a model that has one 
cycling compressor and a second variable speed compressor. (GE, No. 31 
at p. 4; AHAM, No. 30 at p. 14) DOE proposed this simplification to 
reduce test burden. However, commenters indicated that there are 
circumstances for which the approach would not work and suggested that 
burden reduction was unnecessary in this case. Hence, this final rule 
does not adopt the proposal to simplify the test procedure for 
multiple-compressor products with no more than one cycling compressor. 
Instead, these products will require the full first part of the test 
adopted in this final rule.
Energy Use Equations
    DOE proposed an energy use equation for multiple-compressor systems 
similar to the equation found in Appendix A for products with single 
compressors and multiple defrost cycle types. For both of these product 
types, the energy use for each distinct defrost cycle is added 
separately using its corresponding CT value (i.e., hours of compressor 
operation between defrosts) to adjust the measurement to represent the 
defrost cycle's average contribution to energy use per 24 hours (See 
Appendix A, section 5.2.1.5). DOE received no comment on this proposal 
and therefore adopts it in this final rule.
Effect on Measured Energy Use
    DOE notes that the July 2013 NOPR proposed to replace the existing 
test procedure's dual compressor system test in Appendix A with a new 
test procedure that would address products using multiple-compressor 
systems. When modifying test procedures, DOE considers the extent to 
which the energy use or energy efficiency measurement may be altered 
under a proposed procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) As noted earlier, 
Appendix A will not be required for certifying compliance until the 
compliance date of the new refrigeration product energy conservation 
standards. 77 FR 3559 (Jan. 25, 2012). DOE is aware of very few 
products that have multiple-compressor systems and has received 
petitions for waiver from the existing test procedure from Sub-Zero, 
GE, LG, and Samsung for testing of dual compressor products, which DOE 
has granted. 77 FR 5784 (Feb. 6, 2012), 78 FR 38699 (Jun. 27, 2013), 78 
FR 18327 (Mar. 26, 2013), 78 FR 35899 (Jun. 14, 2013). DOE's tentative 
view, at the time of the July 2013 NOPR, was that its proposed test 
procedure for multiple-compressor products would not significantly 
impact the manner in which such products would be tested using the test 
procedure of the waivers. DOE requested comment on the existence of 
other multiple-compressor products, how these products are tested 
(e.g., whether they use the existing dual compressor test procedure of 
Appendix A1), and whether the measurement of energy use would change 
using the proposed test procedure.
    GE responded that there are differences in measured energy 
consumption based on the proposal, citing the differences in the 
measurement depending on whether the test periods are determined based 
on compressor cycles or temperature cycles. (GE, No. 31 at p. 5) As 
previously discussed, DOE is finalizing the test procedure without the 
option of using temperature cycles to determine test periods--only a 
compressor-cycle-based approach is being adopted, which

[[Page 22330]]

is the same one used in the test procedure waivers. Hence, DOE 
concludes that the measurement differences cited by GE would no longer 
be relevant.
    Additionally, AHAM cited the potential one percent truncation error 
as evidence that the proposed test procedure could impact measured 
energy use and indicated that DOE should analyze the data that it 
collected to determine if the measurement could change when using the 
proposed test procedure. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 16) DOE acknowledges there 
is a potential for truncation error when using the waiver test 
procedure (which is a question of overall accuracy). DOE believes that 
the measurement resulting from the procedure adopted in this final rule 
would result in a more accurate and representative measurement of the 
product's energy use rather than an actual change in measured energy 
use.
    Sub-Zero responded that the waiver test procedure is accurate, 
repeatable, and has been verified through use at independent 
laboratories and in the ``industry verification program.'' \12\ It 
added that the proposed test procedure would be more complicated, time-
consuming, difficult to conduct and potentially less accurate and 
repeatable than the waiver test procedure. Sub-Zero also pointed to the 
specific areas of concern contained in the AHAM comments. (Sub Zero, 
No. 32 at pp. 1-2) In this final rule, DOE has modified the procedure 
by addressing many of the key concerns raised in the AHAM comments. As 
discussed above, the remaining key difference between the procedure 
finalized in this final rule and the waiver test procedure pertains to 
the waiver test procedure's use of non-continuous running periods to 
accrue a full 24 hours of testing time for both parts of the test. As 
discussed above, DOE believes that allowing non-continuous running 
periods subjects the test procedure to risk of greater error, based on 
DOE's testing and analysis. DOE believes that the potential error is 
likely to be greater than the one percent that AHAM separately 
suggested may not be acceptable. Were DOE to accept AHAM's recommended 
approach, the risk of increasing the truncation error would be even 
larger than under the approach DOE is adopting today. DOE notes that it 
received no details of any work by industry, to which Sub-Zero alluded 
in its comments, to validate the waiver test procedure. Consequently, 
DOE's views regarding the potential impacts of the procedure are based 
on a review of its own data and the fundamental fact that each 
additional running period introduced into the energy use equation can 
compound the truncation error with the addition of another truncation 
event. Hence, DOE has not adopted the waiver test procedures' allowance 
of the use of non-continuous running periods. Instead, DOE will adopt 
the approach proposed in the July 2013 NOPR, which requires a single 
segment of time to comprise the test period. In this way, the risk of 
truncation error will be substantially reduced, compared to the current 
test procedure waiver approach that some manufacturers have been 
permitted to use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Sub-Zero comment did not clarify, but DOE believes that 
the ``industry verification program'' referred to in Sub-Zero's 
comments may be the verification program managed by AHAM--see http://www.aham.org/industry/ht/d/Items/cat_id/49796/pid/1220/cids/389,425,49796.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received no comments indicating the existence of other 
multiple-compressor products other than those identified in waivers and 
no comments indicating that any products are tested using the existing 
dual compressor test procedure.
Elimination of Multiple-Compressor Test Procedure Waivers
    DOE notes that, consistent with its regulations, the Sub-Zero, GE, 
LG, and Samsung dual compressor waivers will terminate once parties are 
required to use the multiple-compressor test procedures of Appendices A 
and B to demonstrate compliance with DOE regulations (i.e., on 
September 15, 2014). (See 10 CFR 430.27(m))
Multiple-Compressor Products With Manual Defrost
    These new procedures for multiple-compressor products apply only to 
multiple-compressor products with automatic defrost. DOE received no 
comment revealing the existence of multiple-compressor products with 
manual defrost and has not made changes in the test procedure to 
account for such products.
2. Triangulation
    The July 2013 NOPR proposed incorporating a modified version of the 
so-called ``triangulation'' interpolation approach described in 
Australian/New Zealand Standard 4474.1-2007 \13\ (AS/NZ 4474.1-2007) as 
an option to calculate energy use. DOE's test procedures generally 
require conducting the energy test for two different settings of the 
temperature control. See, e.g., 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix A, 
section 3.2.1. The energy use is calculated as a weighted average of 
the measurements of the two tests, depending on the compartment 
temperatures measured during the tests, to represent the energy use 
that would occur if the compartment temperature were exactly equal to 
its standardized temperature. See, e.g., Appendix A, section 6.2.1.2. 
As described in the NOPR, for products with two compartments, this 
calculation often represents the operation of a product in which one of 
the compartments is cooler than its standardized temperature. 78 FR 
41636-41637 (July 10, 2013). The triangulation approach resolves this 
issue by using a weighted average of the energy use measured from three 
tests, thus allowing calculation of the energy use that would occur 
when both compartment temperatures exactly equal their standardized 
temperatures. The July 2013 NOPR explained in detail why the triangular 
interpolation of the measurements for three temperature settings 
results in a more accurate measurement of energy when compared to the 
linear interpolation using two temperature settings. (Id. at 41637).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ ``Australian/New Zealand Standard, Performance of Household 
Electrical Appliances--Refrigerating Appliances, Part 1: Energy 
Consumption and Performance'', AS/NZS 4474. 1:2007, Appendix M, 
available for purchase at http://infostore.saiglobal.com/store/results2.aspx?searchType=simple&publisher=all&keyword=AS/NZS%204474.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NOPR proposed to incorporate by reference parts of Appendix M 
of AS/NZS 4474.1-2007 as an optional interpolation method. A new 
section 3.3 of the test procedure would reference subsections M3.a 
through M3.c and Figure M1 of appendix M of AS/NZS 4474.1-2007 to 
specify the requirements for the three-setting test procedure as an 
alternative to using the requirements of section 3.2 of Appendix A. The 
procedure would clarify that the target temperatures txA and 
txB discussed in the Australia/New Zealand procedure would 
be the standardized temperatures as defined in section 3.2 of the DOE 
test procedure. However, DOE proposed to require that the first two of 
the three tests comply with the requirements for the two-test method 
contained in Appendix A, section 3.2.1. DOE included this requirement 
because it would also allow for use of the current energy calculations 
as well as the triangulation energy calculations. 78 FR 41639 (July 10, 
2013).
    AHAM submitted comments supporting the adoption of a triangulation 
approach. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 17) However, AHAM suggested that DOE not 
require that the first two settings of the triangulation test adhere to 
the provisions in Appendix A for a two-setting test because AS/NZS 
4474.1-2007 allows test facilities to

[[Page 22331]]

choose the settings of all tests for more accurate results. (Id.) As a 
result, AHAM asked DOE to reconsider this aspect of its proposal in 
order to harmonize with AS/NZS 4474.1-2007 as well as with the 
refrigerator test standard currently under development by the 
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), as represented by its 
Committee Draft for Vote (CDV) of Part 1 of IEC 62552.2 Household 
refrigerating appliances--Characteristics and test methods. (Id.)
    DOE agrees with AHAM that allowing greater flexibility in the 
selection of temperature settings may provide more accurate results. As 
described in AS/NZS 4474.1-2007, when the three sets of measured 
compartment temperatures (freezer compartment temperature paired with 
fresh food compartment temperature) are plotted on a graph of freezer 
temperature versus fresh food compartment temperature, the triangle 
formed by the points must enclose the point representing the pair of 
standardized temperatures (i.e., 0 [deg]F freezer compartment 
temperature and 39 [deg]F fresh food compartment temperature). Ensuring 
that the three tests meet this requirement may be much more difficult 
if the first two tests must be conducted exactly as dictated by the DOE 
test procedure. Therefore, DOE is permitting any three sets of 
temperature control settings to be selected for the optional 
triangulation approach, provided that the temperature settings for each 
individual compartment all represent median, coldest, or warmest 
settings. DOE is adopting this approach based on its belief that it is 
important to provide a valid measurement of energy use at the 
standardized compartment temperatures, and that using the settings 
prescribed for the current two-test approach is not essential to 
achieving this objective because the triangulation interpolation method 
is designed to work with any three settings with temperatures that 
surround the target standardized temperatures (i.e., for which the 
plotted triangle encloses the standardized temperature point, as 
described above).
    The July 2013 NOPR proposed a new section 6.2.2.3 detailing the 
calculation of energy use under the proposed triangulation approach. 
This proposed section would require using the calculations described in 
section M4.a of AS/NZS 4474.1-2007 to determine the energy consumption 
of the tested unit but excluding the energy use contribution of 
icemaking. The fixed value of energy use associated with icemaking, 
defined in section 6.2.2.1, would be added to this result for products 
with automatic icemakers. DOE received no comment on this proposal. 
Accordingly, DOE is adopting its proposed approach.
    Finally, during the 2013 public meeting, GE commented that DOE 
should consider incorporation of the single test to measure energy 
consumption found in Appendix L of AS/NZS 4474.1-2007. (This test 
requires that the compartment temperatures measured during the test are 
both no higher than their standardized temperatures.) (GE, NOPR Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 99) Using a single test would reduce 
test burden, assuming the measured compartment temperatures are lower 
than their standardized temperatures for the first selected test 
setting and additional tests are not needed. However, in this final 
rule, DOE has decided not to incorporate a single setting test because 
stakeholders have not been provided adequate time to review the details 
of the suggested procedure. DOE may consider this procedure in the 
future.
Certification
    DOE proposed to amend section 429.14(b) to require manufacturers to 
identify which interpolation method they used to rate and certify a 
particular basic model (i.e., triangulation or a two-setting test). In 
the NOPR, DOE noted that more than one unit is tested for each rating 
(See, for example, 10 CFR 429.11(b), which indicates a sample size 
minimum of two units). Therefore, DOE proposed to require that all 
units of a given model that are tested for certification purposes be 
tested using the same test method and that the certification report 
indicate whether the triangulation method was used.
    AHAM suggested that DOE not require manufacturers to report which 
method was used for certification testing (i.e., whether the two-test 
method or the triangulation method was used) because this would add to 
manufacturer reporting burden, and because DOE can request to see test 
reports of certified models if it wishes to confirm whether products 
were tested using triangulation. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 17) AHAM also 
indicated that test facilities should be permitted to use different 
methods for each unit within a model's sample to prevent unnecessary 
added test burden. (Id.) For example, individual units may have 
refrigeration and control systems tuned so that both compartments have 
temperatures equal to their standardized temperatures at equivalent 
temperature control settings. For such units, the calculated energy use 
(e.g., per Appendix A, section 6.2.2.2) would be the same when using 
the freezer compartment interpolation and the fresh food interpolation, 
and use of a third test and a triangular interpolation would not change 
the result.
    Viewed from within the context of compliance with the applicable 
energy conservation standard, an individual unit may satisfy the 
applicable standard with sufficient margin using the two-test method 
while other units within the same model sample may require the 
triangulation method to satisfy the relevant energy standard with 
sufficient margin. Because triangulation might not be required for 
testing of all units in a sample to show that the model meets the 
applicable energy conservation standard, and to limit the required test 
burden, DOE will not adopt the proposed requirement that triangulation 
must be used for all units tested to certify compliance for a given 
model if the test for one of the units uses the method. Further, 
because measurements using the two-test method would generally be more 
conservative (indicating higher energy use), but be only slightly 
different than measurements made using triangulation, DOE considers 
both methods to be valid. Hence, in order to further reduce the burden 
associated with certification, DOE will not require certification 
reports to indicate whether triangulation was used for testing.
    Regarding testing options generally, DOE notes that because the 
two-test method generally yields results that are more conservative 
than the triangulation test (i.e., higher energy use), DOE proposed to 
permit manufacturers to continue using the two-part test at their 
discretion. By permitting manufacturers to continue using the simpler 
two-part test, DOE intended to limit the overall burdens that are 
placed on the industry. However, given that tests conducted using the 
triangulation approach may potentially, for certain basic models, yield 
more representative results, DOE proposed to use this particular method 
when conducting assessment testing, pursuant to 10 CFR 429.104, and 
enforcement testing, pursuant to 10 CFR 429.110, if either (a) the 
manufacturer indicates that the triangulation method was used for 
rating the model, or (b) certain conditions are observed during the 
first two tests of a given unit of a basic model that suggest that a 
third test might yield a more representative measurement than the two-
test method. Specifically, if the calculated energy use using Appendix 
A, section 6.2.2.2 (one measurement based on use of the fresh food 
compartment temperature and the other based on the freezer compartment 
temperature) differs by more than five

[[Page 22332]]

percent of the greater of the two results for any tested unit of the 
basic model, DOE proposed that it would use the triangulation method 
for any assessment or enforcement testing for all units of that basic 
model. This approach may, in certain circumstances, require retesting 
of a unit previously tested if, for example, condition (b) above did 
not apply for the test conducted for a first unit of a tested model but 
did apply for later tests. AHAM suggested that DOE use the 
triangulation approach whenever testing units within its verification 
programs to guarantee accuracy. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 17) DOE is 
specifying in a new section 429.134 that DOE will use the triangulation 
test prior to making a finding of noncompliance with respect to a 
particular basic model for that particular sample of tested units 
because the two-test method in some cases will result in a more 
conservative measure of energy use. In other circumstances, however, to 
limit unnecessary testing, DOE will not necessarily use the 
triangulation method.
3. Anti-Circumvention Language
Revisions Addressing Past Stakeholder Comments
    DOE proposed to revise the anti-circumvention language in sections 
10 CFR 430.23(a)(10)(ii) and 10 CFR 430.23(b)(7)(ii) to better reflect 
the wording found in the AHAM's HRF-1-2008 procedure, as had been 
recommended in comments by AHAM and Whirlpool that were provided during 
the December 2010 interim final rule comment period. (See ``Test 
Procedure for Residential Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 
Freezers,'' Docket No. EERE-2009-BT-TP-0003, No. 16 at p. 4, No. 12 at 
p. 2) The current DOE anti-circumvention language was modeled after 
section 1.2 of HRF-1-2008 and parts of the DOE language are nearly 
identical to the HRF-1-2008 language. DOE proposed to bring the DOE 
language into even closer alignment with HRF-1-2008 in the July 2013 
NOPR because such changes would not weaken the requirements and would 
help achieve better consistency with the nearly identical industry 
standard, which would generally make testing more consistent. DOE also 
proposed to move the four examples (currently section 10 CFR 
430.23(a)(10)(ii)A-D) describing components operating in a manner 
inconsistent with operation under typical room conditions to follow the 
paragraph describing operational behavior that DOE identifies as 
constituting anti-circumvention. 10 CFR 430.23(a)(10)(i)
    In response to the July 2013 NOPR, AHAM and Whirlpool supported the 
proposed revisions to the anti-circumvention sections. (AHAM, No. 30 at 
p. 17; Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 2) However, BSH commented that DOE 
should refer to the draft IEC test procedure \14\ for guidance on how 
to improve DOE's anti-circumvention sections. (BSH, No. 21 at p. 1) DOE 
notes that changes to the anti-circumvention sections were proposed in 
response to earlier industry feedback and comment, which did not 
mention the IEC draft test procedure language. DOE reviewed the IEC 
draft test procedure, which has two key provisions that are not in the 
DOE test procedure--(a) the IEC draft test procedure provides detailed 
guidance on how to detect circumvention once suspected, and (b) the IEC 
draft test procedure identifies what is not considered to be 
circumvention. The IEC draft describes these provisions in detail. 
While DOE believes that the inclusion of these provisions may have 
merit, the agency wishes to ensure that the public receives a 
sufficient opportunity to review these provisions. Therefore, DOE is 
not adopting BSH's suggestion at this time but may consider proposing 
these provisions in the future. DOE received no other comments on its 
proposed revisions to the anti-circumvention language and is adopting 
its proposed changes for these sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Committee Draft for Vote (CDV) of Part 1 of IEC 62552.2 
Household refrigerating appliances--Characteristics and test 
methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Components That Operate Differently During Testing
    The July 2013 NOPR discussed inquiries from Whirlpool and Samsung 
about when to apply for a test procedure waiver for products that 
operate differently during testing as compared to typical field 
operation. This scenario is addressed in a clause of the existing anti-
circumvention language of the DOE test procedure that DOE did not 
propose to modify. See, e.g., 10 CFR 430.23(a)(10) (indicating that a 
manufacturer must obtain a waiver if (i) a product contains energy 
consuming components that operate differently during the prescribed 
testing than they would during representative average consumer use, and 
(ii) applying the prescribed test to the product would evaluate it in a 
manner that is unrepresentative of its true energy consumption). DOE 
also issued guidance on this matter on May 28, 2013. That guidance 
provides a framework for assessing the potential need for a waiver 
within the context of the existing anti-circumvention provisions.\15\ 
As a result, the July 2013 NOPR did not propose a specific amendment to 
the provisions of 430.23(a)(10) (and 430.23(b)(7) for freezers) to 
further address the concerns raised by the Whirlpool and Samsung 
inquiries. The NOPR did, however, request comment on the need for a 
potential test procedure revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ This guidance is posted in DOE's online Guidance and FAQ 
database, and is available for viewing at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/guidance/default.aspx?pid=2&spid=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM agreed with DOE's approach--i.e., not to modify the current 
anti-circumvention language to accommodate products that operate 
differently during testing. AHAM indicated that the May 2013 guidance 
document sufficiently addresses this issue. This final rule makes no 
changes to the current anti-circumvention language.
4. Incomplete Cycling
    In the July 2013 NOPR, DOE proposed changing the incomplete cycling 
compressor test procedure to improve its accuracy and ease test burden. 
Specifically, DOE proposed to eliminate the 24-hour test period 
requirement for products exhibiting compressor cycles that exceed 12 
hours in length, and instead require that the test period be comprised 
of a single compressor cycle. The July 2013 NOPR discusses the 
advantages of the proposal compared to the current requirement in 
section 4.1 of Appendices A and B. 78 FR 41640-41641 (July 10, 2013).
    During the NOPR public meeting, GE mentioned that based on its 
experience, test facilities in the U.S. and abroad base test periods on 
a whole number of compressor cycles rather than using the 24-hour test 
period that is required in the DOE procedure for products with 
incomplete cycling. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 105; 
GE, No. 31 at p. 7) In DOE's view, using a whole number of compressor 
cycles yields an accurate measurement of the energy use of a product 
with incomplete cycling. GE supported the DOE proposal and agreed with 
DOE that test periods should be based on whole numbers of compressor 
cycles rather than be set at 24 hours for incomplete cycling products. 
(Id.) AHAM also agreed with the DOE proposal. However, AHAM recommended 
that DOE remove the term ``incomplete cycling'' from the test 
procedures and instead modify section 4.1 of Appendices A and B to 
simply state, ``If fewer than two compressor

[[Page 22333]]

cycles occur during a 24-hour period, then a single complete compressor 
cycle may be used.'' (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 18) DOE notes that section 4.1 
is the only place in either Appendix A or B that uses the term 
incomplete cycling. DOE agrees that the term is not needed and is 
adopting the change suggested by AHAM.
    Additionally, AHAM suggested that DOE modify the test procedures to 
allow the data used to establish steady state conditions (e.g., as 
described in Appendix A, section 2.9) to be used when performing the 
first part of the two-part test for products with long-time or variable 
defrost. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 18) AHAM argued that its approach would be 
better than requiring separate periods for verifying stabilization and 
the test period because of the shortened test time. (Id.) AHAM 
indicated that requiring a separate period to comprise the first part 
of the test made sense when data were collected manually because 
stability needed to be determined before collecting test data. However, 
current electronic data acquisition systems can collect data during the 
stability period without added burden. Finally, AHAM recommended that 
DOE adopt AHAM's proposal for all products and not just incomplete 
cycling products. (Id.) GE made essentially the same comment during the 
public meeting. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 105-6) 
DOE notes that adopting these changes at this time would not allow 
adequate time for stakeholder input, but DOE may consider this approach 
in a future rulemaking.
5. Correction of Temperature Measurement Period
    In the July 2013 NOPR, DOE proposed to address an inconsistency in 
the existing test procedure associated with temperature measurements 
for short-time defrost products (i.e., products whose defrost is 
neither long-time nor variable). Specifically, DOE proposed to require 
that the compartment temperatures used in energy use calculations for 
these products be the averages of the measured temperatures taken in a 
compartment during a stable period of compressor operation containing 
no defrost cycle or events associated with a defrost cycle, such as 
precooling or recovery, that includes at least two complete compressor 
or temperature cycles (if the compressor cycles on and off or the 
temperature cycles up and down) and is at least three hours in 
duration--essentially the same test period specified in section 4.1 of 
the test procedure for products with manual defrost, except that for 
these short-time defrost products this test period would be used for 
temperature measurement only, whereas it is used for both energy and 
temperature measurement for manual defrost products. DOE received no 
comments regarding this proposal. However, as discussed in section 
III.C.1, stakeholders objected to using temperature cycles to define 
test periods. Hence, DOE is adopting its proposed amendments to section 
5.1.2 of Appendices A and B for correcting the test procedure 
requirements for measuring compartment temperatures, except for the 
option to select test periods based on temperature cycles.
6. Mechanical Temperature Controls
    Recently, third-party test facilities have asked DOE to clarify how 
to determine the proper settings for mechanical temperature controls. 
Specifically, they inquired whether, when setting mechanical controls 
to the warmest or coldest setting, the control should be adjusted to 
the position at the last number or symbol on the control, or whether it 
should be positioned to the most extreme physical positions of the 
control. In response to these inquiries, DOE proposed requiring that 
mechanical controls be set to the highest or lowest number or symbol 
indicated on the control. DOE proposed this method instead of the 
alternative because of the possibility of unintentionally turning off 
the unit when moving the control to the extreme physical position for 
the warmest setting.
    GE noted that different test facilities follow different methods 
for determining the warmest and coldest settings. (GE, No. 31 at p. 7) 
GE and Whirlpool supported DOE's proposal because it would ensure that 
all test setups are the same, and because the proposal is consistent 
with the current Canadian Standards Association (CSA) test standard 
C300-08, ``Energy Performance and Capacity of Household Refrigerators, 
Refrigerator-Freezers, Freezers, and Wine Chillers,'' (``CSA C300-
08''). Section 5.1.7.1(b) of CSA C300-08 requires that control settings 
must be at the ``marked warmest or coldest settings.'' (GE, No. 31 at 
p.7; Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 3))
    FSI supported DOE's intent to limit the interpretive nature of the 
test procedure, but stated that some products use temperature controls 
with ``extreme cold'' positions that bypass the thermostat and are 
intended only for short-duration, rapid cool-down of newly inserted 
food. It also noted that the behavior of some compact products may be 
erratic at extreme temperature control settings. (FSI, No. 20 at p. 7) 
(FSI did not provide details of this erratic nature or why this 
behavior would occur specifically in compact products.) FSI recommended 
that the procedure use control settings for warm and cold operation 
that are one position higher and lower than the median position. (Id.) 
DOE notes that this method has not been previously raised or 
considered, and FSI provided no data to support its suggested approach. 
As a result, in the absence of any supporting data and with no 
opportunity for public comment on this approach, DOE is declining to 
include FSI's additional recommendations and is adopting into section 
3.2.1 of Appendices A and B the proposed amendment for mechanical 
controls. DOE notes, however, that any party that believes that testing 
a given model in accordance with the DOE test procedure will yield 
materially inaccurate comparative data must apply for a test procedure 
waiver.
7. Ambient Temperature Gradient
Location of Ambient Temperature Sensors
    Appendices A and B reference HRF-1-2008 for ambient temperature 
measurement requirements. However, the version of HRF-1-2008 in use at 
the time DOE was preparing the July 2013 NOPR did not specify the 
location of sensors to measure ambient temperature. As a result, DOE 
proposed to add sensor location requirements in a new section 2.1.1. 
The proposal specified that the ambient temperature be recorded at 
points located 3 feet above the floor and 10 inches from the center of 
the two sides of the unit, the same locations that have been used for 
refrigerator testing for decades. See, e.g., HRF-1-1979, sec. 7.4.3.1, 
incorporated by reference in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix A1.
    FSI opposed DOE's proposal to measure ambient temperature on the 
sides of the units. (FSI, No. 20 at pp. 7-8) However, based on FSI's 
additional comments, DOE believes that FSI objected to DOE's proposal 
to require additional measurement of ambient temperature at heights of 
2 inches and 7 feet (or one foot above the top of the unit, whichever 
is higher) rather than its proposal to require the two ambient 
temperature measurements at the locations used in the current test 
procedure. DOE believes that FSI's concern is about the proposed 
requirement for four additional ambient temperature sensors. This issue 
is associated with maintenance of the ambient temperature gradient 
rather than specifically the measurement of

[[Page 22334]]

ambient temperature, which is discussed below.
    AHAM, GE, and Whirlpool supported the proposed sensor locations. 
(AHAM, No. 30 at p. 19; GE, No. 31 at p. 7; Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 4) 
AHAM stated that it issued an errata document in April 2013 for HRF-1-
2008 to correct its inadvertent omission of specified temperature 
sensor locations. Given the publication of the errata, AHAM indicated 
that the new section of Appendices A and B proposed in the NOPR to 
address this issue may not be required (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 19), likely 
basing this statement on the assumption that, once the errata were 
published, they would be considered to be incorporated by reference in 
DOE's test procedures with the surrounding sections of HRF-1-2008. DOE 
notes that its test procedures would have to be amended to clarify that 
the new section of HRF-1-2008 is incorporated by reference; when DOE 
incorporates a standard, the standard is only incorporated as it exists 
at the time of incorporation. As such, DOE had to specifically 
incorporate the November 17, 2009 Errata to make them a part of the DOE 
test procedure.\16\ However, some of the proposals for the new ambient 
temperature section in Appendices A and B that DOE is adopting, 
discussed below, are not the same as the language in HRF-1-2008. Hence, 
DOE has decided to adopt the proposal to insert the ambient temperature 
requirements directly in section 2.1.1 of Appendices A and B. DOE notes 
that its requirements for ambient temperature measurement are 
consistent with the requirements in HRF-1-2008, including the recent 
errata, but that the adopted text more clearly describes the 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 10 CFR 430.3(h)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relocation and Shielding
    In the July 2013 NOPR, DOE noted that the requirements in 
Appendices A and B suggest that relocating ambient temperature sensors 
is appropriate when necessary to avoid the impact of the warming effect 
of the condensing unit. DOE does not believe that this relocation is 
appropriate for the reasons outlined in the NOPR. See 78 FR 41643 (July 
10, 2013). Hence, DOE proposed to eliminate the temperature sensor 
relocation option. This option is suggested by section 5.3.1 of HRF-1-
2008, which is incorporated by reference in Appendices A and B: 
``Temperature measuring devices shall be located or shielded so that 
indicated temperatures are not affected by the operation of the 
condensing unit or adjacent units.'' DOE proposed language to clarify 
that shielding is allowed but not relocation of the sensor. DOE 
proposed to include the modified language in Appendices A and B in the 
revised section 2.1 addressing ambient temperature requirements. DOE 
received no stakeholder comments opposed to the modified language. 
Hence, DOE adopts this proposal in this final rule.
Condenser Temperature Sensor
    FSI commented that heat can build up behind refrigerators with 
rear-wall condensers, especially if they are placed near a wall. FSI 
recommended that DOE require placing a temperature sensor behind any 
unit with a rear mounted condenser. (FSI, No. 20 at p. 7) FSI provided 
no details on the exact placement of such a sensor, nor recommendations 
regarding the purpose or use of the measurement. DOE agrees that heat 
can build up behind any refrigeration product when placed close to a 
rear wall, which is the positioning required in the test procedure. The 
test procedure requires units to be placed with minimal clearance to a 
rear wall because such placement is very common in consumers' homes--
and the test procedure attempts to reproduce any impact that such field 
placement can have on a refrigerator's performance. See 75 FR 78820-
78821. Because FSI provided no supporting details regarding its 
recommendation and because DOE has no other basis on which to require 
accounting for heat buildup behind the cabinet, DOE is declining to 
adopt it.
Maintaining the Ambient Temperature Gradient During Testing
    Appendices A and B currently require that the ambient temperature 
gradient be ``maintained during the test.'' Further, section 5.3.1 of 
HRF-1-2008, incorporated by reference in section 2.2 of Appendices A 
and B, indicates that, ``Unless the area is obstructed by shields or 
baffles, the gradient is to be maintained from 2 inches (5.1 cm) above 
the floor or supporting platform to a height 1 foot (30.5 cm) above the 
unit under test.'' DOE explained that this language from HRF-1-2008 is 
vague as to whether the ambient temperature gradients must be 
maintained if there are shields or baffles present. DOE proposed to 
eliminate this ambiguity by (1) removing the reference to HRF-1-2008 
section 5.3.1 from section 2.2 of Appendices A and B and (2) revising 
section 2.1 of Appendices A and B to explain that parties must shield 
temperature measuring devices when measuring ambient temperature, if 
necessary to prevent the indicated temperatures from being affected by 
the condensing unit or adjacent units. DOE received no stakeholder 
opposition on this proposal and is adopting this proposal.
    Regarding the maintenance of ambient temperature gradients, DOE 
recognized that at least some test facilities have faced difficulties 
with this requirement, particularly in light of the current lack of 
specificity in Appendices A and B on how to demonstrate that the 
temperature gradient is being maintained during testing. DOE proposed 
to require the use of temperature sensors on both sides of the test 
sample at 2 inches above the floor, 36 inches above the floor, and 
either 7 feet above the floor or one foot above the top of the cabinet, 
whichever is higher. The 36-inch sensors have always been required, as 
discussed above, and the proposal added four additional required 
sensors. However, as discussed in the NOPR, most test laboratories 
already employ the four additional ambient temperature sensors. 78 FR 
41644 (July 10, 2013). In addition, DOE proposed that the gradient 
would be maintained during testing at locations between the two pairs 
of vertically-adjacent sensors on each side (i.e., between the 2-inch 
and 36-inch temperature sensors and also between the 36-inch and 
highest positioned sensors).
    FSI objected to the proposed additional temperature sensors to 
measure the temperature gradient, indicating that while this approach 
might be suitable for large products with condensers mounted underneath 
the cabinets, most compact refrigerators have condensers mounted on 
their rear walls. (FSI, No. 20 at p. 7) The comment did not clarify why 
maintaining the ambient temperature gradient would not be necessary for 
accurately measuring the energy use of compact refrigerators. However, 
FSI also recommended that DOE investigate the frequency at which tests 
are likely to be invalidated under the proposed requirements due to 
occurrence of excessive temperature gradients. (Id. at p. 8) In DOE's 
work with test laboratories testing refrigerators, all of these test 
laboratories have used the four additional temperature sensors to 
document maintenance of the temperature gradient. While most of the 
laboratories have had no trouble maintaining the gradient, in some 
cases there have been issues with maintaining it. However, in such 
situations, both the laboratory and DOE have agreed that the inability 
to show that the gradient has been maintained indicates that the test 
does not follow the existing test procedure,

[[Page 22335]]

not simply the procedure as proposed in the July 2013 NOPR. Therefore, 
DOE believes that the 2013 NOPR proposal for ambient temperature 
gradients would not increase the frequency at which tests would be 
invalidated due to excessive temperature gradients. The requirement to 
maintain the gradient has been part of the procedure since development 
of HRF-1-1979 and the proposal to document maintenance of the gradient 
is simply a clarification that DOE is at this time adding to the test 
procedure instructions.
    AHAM requested that DOE revise the language of the proposal to 
better accommodate compact products and products that are less than six 
feet tall by eliminating the clause ``7 feet (2.2 m) or to a height'' 
from the proposal in section 2.1.2. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 19) For a 
product less than six feet tall, the clause in question would require 
ambient temperature sensors at locations more than 1 foot above the top 
of the unit. DOE agrees that maintaining the temperature gradient at 
heights greater than 1 foot above the unit is not necessary, since the 
temperature gradient at a distance more than 1 foot from the unit is 
not likely to affect its performance. Therefore, DOE is adopting AHAM's 
suggested modification to the DOE proposal in section 2.1.2 of 
Appendices A and B because the ambient temperature gradient in the 
space more than one foot above the unit should not affect test results.
    Finally, DOE proposed that the temperature measured by ambient 
temperature sensors be recorded in the test data underlying 
certifications in accordance with 10 CFR 429.71. DOE received no 
comment specific to this proposal and therefore adopts this proposal in 
section 2.1.2 of Appendices A and B.
Revising Ambient Temperature Requirements for Appendices A and B
    As mentioned previously, the ambient temperature requirements in 
Appendices A and B as finalized in the January 2012 Final Rule 
incorporate by reference certain sections of HRF-1-2008. Because DOE 
proposed in the July 2013 NOPR to modify some of these requirements, it 
also proposed to adopt directly into the appendices a modified version 
of the ambient temperature requirements of HRF-1-2008. This would 
create new sections 2.1.1 through 2.1.4 for both Appendices A and B and 
would remove the incorporation by reference for HRF-1-2008, section 
5.3.1. DOE received no comments opposed to this amendment and therefore 
adopts it in this final rule.
8. Elimination of Reporting of Product Height
    In the July 2013 NOPR, DOE proposed to eliminate the requirement 
for manufacturers to report product height in certification reports as 
currently specified in 10 CFR 429.14(b)(2). DOE made this proposal 
because the September 2011 Energy Conservation Standard final rule 
eliminated the 36-inch height restriction in the definition for compact 
products, effectively expanding the ``compact'' definition to include 
products with a total volume less than 7.75 cubic feet and height 
exceeding 36 inches. FSI, GE, Whirlpool, and AHAM all supported the DOE 
proposal. (FSI, No. 20 at p. 8; GE, No. 31 at p. 7; Whirlpool, No. 27 
at p. 4; AHAM, No. 30 at p. 21) No commenter objected to this approach. 
As a result, DOE is adopting its proposal.
9. Definitions Associated With Defrost Cycles
    In its proposal, DOE noted that the January 2012 Final Rule 
amendments modified the test periods for products with long-time or 
variable defrost (See, e.g., Appendix A, section 4.2.1). 77 FR 3563-
3568 (Jan. 25, 2012). That rule provided that the first part of the 
test would be a stable period of compressor operation that includes no 
portions of the defrost cycle, such as precooling or recovery. See 77 
FR 3563 (Jan. 25, 2012) for a detailed explanation of the concepts of 
``precooling'' and ``temperature recovery.'' However, DOE did not 
define the terms ``precooling'' and ``temperature recovery,'' nor did 
it define what comprises a ``stable period of compressor operation.'' 
As a result, DOE proposed definitions for each of these terms in the 
July 2013 NOPR to clarify the requirements of the test procedure.
Stable Operation Definition
    The July 2013 NOPR proposed to establish a definition for the term 
``stable operation,'' for which the rate of change of the compartment 
temperature would be no more than 0.042 [deg]F per hour. This is 
consistent with the existing test procedure requirement for determining 
steady-state operation (See, for example, Appendix A, section 2.9). For 
products with compressor cycles, or temperature cycles resulting from 
the cycling of a system component such as a damper or fan, the average 
compartment temperatures measured for two separate cycles within a 
selected period would be compared to determine stability. For products 
with no temperature cycling, any two points within a period would be 
compared to determine stability.
    AHAM's comment supported the DOE proposal to establish a definition 
for stable operation. AHAM did, however, suggest that DOE change ``rate 
of change'' to ``difference in compartment temperatures,'' explaining 
that this description ``more accurately represents the fact that the 
test compares the temperature difference between two two-hour periods 
based on the time between those periods.'' (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 21) DOE 
agrees that the rate of change is calculated as the difference between 
two temperature values (measured either at two different times or as 
the average temperatures during two different time periods representing 
cycles) divided by the elapsed time between those times (or time 
periods). This is described explicitly in sections (A) and (B) of the 
proposed definition. In order to avoid potential misinterpretation that 
the words ``rate of change'' might mean something different, DOE will 
modify the definition to call this ``average rate of change''.
    AHAM also suggested that DOE include a diagram to assist with the 
definition of stable operation. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 21) DOE notes that 
the figure provided in AHAM's written comments suggests a more 
restrictive approach in defining stable operation than DOE had 
intended. AHAM's figure indicates that the two periods that are 
compared to quantify the temperature rate of change are at least two 
hours long and that they are separated by at least 3 hours. The 
definition of stable operation neither has nor was intended to have 
this restriction, which is part of the current requirement for 
verifying that steady-state conditions exist (see Appendix A, section 
2.9). The section 2.9 requirements are used at the start of a test to 
verify that the compartment temperatures of a product are no longer 
rapidly decreasing. In contrast, the stable operation definition, while 
based on the same 0.042 [deg]F per hour (equal to 1 [deg]F per 24 
hours), is used to identify periods when the compartment temperatures 
are not changing or are changing in a repetitive cyclic pattern with 
minimal upward or downward drift of the per-cycle average temperature. 
DOE believes that the definition, with the revision regarding 
temperature difference as suggested by AHAM, is sufficiently clear.
    DOE also notes that the definition allows for the evaluation of 
stable operation for products that do not have cycling compressors but 
have cycling compartment temperatures. The cycles evaluated to 
determine existence of

[[Page 22336]]

stable operation may be temperature cycles. For this reason, DOE 
retains its proposed definition of temperature cycles in the test 
procedures.
    DOE also proposed to define ``stable period of compressor 
operation'' as a period of stable operation for a product with a 
compressor. 78 FR 41645 (July 10, 2013). AHAM commented that this term 
was not needed, since the concept is sufficiently clear without having 
to explicitly define the term, once ``stable operation'' has been 
defined. DOE acknowledges that the added definition for ``stable period 
of compressor operation'' is not necessary and has not added it to 
appendices A or B in this final rule.
Precooling & Recovery Definitions
    AHAM also objected to DOE's proposed definitions for precooling and 
recovery, indicating that Figure 1, which is in Appendices A and B, 
adequately defines these terms. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 20) In addition, 
AHAM claimed that the DOE proposal conflicts with the graphical 
representation in Figure 1 of Appendices A and B. AHAM indicated that 
if definitions are established, they should agree with the illustration 
of ``T2'' in the figure, the test period for the second part of the 
test. AHAM further suggested that Figure 1 does not define the end of 
the precool or the start of recovery and that definitions for the terms 
also should not define these times. (Id.)
    DOE notes that Figure 1 provides an example illustrating the test 
period for the second part of the test for a product with a cycling 
compressor. The figure includes examples of precool and recovery 
cycles, but it does not illustrate precooling and/or recovery for all 
situations. Furthermore, the intent of the second part of the test is 
to capture all product operation that either (1) significantly lowers 
the compartment temperature before defrost initiation or (2) restores 
compartment temperatures afterwards. This intent is clear from at least 
two provisions in the current regulatory text. First, the last sentence 
in section 4.2.1 of Appendix A as finalized by the January 2012 Final 
Rule states that ``[t]he second part is designed to capture the energy 
consumed during all of the events occurring with the defrost control 
sequence that are outside of stable operation.'' This section clearly 
identifies operation that is associated with defrost activity and is 
not consistent with stable operation, i.e., activity that the second 
part of test is designed to capture. Second, section 4.2.1.1 notes that 
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.
    DOE believes that the proposed definitions for precooling and 
recovery are consistent with the language in section 4.2.1 describing 
the second part of the test. AHAM provided an example of a product that 
cycles from +1 [deg]F to -1 [deg]F and then changes its cycling from +2 
[deg]F to -2 [deg]F with equivalent temperature averages. (AHAM, No. 30 
at p. 20) AHAM indicated that the second cycle would be considered 
precooling according to the proposed definition. (Id.) DOE agrees that 
in AHAM's example, the second cycle would be considered precooling 
because it would have had to include an ``extended compressor cycle 
that lowers the temperature(s) of one or both compartments prior to 
energizing the defrost heater.'' In order to cool the compartment the 
four degrees from +2 [deg]F to -2 [deg]F, the compressor would likely 
have had to operate twice as long as it would have taken to cool the 
compartment the two degrees from +1 [deg]F to -1 [deg]F. This would 
clearly be an extended compressor cycle and would be considered part of 
the second part of the test under the test procedure of Appendix A as 
finalized in the January 2012 Final Rule.
    AHAM also recommended that DOE use the same terms already existing 
in Figure 1 (i.e., ``precool cycles'' instead of ``precooling'' and 
``recovery cycle'' instead of ``recovery''). (Id.) DOE reiterates that 
Figure 1 illustrates the concepts of precooling and recovery but does 
not represent all possible defrost cycles. For example, Figure 2 of 
Appendix A shows a different example, which has ``precool'' and 
``recovery'' periods, rather than cycles. DOE does not agree that it 
should avoid defining the term ``precooling'', which is already used in 
section 4.2.1 of Appendix A. Hence, DOE does not consider it necessary 
to use the identical terminology used in Figure 1, as AHAM recommended, 
and is adopting the ``precooling'' definition as proposed, but has 
added text to section 4.2.1.1 of Appendices A and B to emphasize that 
the figure is for illustrative purposes and does not represent all 
possible defrost cycles.
    In response to the proposed definition for ``recovery,'' AHAM 
indicated that the proposal was problematic because it does not give a 
numerical definition of when the product has recovered and only 
references the temperature range. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 20) DOE notes 
that the proposed recovery definition does not need a quantitative 
criterion. It is the period of refrigeration system operation that 
occurs after the defrost heater has been energized and before steady 
operation resumes. Hence, recovery can be considered to be complete 
when steady operation has resumed. This final rule adopts the recovery 
definition as proposed.
10. Measurement of Product Volume Using Computer-Aided Design Models
    To facilitate the accurate measurement of product volume, DOE 
proposed to permit the use of computer-aided design (CAD) models for 
measuring and computing the volume of refrigerators, refrigerator-
freezers, and freezers for the purposes of certifying compliance with 
the DOE energy conservation standards for these products. 78 FR 41645-
41646 (July 10, 2013). AHAM supported the DOE proposal and indicated 
that the proposal is consistent with current industry practice. AHAM, 
No. 30 at pp. 5-6) As a result, DOE is allowing CAD volume calculations 
to be used. This change will be made in a new section 429.72(c) of 10 
CFR part 429.
    DOE also proposed regulatory language explaining how DOE would 
measure volume and calculate the maximum allowable energy use for the 
purpose of assessment and enforcement testing. DOE proposed to use the 
average of the adjusted volumes measured for the tested units, rather 
than the rated adjusted volume, for calculating the allowable energy 
use, if the average of the total refrigerated volume measurements is 
not within a prescribed tolerance of the rated total refrigerated 
volume. This tolerance would be 2 percent of the rated volume or 0.5 
cubic feet, whichever is larger, for standard-size products and 2 
percent of the rated volume or 0.2 cubic feet, whichever is larger, for 
compact products. Whirlpool supported this proposal. (Whirlpool, No. 27 
at p. 4) DOE proposed to add a new section 429.134 of 10 CFR part 429 
to include the proposed volume requirements. DOE received no objections 
to this approach and is adopting these proposals.
11. Corrections to Temperature Setting Logic Tables
    The July 2013 NOPR proposed corrections to the temperature setting 
logic tables in Appendices A and B. 78 FR 41646-41647 (July 10, 2013). 
The December 16, 2010 Interim Final Rule established these tables to 
illustrate the requirements for setting temperature controls during 
testing. However, these tables were added to the CFR with extra 
horizontal lines that make the requirements unclear. DOE received no

[[Page 22337]]

comment opposing the proposal to correct these logic tables. As a 
result, DOE will adopt the proposed revisions to the setting logic 
tables.
12. Minimum Compressor Run-Time Between Defrosts for Variable Defrost 
Models
    The DOE test procedures in Appendices A and B provide specific 
provisions for calculating the energy use of models with variable 
defrost, which DOE defines generally as an automatic defrost system in 
which successive defrost cycles are determined by an operating 
condition variable or variables other than solely compressor operating 
time. These calculations include CTL (minimum compressor run 
time between defrosts in hours) and CTM (maximum compressor 
run time between defrosts in hours). Parties must report CTL 
and CTM values to DOE in their certification reports. If a 
party does not report such values for a given basic model, DOE would, 
in any verification or enforcement testing of the basic model, 
calculate the energy use of the basic model using the default values of 
6 and 96 for CTL and CTM.
    When DOE uses the CTL and CTM values reported 
by the manufacturer rather than the default values, the resulting 
energy use measurements are typically more representative of the 
product's actual operation because they represent the actual minimum 
and maximum amounts of compressor run time between defrosts that the 
model's control system is designed to use. Thus, the actual compressor 
run time between defrosts should never be less than CTL and 
never greater than CTM. However, in certain DOE testing of 
models for which the manufacturer reported values of CTL and 
CTM in the certification report, DOE has found that the 
number of hours of compressor operation between defrost cycles observed 
in the test data was less than the CTL value reported by the 
manufacturer in its certification report. This difference suggests 
either that the certified value was erroneous or that the model did not 
operate as designed. In either case, the energy use calculated using 
the values reported by the manufacturer would not be representative of 
how the model actually performed during the test and how it would be 
expected to perform in the field. In the July 2013 NOPR, DOE proposed 
to require that the value for CTL be the shortest compressor 
run time between defrosts observed during the test, if this observed 
time is less than the value of CTL reported in the 
certification report. 78 FR 41647 (July 10, 2013).
    AHAM supported this proposal but explained that products with 
demand defrost (i.e., those that do not have an algorithm with values 
of CTL and CTM, but instead defrost when 
necessary) should not be penalized for an observed value of compressor 
run time between defrosts lower than six hours, which is the 
CTL value that would be used according to Appendix A as 
finalized by the January 2012 final rule. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 22) 
(Decreasing CTL would increase the calculated annual energy 
use.) DOE is not convinced that a CTL value equal to 6 hours 
is the most appropriate value to represent defrost energy use, if a 
shorter value is observed during testing, because it would yield an 
inaccurate representation of the tested unit's energy use. However, DOE 
is concerned about inconsistency in test results that may occur if the 
proposal is adopted. For instance, the observation of compressor 
operation less than six hours between defrosts may be a random 
occurrence, dependent on a variety of factors that lead to the control 
system determining that a defrost is necessary. Such an event may occur 
sporadically, which could yield inconsistent test results for different 
tests of the same unit or different units of the same model. DOE may 
revisit the issue in a future rulemaking, but is not adopting the 
proposal for use of the observed value of minimum compressor run-time 
between defrosts in this final rule for products with no values of for 
CTL and CTM in the algorithm. Instead, the test 
procedure retains the existing requirements pertaining to the use of a 
minimum CTL value of 6 hours where there are no values for 
CTL and CTM in the algorithm, and will require 
use of the minimum observed value of CTL if less than the 
certified value, but will require that it be no less than 6 and no 
greater than 12.
13. Treatment of ``Connected'' Products
    As part of the Version 5.0 ENERGY STAR Specification for 
Residential Refrigerators and Freezers, DOE developed, in cooperation 
with the EPA, specifications and test methods for refrigerators and 
refrigerator-freezers that have the capability to enable consumer-
authorized energy related commands, such as demand-response signals 
from a utility.\17\ Products with this capability are referred to 
generally as ``connected'' products in the final draft version of 
ENERGY STAR Version 5.0 and its associated test method. (ENERGY STAR 
Connected Refrigerators and Freezers Final Draft Test Method, No. 14) 
The draft test method addresses aspects of testing specific to the 
demand response functionality, but refers to the DOE test procedure in 
Appendix A to Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 430 for test setup and test 
conditions. However, the Appendix A test procedure finalized in the 
January 2012 Final Rule does not address whether the communication 
module of a connected product should be in active communication mode or 
a non-communicating mode during the standard DOE energy test, which is 
used in section 6 of the demand response test to establish the baseline 
energy consumption. (ENERGY STAR Connected Refrigerators and Freezers 
Final Draft Test Method, No. 14, p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ For additional background on the ENERGY STAR Version 5.0 
Specification for Residential Refrigerators and Freezers, go to 
https://energystar.gov/products/specs/node/125.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After carefully considering how to address connected products, DOE 
views connectivity as a feature that is subject to section 5.5.2.e of 
HRF-1-2008, which Appendix A incorporates by reference. That provision 
states that customer accessible features, not required for normal 
operation, which are electrically powered, manually initiated, and 
manually terminated, shall be set at their lowest energy usage 
positions when adjustment is provided. In the NOPR, DOE applied this 
approach to cabinet-integrated communications modules on the basis that 
this feature is not required for normal operation of the product. To 
ensure that Appendix A provides sufficient clarity on the condition of 
the communication module of connected products during the DOE energy 
test, DOE proposed to amend section 2 of the Appendix A test procedure 
to specify that the communication module, if integrated into the 
cabinet, must be energized but placed in the lowest energy use 
position, and there shall be no active communication during testing. 
DOE noted that some products may be manufactured without an integrated 
communication module, and instead will have the capability to allow 
connection of a module supplied by another manufacturer. In these 
cases, DOE would not specify a test condition for the communication 
module since the module used for the test will not be part of the basic 
model produced by the manufacturer. Thus, the proposed amendment to 
section 2 of the test procedure did not require connection of 
communication modules for products designed for use of an externally-
connected module. Finally, while the ENERGY STAR specification for 
connected products addresses only refrigerators and refrigerator-
freezers, DOE also proposed to add the same provisions to Appendix B to

[[Page 22338]]

accommodate any future provisions made for connected freezers. 78 FR 
41647 (July 10, 2013).
    AHAM opposed the DOE proposal. AHAM indicated that a communication 
module's connection to a network may not be the lowest energy use 
position because the energy consumed is not completely in the 
manufacturer's control. AHAM claimed that the energy consumption when 
connected to a network mode will vary depending on transmission range, 
networking technology deployed, and the size and frequency of the data 
transmissions, all of which may be influenced by devices outside the 
refrigerator or by parties other than the manufacturer. (AHAM, No. 30 
at p. 22)
    AHAM also stated that the DOE proposal encourages manufacturers to 
not integrate communication modules within units because models that do 
not have integrated communication modules would not need to be tested 
while connected to a network. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 22) DOE noted in the 
July 2013 NOPR that it could not require that models without integrated 
communication modules be tested with the modules energized, because the 
designs of third-party modules are not standardized and manufacturers 
of the refrigeration products cannot generally specify which modules 
are used with their products. Therefore, requiring products to be 
tested with an external communication device would not be appropriate.
    DOE's key concern regarding on-board communication modules is that 
the test procedure should measure the energy that the module may use 
even when the product is not connected to a network for demand-response 
control. However, DOE recognizes that there would be a potential 
disincentive to design products with on-board modules if the test 
required that they be energized and connected during the test. Hence, 
DOE has modified its proposed approach concerning communication modules 
by requiring that products with on-board modules be tested in the 
configuration in which they leave the factory, rather than being 
energized and connected to a network. These changes are made in section 
2.11 of Appendix A and 2.8 of Appendix B. DOE expects that, under this 
requirement, manufacturers will ship the units in their lowest energy 
use state, and the energy use associated with the communication module 
should be nearly or exactly zero, essentially equivalent to the non-
existent module power contribution for test of a product designed to 
use an external communication module.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Since units will be tested in their ``as shipped'' 
condition, a unit that is not shipped in its lowest energy use 
condition will use a higher amount of energy than if it had been 
shipped in the lowest energy use condition. Consequently, 
manufacturers will have a strong incentive to ensure that all units 
are shipped set to their lowest energy use setting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While DOE has some concerns about communication modules engaged in 
intermittent higher-energy-use operations when in the presence of 
communications networks, there is insufficient information at this time 
regarding the potential for such operation and the likely energy use 
impact. Furthermore, DOE recognizes that it may be a challenge to 
develop a test procedure that provides consistent and accurate 
measurement of the energy use of such communications modules that is 
representative of their field energy use. DOE may consider development 
of such a test in the future.
14. Changes to Confidentiality of Certification Data
    Section 429.14(b) specifies the data that manufacturers of 
residential refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers must 
provide to DOE when certifying compliance for each basic model. Data 
submitted for the items in paragraph (b)(2) (e.g., annual energy use 
and total adjusted volume) are treated by DOE as public data whereas 
the data for items in paragraph (b)(3) (e.g., the values for 
CTL and CTM used in the energy use calculation in 
section 5.2.1.3) are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The items 
listed in paragraph (b)(3) include specific information related to 
variable defrost control, variable anti-sweat heater control, and the 
use of alternate temperature sensor locations. For models with variable 
defrost and variable anti-sweat heaters, manufacturers must notify DOE 
whether certain products have these features, the values for anti-sweat 
heater power levels at 10 different relative humidity conditions, and 
the values of the variable defrost parameters, CTL, and 
CTM. Since publishing the current version of section 429.14, 
DOE has determined that there is no clear reason why whether a model 
has variable defrost, whether a model has variable anti-sweat heater 
control or whether the manufacturer used alternate temperature sensor 
locations should not be public information. DOE proposed to move these 
items to paragraph (b)(2), making them public data. The other details 
of variable defrost operation and variable anti-sweat heater control 
would remain in paragraph (b)(3).
    GE, AHAM, Whirlpool, and FSI all submitted comments opposing the 
DOE proposal. AHAM's comment stated its preference that this 
information not be made public. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 23-24) AHAM stated 
that DOE could seek additional information from manufacturers on a 
case-by-case basis, such as the specific locations of temperature 
sensors. (Id.) For its explanation of why the information should be 
treated as confidential, AHAM referred to the comments it made in 
response to the compliance, certification, and enforcement rulemaking 
that resulted in the March 7, 2011 final rule (see Docket EERE-2010-BT-
CE-0014, No. 98 at p. 6). DOE notes, however, those comments addressed 
the confidentiality of the CTL and CTM values and 
the actual sensor placement locations--none of which DOE proposed to 
make public. FSI commented that how each manufacturer obtains the 
energy consumption of models should be kept confidential. FSI also 
stated that simplifying the CCMS reporting would be beneficial to all 
companies, especially smaller companies. (FSI, No. 20 at p. 8) DOE 
notes that variable defrost can be considered a standard feature for 
products with electronic controls, which provide the capability to 
determine the appropriate defrost frequency. GE stated, without further 
explanation, that information regarding the presence of either variable 
defrost or variable anti-sweat heaters constitute trade secrets and 
should not be made public. (GE, No. 31 at p. 9) Contrary to GE's 
assertion, however, many manufacturers, including GE, have applied for 
test procedure waivers for models with variable anti-sweat heater 
controls and have publicly provided a list of models that have this 
feature. DOE also notes that 33 percent of the models in the CCMS 
database have been reported to have variable defrost and 5 percent have 
been reported to have variable anti-sweat heaters, suggesting that 
these features are fairly common among models available in the 
industry. For these reasons, and the absence of any specific reasons 
demonstrating that the presence of these features in already-marketed 
products constitutes a trade secret or that their disclosure would be 
likely to cause substantial competitive harm, DOE does not believe that 
revealing the presence of these features reveals any part of a model's 
design that could be considered a trade secret or confidential 
commercial information. However, because several of the comments 
suggest that parties may have misunderstood the

[[Page 22339]]

information DOE proposed to make public, DOE will allow another 
opportunity for comment in another rulemaking prior to reaching a final 
decision regarding this aspect of its proposal.
15. Package Loading
    Section 2.2 of the DOE test procedure for residential freezers, 
which is located in appendix B1 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 
(Appendix B1), references the HRF-1-1979 test procedure for provisions 
related to certain operational conditions and product set-up 
procedures. Among these is a specific provision described in section 
7.4.3.3 of HRF-1-1979, which requires that the freezer compartment be 
loaded to 75% of the maximum number of filled packages that can be 
fitted into the compartment, and that the 75% load be fitted into the 
compartment to permit air circulation around and above the load. The 
requirements applicable to these products in appendix B to subpart B of 
10 CFR part 430 (Appendix B) and the section it references in the HRF-
1-2008 procedure (section 5.5.5.3) are identical except that package 
loading is required only for manual defrost freezers, whereas it is 
required by HRF-1-1979 for all freezer types.
    DOE learned that test laboratories may not all use the same 
approach to determine the number of packages they must load into a unit 
prior to testing. To ensure consistency, DOE proposed a method that 
would require an initial step of filling the compartment completely 
with as many packages as physically possible. This step would provide 
an indication of the number of packages required for a 100% fill. The 
tester would then calculate the number of packages required for a 75% 
fill, remove packages based on the calculation to achieve the required 
75% fill, and adjust the packages to assure the necessary air gaps and 
the tiered or pyramid form needed for thermocouple placement. DOE 
proposed placing the description of this method in section 2.9 of 
Appendix B. The proposed text specified that the number of packages 
representing the completely filled condition and the number left in the 
compartment for the test should both be recorded in the test data and 
maintained as part of the test record in accordance with 10 CFR 429.71. 
Because section 5.5.5.3 of HRF-1-2008 also applies these requirements 
to each shelf of a multi-shelf freezer, the requirement to count and 
record the number of packages would apply on a per-shelf basis for such 
products. 78 FR 41649 (July 10, 2013).
    GE, Whirlpool, and AHAM all agreed with DOE's proposed package 
loading procedures. (GE, No. 31 at p. 8; Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 4; 
AHAM, No. 30 at p. 23) Therefore, this final rule adopts this amendment 
with one further minor clarification: In the event that the 75% loading 
calculation results in a fraction, parties shall round to the nearest 
whole number to determine the required number of packages for loading.
16. Product Clearance to the Wall During Testing
    In the December 16, 2010 interim final rule, which established 
Appendices A and B, DOE included provisions to address product 
clearances to the wall during testing. 75 FR 78810. Specifically, 
section 2.8 of Appendix A and section 2.6 of Appendix B both require 
that the space between the plane of the cabinet's back panel and the 
vertical surface behind the cabinet (i.e., the test chamber wall or 
simulated wall) be the minimum distance in accordance with the 
manufacturer's instructions or 2 inches, whichever is less. These 
sections specified that if the product has permanent rear spacers that 
extend beyond this distance, the product must be located with the 
spacers in contact with the vertical surface. However, DOE received a 
request for guidance from AHAM dated May 22, 2013 (AHAM Guidance 
Request) indicating that these provisions may not be sufficiently clear 
for cases in which the back of the test unit is not all on one plane 
due to protrusions or surface irregularities. (AHAM Guidance Request, 
No. 15, p. 2) AHAM requested that DOE clarify these sections by 
referencing the Committee Draft for Vote (CDV) version of Part 1 of IEC 
62552.2 Household refrigerating appliances--Characteristics and test 
methods. According to AHAM, this reference provides guidance on 
product-to-rear wall spacing that is consistent with section 2.8 but is 
more specific regarding the treatment of irregular surfaces.
    Because the IEC reference that AHAM suggested was not finalized by 
the time of the NOPR, and because DOE generally seeks to limit the 
number of external references incorporated in the DOE test procedure, 
DOE declined to propose incorporation by reference of the IEC procedure 
that AHAM suggested. However, to improve consistency in testing, DOE 
proposed to adopt revised language for section 2.8 that is intended to 
accomplish the same objective. Specifically, DOE proposed to specify 
that, for the purposes of determining the appropriate clearance to the 
wall for the test, the rear plane of the cabinet is the largest flat 
surface at the rear of the cabinet. The proposed test procedure would 
also have indicated that individual features, such as brackets, 
compressors, or condensers that protrude from the rear plane could not 
be used as the basis for determining the rear clearance. AHAM agreed 
with this DOE proposal. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 9)
    PAPRSA opposed this proposal, explaining that disallowing 
manufacturers to measure rear wall clearance from the plane of a rear 
wall-mounted external condenser represents an unfair burden on products 
with rear-mounted condensers. PAPRSA explained that the proposed 
requirement would leave manufacturers with less than 12 months to 
develop measures to make up for the additional reduction in rear-wall 
clearance under the new September 15, 2014 standards. (PAPRSA, No. 28 
at p. 2) Based upon PAPRSA's comments, DOE agrees that there are valid 
reasons to consider a rear-mounted condenser as the rear plane of the 
cabinet for the purposes of positioning the unit for testing, provided 
that the heat exchanging portion of the condenser is in fact mounted on 
the rear of the cabinet and consists of a uniformly flat (plane-shaped) 
array of refrigerant tubes (i.e., not a rear-mounted condenser that is 
nearly uniformly flat, but with one or two refrigerant tubes protruding 
farther beyond the rear surface of the cabinet than the main plane of 
the condenser). DOE has modified the proposal to allow a rear-wall 
condenser to be considered the rear plane if it is plane-shaped and if 
the total surface area of the condenser plane is at least one-quarter 
of the total area of the rear face of the cabinet (i.e., the unit's 
height times its width). This ratio is based upon DOE's evaluation of 
products currently available on the market that have rear-mounted 
condensers and is intended to include all such products that would be 
most appropriately tested using this provision. The modified language 
provides a tolerance on flatness of the rear-wall condenser of plus or 
minus one-quarter inch (i.e., the plane would have to be uniformly 
flat) and indicates how the area of the rectangular plane would be 
determined. Therefore, today DOE adopts the proposal for rear clearance 
except that it allows rear-wall condensers that are planar and 
sufficiently large to be considered the rear plane for the maximum 2-
inch clearance requirement.
    FSI disagreed with the proposed exclusion of protrusions extending 
beyond the rear plane when considering

[[Page 22340]]

the rear-wall clearance, indicating that there may be many design 
reasons to include such protrusions. FSI also commented that DOE's 
discussion regarding products that might be installed with a slight 
rear tilt was unnecessary because manufacturers' installation 
instructions generally require level installation. (FSI, No. 20 at p. 
9) DOE believes that the exclusion of protrusions is necessary in order 
to ensure consistency in test results. There may be multiple 
protrusions, and it may not be clear which protrusion is the 
appropriate one for measuring the rear clearance. In addition, allowing 
the clearance to be measured from a small protrusion incentivizes the 
incorporation of a minor extension beyond the rear plane simply to 
obtain additional clearance for the test, while the protrusion would 
most likely be pushed against the rear wall in field installations. 
Hence, this final rule retains, in section 2.8 of Appendix A and 2.6 of 
Appendix B, the requirement that clearance be measured from the rear 
plane. Regarding the potential for rearward tilt, the proposed language 
simply addresses set-up requirements in cases in which the 
manufacturers' instructions lead to installing the unit such that the 
rear plane is not perfectly parallel to the rear wall. Since DOE has 
identified products for which the manufacturer's instructions would 
result in installation with a slight rearward tilt, DOE believes that 
adopting this provision as proposed will more accurately reflect the 
intended use of each product and will have no effect on products for 
which the instructions do not result in a rearward tilt.
17. Other Minor Corrections
    In the July 2013 NOPR, DOE noted a minor error in section 6, 
``Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements,'' of Appendix 
A. Section 6.2.2.2 provides the method for calculating average per-
cycle energy use (``E'') for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers 
through calculations based on compartment temperatures. This section 
currently states that ``E'' is defined in section 6.2.1.1. However, 
section 6.2.1.1 did not define the term ``E'' and contained only the 
equation E = ET1 + IET, which DOE felt did not sufficiently clarify the 
term's meaning. Since the term ``E'' has the same basic meaning for all 
portions of section 6.2, DOE proposed to define this term in the 
introductory text of section 6.2 and to modify the text in the 
subsequent sections to refer to the definition consistently. For 
consistency, DOE proposed nearly identical changes for Appendix B. DOE 
received no comment opposing this proposal and therefore adopts this 
change in this final rule.
    DOE also noted that a certain aspect of the definition of ``compact 
refrigerator/refrigerator-freezer/freezer'' in 10 CFR 430.2, which 
distinguishes the product classes in section 430.32(a) for compact 
products from the classes for standard-size products, could potentially 
cause confusion. Specifically, compact products are defined to be under 
7.75 cubic feet in volume. The definition used the term ``rated 
volume,'' which is not defined or listed elsewhere in DOE's test 
procedures or reporting requirements for these products. The definition 
is intended to refer to ``total refrigerated volume,'' but ``rated 
volume'' could potentially be confused with ``adjusted volume,'' which 
is a different measurement. To prevent confusion regarding the 
applicability of this definition, and to ensure standard terminology is 
used throughout DOE's regulations, DOE proposed to amend the definition 
of ``compact refrigerator/refrigerator-freezer/freezer'' in 10 CFR 
430.2 to specifically indicate that the definition applies to the 
product's total refrigerated volume. DOE received no comments in 
opposition to this proposal and therefore adopts this change in this 
final rule.
    AHAM raised other minor issues in its guidance request to DOE dated 
May 22, 2013, referred to previously in section III.C.13. See also 79 
FR 41649. AHAM stated that the last sentence of the existing definition 
of ``Defrost cycle type'', found in section 1.9 of Appendix A (as 
finalized by the January 2012 Final Rule), may be causing confusion. 
This sentence states that ``defrost achieved regularly during the 
compressor off-cycles by warming the evaporator without active heat 
addition is not a defrost cycle type.'' AHAM stated that this sentence 
could be interpreted as indicating that off-cycle defrost is not 
considered to be a type of automatic defrost. (AHAM Guidance Request, 
No. 15, p. 2) DOE inserted the clause in section 1.9 regarding off-
cycle defrost as part of the December 2010 Interim Final Rule in 
response to AHAM's comments during that rulemaking that off-cycle 
defrost should not be considered a defrost cycle type. 75 FR 78838 
(Dec. 16, 2010). This clause was intended to distinguish off-cycle 
defrosts from the unique types of defrost cycles that involve a defrost 
heater, whose energy use contributions must be measured individually 
for products with multiple defrost cycle types. See Appendix A, section 
4.2.4. However, as AHAM pointed out in its recent comments, the current 
language in section 1.9 is not intended to indicate that off-cycle 
defrost is not a form of automatic defrost. DOE clarified this issue as 
part of the preliminary analysis for the energy conservation standard 
rulemaking that ended September 15, 2011. (Energy Conservation 
Standards for Residential Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 
Freezers, 2009-12-10 Public Meeting Presentation Slides, Docket No. 
EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012, No. 28 at p. 21)
    DOE understands AHAM's concerns about possible misinterpretation of 
the cited sentence. To resolve this issue, DOE proposed to revise the 
definition of ``defrost cycle type'' in section 1.9 of Appendix A to 
clarify that off-cycle defrost is a form of automatic defrost, even 
though it is not considered a defrost cycle type for the purposes of 
the test procedure for products with multiple defrost cycle types. AHAM 
supported the proposed revision. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 24) As a result, 
DOE is adopting the revised definition in this final rule for section 
1.11 of Appendix A.
18. Relocation of Shelving for Temperature Sensors
    HRF-1-2008, section 5.5.4, which is incorporated into the DOE test 
procedures by reference (See section 2.2 of Appendices A and B), 
requires at least one inch of air space separating the thermal mass of 
a temperature sensor from contact with any surface. In the case of 
interference with hardware at the specified sensor locations, section 
5.5.4 requires that the temperature sensors be placed at the nearest 
locations such that there will be a one-inch air space separating the 
sensor mass from the hardware. In the July 2013 NOPR, DOE stated that, 
if the sensor is near shelving or other components whose position is 
adjustable by the consumer, it is more appropriate to relocate the 
shelf or component than to relocate the sensor. However, HRF-1-2008 
section 5.5.2(a) requires that shelves and bins be evenly spaced 
throughout the compartment. As a result, DOE proposed to revise the 
test procedures to indicate that temperature sensor location would take 
precedence over the position of shelving and components whose position 
is adjustable by consumers, even if this means that the separation 
between shelves is not precisely equal. Specifically, DOE proposed to 
add language to Appendices A and B, section 5.1, indicating that 
consumer-movable shelves and other components should be moved to 
maintain temperature sensor clearance requirements, allowing the 
temperature

[[Page 22341]]

sensor locations to remain as specified in HRF-1-2008 Figure 5-1 or 5-
2, but that parties should otherwise adhere as closely as practicable 
to the shelf-placement requirements of section 5.5.2 of HRF-1-2008 
(including the requirement that shelves and door bins be evenly 
spaced). 78 FR 41649 (July 10, 2013).
    AHAM commented that the DOE proposal will impact some products 
significantly more than others. AHAM claimed that the range of impacts 
is so great that DOE should not make this change to the test procedure 
at this time. AHAM also stated that DOE's proposal could result in 
measurements that are unrepresentative of actual consumer use. The test 
data AHAM provided showed an average impact of -0.58 kWh per year with 
a range of -21 kWh per year to +18 kWh per year. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 
10) DOE agrees that the proposal may have an impact on measured energy 
use for a small percentage of products. Therefore, DOE will not adopt 
its proposal to prioritize temperature sensor locations over shelf 
placement. More specifically, the test will require that the shelves be 
placed in accordance with the requirements in section 5.5.2 of HRF-1-
2008, and the sensors then be placed in the locations required in 
Figure 5-1 or 5-2 of HRF-1-2008. If the sensors cannot be placed in 
those locations due to interference with hardware, they must be 
relocated as to maintain the required 1-inch air gap between the sensor 
and adjacent hardware.
    Further, DOE is modifying the language in section 5.1 of Appendices 
A and B. In each appendix, this section (1) explains where parties must 
place temperature sensors and (2) requires parties that use alternative 
sensor locations for a particular basic model to (a) record the 
locations in the test data maintained in accordance with 10 CFR 429.71 
and (b) report the use of ``non-standard'' temperature sensor locations 
in certification reports for the basic model, as required by 10 CFR 
429.14(b)(3). DOE is revising this section to specify that this 
reporting is required if the sensors are moved by any amount from the 
locations specified in Figure 5-1 or 5-2 of HRF-1-2008 in order to 
maintain the required 1-inch clearance from adjustable shelves or other 
components whose location is consumer-adjustable. Such reporting will 
give DOE notice in the case of verification testing that special 
attention must be paid to the specific locations of temperature sensors 
and shelves to ensure both are located in a manner consistent with the 
approach used in certification tests. Further, if there is any question 
about the locations, DOE may request manufacturers' test reports to 
review exact locations of the sensors and components.

D. Other Matters Related to the Test Procedure and Discussion of 
Proposals Not Adopted in This Final Rule

1. Icemaking Test Procedure
    Nearly all refrigerator-freezers currently sold either have a 
factory-installed automatic icemaker or are ``icemaker-kitable''--i.e., 
they are manufactured with the necessary water tubing, valve(s), and 
icemaker mounting hardware to allow quick installation of an automatic 
icemaker at any time after the product leaves the factory. Ice 
production increases the energy use of a refrigerator-freezer in two 
ways: (1) Some icemaker components (e.g., the mold heater and the gear 
motor) consume energy, and (2) additional refrigeration is required to 
cool and freeze incoming water and to remove the heat generated by 
icemaker components (e.g., the mold heater). The current test procedure 
for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers does not measure the energy 
use associated with ice production. Specifically, HRF-1-1979, section 
7.4.2 (which is incorporated by reference into Appendix A1) states, 
``Automatic icemakers are to be inoperative during the test''.
    In the May 2010 NOPR DOE issued when proposing amendments to the 
test procedure that will become required later this year, DOE indicated 
that energy use associated with automatic icemaking represents 10 to 15 
percent of the rated energy use of typical refrigeration products. See 
75 FR 29846-29847 (May 27, 2010). As discussed in section I of this 
rule, stakeholders commented, in response to DOE's presentation of its 
preliminary analysis supporting the recently completed energy 
conservation standard rulemaking, that the test procedures and energy 
conservation standards for refrigeration products should address 
icemaking energy use. (See, e.g., Energy Conservation Standards for 
Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, Docket No. EERE-
2008-BT- STD-0012; ACEEE, No. 46 at p. 1).
    However, stakeholders also commented that a test procedure to 
measure icemaking energy use had not yet been sufficiently developed. 
(Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-
Freezers, and Freezers, Docket No. EERE-2008-BT- STD-0012; AHAM, No. 37 
at p. 2: General Electric, No. 40 at p. 1) To avoid delaying the energy 
conservation standard rulemaking, DOE published the new Appendix A test 
procedure and related energy conservation standard with a fixed 
placeholder energy use value of 84 kWh per year for products with 
automatic icemakers, to represent the average amount of energy consumed 
in ice production. 75 FR 78842-78843 (Dec. 10, 2010) and 76 FR 57538 
(Sept. 15, 2011). (The 84 kWh per year value is equivalent to the 0.23 
kWh per day value found in Appendices A and B, Section 6.2.2.1. That 
0.23 kWh per day value is multiplied by 365 (See, e.g., 10 CFR 
430.23(a)(1)), which yields an annual consumption of 84 kWh per year.)
    In 2010, joint stakeholders, including manufacturers and efficiency 
advocates, drafted a consensus agreement that outlined recommendations 
for new energy and water conservation standards, test procedures, tax 
incentives and ENERGY STAR criteria for major home appliances. As part 
of that agreement, AHAM agreed to develop an icemaking test procedure 
before January 1, 2012. (Test Procedure for Residential Refrigerators, 
Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, Docket No. EERE-2009-BT-TP-0003, 
Joint Comment, No. 20 at p. 5) In early January 2012, AHAM provided DOE 
with a draft of its icemaking test procedure, ``AHAM Refrigerator, 
Refrigerator-Freezer, and Freezer Ice Making Energy Test Procedure, 
Revision 1.0--12/14/11''. (AHAM Draft Test Procedure, No. 4) That draft 
indicated that it would apply to refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers 
and freezers, as defined in 10 CFR 430.2, that are equipped with a 
single automatic icemaker (including non-icemaker-equipped models that 
could be readily retrofitted with an optional automatic icemaker).
    In July 2012, AHAM provided DOE with a revision of its icemaking 
test procedure, ``AHAM Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Freezer, and Freezer 
Ice Making Energy Test Procedure, Revision 2.0--07/10/12''. (AHAM 
Revised Draft Test Procedure, No. 5) The AHAM Revised Draft Test 
Procedure would have applied to products that have one or more 
automatic icemakers. In addition, it includes several revisions to the 
AHAM Draft Test Procedure.
    The July 2013 NOPR proposed an icemaking test procedure based 
largely on the AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure. However, stakeholders 
requested additional time to review and comment on DOE's proposal. 
(AHAM, No. 24 at p. 1) In order to allow stakeholders additional time 
to review its proposed amendments for measurement of icemaking energy 
use,

[[Page 22342]]

DOE will delay finalization of these amendments. As part of this 
process, DOE will provide the public with an additional opportunity to 
weigh in with their views regarding the icemaking test procedure 
through public notice and comment. Consequently, this final rule 
includes no amendments to the test procedures associated with 
measurement of icemaking energy use.
    The July 2013 NOPR also proposed to define ``through-the-door ice 
and water dispenser,'' explaining that this term appears in discussions 
of both icemaking operations and volume calculations within HRF-1-2008, 
which is incorporated by reference in Appendices A and B. The proposed 
definition indicated that a through-the-door ice/water dispenser could 
dispense ice only, both ice and water, or water only. 78 at 41620 (July 
10, 2013). AHAM commented that the ``through-the-door ice and water 
dispenser'' definition should not include ``water only'' dispensers 
because this language would confuse product class determinations. 
(AHAM, No. 24 at p. 8-9) DOE agrees that, although an ice and water 
dispenser may dispense water, the term as used in HRF-1-2008 is not 
intended to denote water-only dispensers. Hence, this final rule 
modifies the definition so that it applies to ice-only and ice/water 
dispensers, but not water-only dispensers.
2. Built-In Refrigeration Products
    The July 2013 NOPR provided data showing the impact on measured 
energy use of testing built-in products in a built-in configuration. 
DOE requested information from stakeholders regarding this issue, 
including (a) additional data showing the impact on the energy use 
measurement of testing such products in a built-in condition, (b) the 
test burden that would be incurred with such a requirement, and (c) 
whether the DOE test procedure should require testing of built-in 
products in a built-in condition. AHAM requested an extension of the 
comment period to January 31, 2014, to allow stakeholders more time to 
prepare comments on this issue. (AHAM, No. 24 at p. 1) DOE granted this 
request. Hence, given the need for DOE to thoroughly review these 
comments and any accompanying data, DOE will address this issue more 
fully in a future notice.
3. Specific Volume Measurement Issues
    As part of the same May 22, 2013 guidance request referred to 
previously in this final rule, AHAM requested that DOE clarify certain 
provisions of its prescribed method for measuring product interior 
volume in section 5.3 of Appendices A and B. Section 5.3 references 
section 4 of HRF-1-2008 in both Appendices A and B. Section 4.2.2 of 
HRF-1-2008 lists several components that parties must deduct from the 
measured interior volume, including ``the volume of air ducts required 
for proper cooling and operation of the unit.'' Specifically, AHAM 
asked DOE whether this particular provision includes only air ducts 
that supply cold air to the fresh food and freezer compartments, or to 
all air ducts within the unit. (AHAM Guidance Request, No. 15, p. 2) 
The guidance request did not include specific examples of ducts other 
than those that supply air to the fresh food and freezer compartments, 
which are both required for proper cooling and operation of the unit. 
In the July 2013 NOPR, DOE stated that it was aware of air ducts used 
to cool icemaking compartments and that such ducts would also be 
required for proper operation of any refrigeration product that is 
equipped with an automatic icemaker, or any kitable product with an 
icemaking compartment that could have an automatic icemaker installed 
after shipment. As of the July 2013 NOPR, DOE was not aware of any 
other specific examples. However, since the volume measurement method 
generally excludes volumes occupied by components that are not intended 
to be removed by the user and that occupy space that cannot be used for 
storage, which are both likely to apply to an air duct, DOE took the 
view that parties should deduct the volume of any air duct in the 
interior of the cabinet from the measured product volume.
    AHAM responded by asking DOE not to require deduction of the 
measured volume of all air ducts in the interior of the cabinet, such 
as those that transfer cold air from an interior compartment to another 
enclosed space within the compartment. AHAM stated that DOE may have 
misunderstood the use of the term ``unit'' in HRF-1-2008, which AHAM 
claimed is intended to refer to the entire refrigeration system, and 
suggested that DOE may be interpreting ``unit'' to mean the entire 
product. As explained by AHAM, the air ducts that are required ``for 
the proper operation of the unit'' are those required for providing air 
flow from the refrigeration system to the fresh food/freezer/separate 
auxiliary compartments and that air ducts that supply fresh food, 
freezer, and separate auxiliary compartments should be deducted from 
the total volume, which is consistent with the DOE view expressed in 
the July 2013 NOPR. However, AHAM also indicated that the temperature 
inside special compartments and icemaker compartments are not included 
in the overall compartment temperature measurement, and thus their 
associated air ducts should not be required for proper operation of the 
refrigeration system. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 7)
    DOE responded to AHAM's request for clarification on whether the 
air duct volumes are included in the measured volume in the July 2013 
NOPR by clarifying how the currently required test procedure must be 
followed. Further, DOE notes that HRF-1-2008 is not sufficiently 
descriptive as to indicate that certain ducts are treated differently 
from others for the purposes of volume measurement, or that the term 
``unit'' has a specific meaning within this particular context. DOE's 
interpretation is based upon the past use of the term ``unit,'' which 
it believes is otherwise consistent with the remainder of the HRF-1-
2008 test procedure, the DOE test procedure, and the testing methods 
for other products. Hence, DOE has not modified its interpretation that 
the volume of any air ducts in the cabinet would be deducted from the 
product's total refrigerated volume.
    In addition, the July 2013 NOPR clarified whether the volume of 
water tanks used for chilling of water to be dispensed in a product's 
water dispenser should be included or excluded in the calculation of 
total refrigerated volume. The NOPR indicated that if a water tank is 
integral to a product's dispenser, it would be excluded from the 
volume, but that otherwise, it would be included. 78 FR 41651 (July 10, 
2013). AHAM commented that the tank would always be in the product's 
refrigerated space and thus should always be included in the product's 
total refrigerated volume, regardless of its proximity to the 
dispenser. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 7) After consideration of AHAM's 
comment, DOE agrees that the volume of any water tank housed within the 
refrigerated space should be included in the calculation of total 
refrigerated volume. and notes that this provision is not limited to 
water tanks, but would apply to any other component that is located 
entirely within the refrigerated volume and not specifically excluded 
from the volume measurement by section 4.2.2 of HRF-1-2008.
4. Treatment of Products That Are Operable as a Refrigerator or Freezer
    In the July 2013 NOPR, DOE addressed concerns regarding the 
appropriate test setting for products with a single compartment that 
can operate either as an electric refrigerator or freezer, as defined 
in 10 CFR 430.2. DOE noted that section 2.7 of Appendix

[[Page 22343]]

A1 and Section 2.7 of Appendix A both require compartments that are 
convertible (e.g., from fresh food to freezer) to be operated in the 
highest energy use position. In the case of a product for which the 
convertible compartment is the only compartment (i.e., the entire 
product is convertible), the product effectively meets the definitions 
of two different covered products. In July 2013 NOPR, DOE stated that 
if the product is marketed as both an electric refrigerator and as a 
freezer, the product must be tested as both covered products, must meet 
both applicable standards, and must be certified as meeting both 
standards. If, however, the product is marketed only as a refrigerator 
or only as a freezer, the product must (1) be tested in accordance with 
the applicable test procedure, (2) meet the appropriate standard for 
that product, and (3) be certified accordingly. 78 FR 41651 (July 10, 
2013).
    AHAM commented that the DOE proposal for convertible products would 
impose an added test burden on manufacturers. Instead, AHAM suggested 
that DOE require that products be tested in the most energy intensive 
position, which AHAM claims is consistent with industry practice. 
(AHAM, No. 30 at p. 24) AHAM acknowledges that its own suggestion would 
still require test facilities to test convertible products as both a 
refrigerator and a freezer, but would be less burdensome than the DOE 
proposal. (Id.) DOE notes that the most energy intensive configuration 
may not be the configuration for which energy use is closer to the 
maximum allowable energy use for that particular configuration. 
Specifically, in certain cases, the lower energy use position (i.e., 
testing as a refrigerator) could result in measured energy use that is 
more likely to exceed the standard for the applicable refrigerator 
standard than the freezer standard when measured in the freezer 
configuration. Since such products must be able to meet the standard 
for each type of product, in DOE's view, certifying compliance with 
only one of the configurations is incomplete. After further 
consideration, in part based on AHAM's comment, DOE recognized that the 
language in the NOPR is inconsistent with the DOE's existing regulatory 
definitions. Therefore, to ensure that consumers receive the most 
accurate information, DOE is requiring that convertible products be 
tested and certified as both refrigerators and freezers if the products 
meet the applicable definition(s). Furthermore, DOE notes that the 
definitions are applicable to a given model based on the performance of 
that model when operating under typical field conditions--not at the 
test procedure conditions.
    To ensure that this requirement is clearly indicated in the 
regulations, DOE has added a new paragraph 10 CFR 429.14(c) to include 
this requirement. Specifically, DOE will require that manufacturers 
certify each individual model as complying with the energy conservation 
standard applicable to all product classes identified in Sec.  
430.32(a) into which the individual model falls if the individual model 
is distributed in commerce as a model within that product class. The 
manufacturer must assign a different basic model number to the units in 
each product class even if a manufacturer uses the same individual 
model number to identify the product. As an example, if a single 
individual model were distributed in commerce as an automatic defrost 
all-refrigerator (product class 3A) and as an automatic defrost upright 
freezer (product class 9), the manufacturer could use the same 
individual model number but would be required to test the model 
according to the test procedure applicable to each corresponding 
product class (i.e., Appendix A for class 3A and Appendix B for class 
9). The manufacturer would also need to certify each basic model 
separately (i.e., in product class 3A and in product class 9) using a 
different basic model number for the two product classes.
5. Stabilization Period
    AHAM's May 22, 2013 guidance request asked whether the 
stabilization period (See section 2.9 of Appendix A1 for an example) 
has a maximum time constraint. (AHAM Guidance Request, No. 15, p. 4) 
The stabilization period for products with cycling compressors consists 
of two separate time periods, each of which lasts at least two hours 
and comprises a whole number of compressor cycles, with an intervening 
time period of at least three hours. Specifically, AHAM asked whether 
the two time periods in question have a maximum duration or if they 
must be selected to be as short as possible while still satisfying the 
requirements. (Id.) In the July 2013 NOPR, DOE stated that neither of 
these requirements is explicitly stated in the test procedure, and 
neither is implied. DOE further indicated that the two time periods in 
question may be extended, for example, if there is irregular cycling of 
the compressor that makes the first possible selection of such a time 
period non-representative of the average compartment temperatures for 
the captured time period. However, it would not be consistent with the 
test procedure to select two sets of time periods that would allow 
stability to appear to have been achieved when it has not. Alternative 
selections of time periods that satisfy the test procedure requirements 
should also demonstrate that stability has been achieved. At the time 
of the July 2013 NOPR, DOE did not believe that changes to the test 
procedure regulatory language were required to address this issue. 78 
FR 41651 (July 10, 2013).
    In its comments, GE expressed concerns that DOE's view would allow 
selection of the three time periods used to evaluate steady state 
operation (i.e., the two periods for which average temperatures are 
measured and the intervening period separating the first two) to be 
left wholly to the discretion of the test facility, which could result 
in different test results for the same set of test data. (GE, No. 31 at 
p. 9) However, GE did not provide specific examples that show clearly 
why DOE should amend the stability requirements (e.g., to require the 
shortest stability time period that meets the requirements of section 
2.9 of Appendix A). DOE believes that, in general, if stability is 
demonstrated for the shortest time period meeting the requirements that 
can be examined for a given time period of product operation, 
evaluation of the steady state condition should also be confirmed if 
different periods are selected for verifying that steady state 
operation has been reached. In other words, in a typical case, if the 
confirmation of steady state depends on the selection of specific time 
periods, while disregarding other adjacent time periods, the product 
has not fully reached steady state. In general, DOE expects that a test 
laboratory will select the shortest possible stabilization period in 
any case, in order to shorten test time. The test procedure has never 
had a maximum duration for the stabilization periods, and DOE believes 
GE's comment does not provide sufficient information to justify a 
maximum duration. Therefore, DOE is declining to amend the 
stabilization requirements in the test procedure.

E. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements

1. Test Burden
    EPCA requires that the test procedures DOE prescribes or amends be 
reasonably designed to produce test results that measure the energy 
efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered 
product during a representative average

[[Page 22344]]

use cycle or period of use. These procedures must also not be unduly 
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE has concluded that 
the amendments proposed in this final rule satisfy these requirements.
    Some of the test procedure amendments made in this final rule 
clarify how existing provisions of the test should be conducted, or 
otherwise represent minor changes to the test that do not significantly 
affect the equipment required for testing or the time required to 
conduct it. These amendments include changes to the anti-circumvention 
language and ambient temperature gradient requirements, and 
clarifications regarding how to set mechanical temperature controls. 
AHAM suggested that ambient temperature gradient requirements could add 
an initial burden as test facilities adjust to accommodate the 
clarifying amendments. For example, laboratories may have to purchase 
additional thermocouples and fixtures to hang them. AHAM also suggested 
that ambient temperature amendments would require rewriting data 
acquisition software and could require some laboratories to obtain data 
acquisition hardware/equipment. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 25) FSI expressed 
concern that the ambient temperature gradient requirements may 
invalidate some tests, leading to additional testing time, and that 
some test chambers may not be able to meet the requirements without 
significant facility modifications. (FSI, No. 20 at p. 8)
    DOE notes that it expects test facilities may need to make slight 
modifications to adhere to the clarified version of the ambient 
temperature requirements, particularly in demonstrating that the 
temperature gradients have been maintained. DOE does not consider the 
small initial costs involved with temperature sensors and ambient 
temperature fixtures to be significant compared to the costs of running 
multiple tests. In addition, based on comments received on previous 
rulemaking proposals involving data collection methods, DOE expects all 
test facilities to already have the data acquisition systems to adhere 
to all of the requirements being adopted today. Therefore, DOE believes 
this requirement is not likely to result in a significant additional 
test burden. As discussed in section III.C.6, DOE considers the 
amendments concerning the maintenance of the ambient temperature 
gradient to merely clarify the test procedure by specifying how to 
interpret the existing requirement for maintenance of the gradient. 
Hence, DOE does not consider these amendments to impose any new test 
facility requirements.
    This final rule also makes other changes, none of which would have 
a significant impact on burden. First, the modifications in the test 
procedure for incomplete cycling products could increase or decrease 
test time, as discussed in the NOPR. 78 FR 41641 (July 10, 2013). 
However, based on tests conducted by DOE, the impact on test time for 
the amendment being adopted does not appear significant. FSI submitted 
comments that suggest it would incur significant test burden because 
the incomplete cycling modifications would increase test complexity. 
(FSI, No. 20 at p.6) DOE does not agree with this claim. The DOE 
proposal simply aligns the test procedure for incomplete-cycling 
products with those for products with cycling compressors by requiring 
a whole number of compressor cycles--the only difference being that a 
single compressor cycle is acceptable if the cycle takes at least 12 
hours. In DOE's view, this change does not constitute an increase in 
complexity. In DOE testing conducted prior to publication of the July 
2013 NOPR, only four chest freezers tested have exhibited incomplete 
cycling. The impacts in test time for these four products were 
reductions for three products of 0.5, 3, and 10 hours and an increase 
for the fourth of 1.4 hours. 78 FR 41614 (July 10, 2103). These results 
show that the impact on test burden would be small and limited 
primarily to chest freezers.
    Second, this final rule introduces an optional triangulation 
approach for products with two temperature controls. AHAM and FSI both 
submitted comments stating that reporting whether the triangulation 
method was used is an unnecessary burden. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 17; FSI, 
No. 20 at p.5) DOE notes that it proposed to allow the use of 
triangulation in response to the request of stakeholders in a previous 
refrigeration product test procedure rulemaking and that the use of 
this approach, as implemented in this final rule, is on an optional 
basis. However, DOE has not adopted the proposed requirement to 
indicate in certification reports whether the method was used in 
testing--hence, it is DOE's belief that the amendments adopting 
triangulation represent no added burden.
    Additionally, the test procedure modifications for products with 
multiple-compressors are, for the most part, consistent with the test 
procedures of existing test procedure waivers. This final rule 
eliminates most of the provisions of the multiple-compressor test 
procedure that DOE proposed in the NOPR that stakeholders criticized 
due to the potential added test burden. The key exception is the 
requirement that the first part of the test must be a continuous time 
period. However, as discussed in section III.C.1, DOE has imposed this 
requirement to limit the potential impact of truncation error; allowing 
the waiver approach could potentially introduce error in excess of the 
one percent that AHAM views as unacceptable. (See AHAM, No. 30 at p. 
15)
    DOE acknowledges that some test facilities may need time to adjust 
to the various test procedure modifications made in this final rule but 
believes that the modest burden associated with these adjustments is 
appropriate given the need for test results to be accurate and 
repeatable.
    Other amendments, including changes to the anti-circumvention 
language, the specifications for setting mechanical temperature 
controls, and the adoption of new definitions associated with defrost 
cycles, would clarify the test procedures but not add any new 
requirements that would increase test burden.
2. Changes in Measured Energy Use
    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)) For the reasons 
described below, DOE has determined that none of the test procedure 
amendments would significantly alter the projected measured energy use 
of covered products.
    The test procedure amendments in this final rule would affect the 
test procedures that will be required for certifying compliance with 
the amended energy conservation standards, the compliance date of which 
is September 15, 2014. Table III-1 indicates which parts of DOE's test 
procedures would be affected by this rule's amendments. As part of its 
evaluation of this rule, DOE has examined what impact it would likely 
have on the measured energy use of refrigeration products.
    Many of the changes made to Appendices A and B through this final 
rule clarify the manner in which the test should be conducted, or 
otherwise represent minor changes to the test or reporting requirements 
that would not affect measured energy use. These amendments include 
changes to the anti-circumvention language, clarifications for setting 
mechanical temperature controls, modified ambient temperature gradient 
requirements, new definitions to help clarify test

[[Page 22345]]

requirements, elimination of the requirement to report product height, 
use of CAD models for measuring refrigerated volume, and corrections to 
the temperature setting logic tables.
    The modification of the test period for products that experience 
incomplete cycling could affect only a small minority of products and 
only to a minimal extent. To DOE's knowledge, the only products that 
exhibit incomplete cycling are chest freezers. As described in section 
III.C.4, the accuracy of the measured energy use for such products 
would be improved. The measured energy use, to the extent it varies, 
would not necessitate a change in the standards for the single class of 
products that could theoretically be affected by this rule's 
amendments. For these reasons, DOE does not believe an adjustment of 
the energy conservation standard is necessary for this test procedure 
change.
    DOE's modifications addressing products with multiple-compressors 
are not expected to alter the measured energy use for these products. 
The test procedure as amended by this rule is functionally equivalent 
to the test procedure in the waivers that DOE has previously granted 
for products with multiple-compressors, differing primarily in the 
length and composition of test periods. AHAM commented that allowing 
test facilities to use temperature cycles would have a significant 
impact on the energy measurement. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 11) As a result, 
DOE decided not to allow the use of temperature cycles to define test 
periods. DOE does not believe that any of the other changes applicable 
to products with multiple-compressors are likely to affect the measured 
energy use of any product currently known to DOE.
    As described in section III.C.2, the triangulation test method may, 
in certain cases, provide a slightly more accurate measurement of the 
actual energy consumption of a given product. This method would yield 
lower energy use measurements for some products as compared with the 
two-test method of the current DOE test procedures (See Appendix A1, 
section 3.1.2). Given that the triangulation method would be optional, 
in DOE's view, the overall impact of this optional test on energy use 
measurement will likely be insignificant and would not require any 
change to the relevant standards.
3. Standby and Off Mode Energy Use
    EPCA directs DOE to include standby mode and off mode energy 
consumption when amending test procedures and that this energy 
consumption be integrated into the overall energy consumption 
descriptor for the product, unless DOE determines that the current test 
procedures for the product already fully account for and incorporate 
the standby and off mode energy consumption of the covered product. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)(i)) The DOE test procedures for refrigeration 
products measure the energy use of these products during extended time 
periods that include periods when the compressor and other key 
components are cycled off. All of the energy these products use during 
the ``off cycles'' is already included in the measurements. A given 
refrigeration product being tested could include auxiliary features 
that draw power in a standby or off mode. In such instances, HRF-1-1979 
and HRF-1-2008, both of which are incorporated in relevant part into 
DOE's test procedures, generally instruct manufacturers to set certain 
auxiliary features to the lowest power position during testing. In this 
lowest power position, any standby or off mode energy use of such 
auxiliary features would be included in the energy measurement. As a 
result, the July 2013 NOPR did not propose any additional changes to 
account for standby and off mode energy consumption, since the current 
(and proposed) procedures address these modes. AHAM and GE submitted 
comments supporting DOE's position on this issue. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 
19; GE, No. 31 at p.9) Therefore, DOE maintains the position that no 
specific amendments are needed to address standby or off-mode energy 
use for these products.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 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 (IFRA) for 
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the 
agency certifies that the 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 DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made 
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's Web site: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
    DOE reviewed the test procedures in this 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 determine 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 conducted a market survey to determine whether any 
manufacturers of products covered by this final rule were small 
businesses. During its market survey, DOE used all available public 
information to create a list of companies that manufacture 
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, or freezers covered by this 
rulemaking. DOE reviewed these data to determine whether the entities 
met the SBA's definition of a small business manufacturer of 
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, or freezers and screened out 
companies that do not offer products covered by this rulemaking, do not 
meet the definition of a ``small business,'' or are foreign owned and 
operated. DOE identified three small businesses at the time of the July 
2013 NOPR and an additional small business presented itself during the 
July 2013 NOPR comment period. However, DOE initially concluded that 
none of the test procedure modifications adopted in this final rule 
would pose a significant burden on manufacturers in this industry.
    FSI submitted comments indicating that, as a small business, the 
test procedure modifications would unfairly impact its certification 
activities.

[[Page 22346]]

Specifically, FSI argued that the following modifications would 
unfairly impact it: (a) Clarifications to the ambient temperature 
sensors requirements; (b) the optional triangulation energy calculation 
method; (c) modifications to the testing requirements for incomplete 
cycling products; and (d) clarifications to what DOE considers to make 
up a unit's rear wall. FSI's claims of test burden are discussed in 
section III.E.1 (Testing Burden). However, for the reasons discussed in 
section III.E.1, DOE concludes that FSI's claims of test burden are 
overstated.
    Reiterating the conclusions enumerated above, DOE acknowledges that 
additional ambient temperature sensors will be required and their 
temperatures recorded, but this is expected to be a modest impact as 
compared to the overall cost associated with testing. Specifically, DOE 
estimated an additional cost per product test station of $395, which 
includes the labor involved in equipment setup. This represents 
approximately 1 percent of the total cost of a typical four-station 
test chamber, assuming additional sensors are needed for all four test 
stations. In the worst case, in which a test facility must purchase 
additional data acquisition equipment and software, the cost could be 
as high as $1,500, although DOE expects that few if any test 
laboratories would incur costs at this level. DOE further concludes 
that claims regarding repeated tests or test facility upgrades 
associated with the ambient temperature requirements would be necessary 
under the existing test procedures, and that the amendments of this 
final rule would not represent an increase in test burden beyond the 
requirement for sensors and added data collection to verify compliance 
with the requirements. DOE does not agree with FSI that the inclusion 
of the optional (and voluntary) triangulation test would add any burden 
to a manufacturer choosing not to use this method. DOE has also not 
adopted the proposed amendment requiring reporting of whether this 
optional approach is used in testing.
    Therefore, DOE concludes that the test procedure amendments of this 
final rule 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 the current test procedures that 
manufacturers must use to certify compliance with the energy 
conservation standards that must be met. 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 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 refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers 
must certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable 
energy conservation standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers 
must test their products according to the DOE test procedures for 
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, including any 
amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established 
regulations regarding the certification and recordkeeping requirements 
for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including 
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. 76 FR 12422 (March 
7, 2011). 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 
approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. 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

    DOE is amending its test procedure for refrigerators, refrigerator-
freezers, and freezers. DOE has determined that this 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 affecting the amount, quality or 
distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, will not result in any 
environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical 
Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, which applies to any 
rulemaking that interprets or amends an existing rule without changing 
the environmental effect of that rule. Accordingly, neither an 
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) 
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing 
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism 
implications. 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 it will follow in the development of 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 this 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(d)) 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

[[Page 22347]]

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: (1) Clearly specifies 
the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on 
existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard 
for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden 
reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 
defines key terms; and (6) addresses 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 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) 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
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 a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The 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 small governments. On March 18, 1997, 
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available 
at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this final 
rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that 
the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate 
that may result in the 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. 
This final rule will 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 will 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 this final rule under the 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 OMB 
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A 
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency 
that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final 
rule, and that: (1)(i) is a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (ii) is likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy; or (2) 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.
    This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has 
it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator 
of OIRA. 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 Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), 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. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) 
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed 
rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of 
proposed 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.
    The proposed modifications to the test procedures addressed by this 
action incorporate testing methods contained in certain sections of the 
commercial standards, AHAM Standards HRF-1-1979 and HRF-1-2008. DOE has 
evaluated these two versions of this standard and is unable to conclude 
whether it fully complies with the requirements of section 32(b) of the 
FEAA (i.e. whether it was developed in a manner that fully provides for 
public participation, comment, and review.) DOE has consulted with both 
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC about the impact on 
competition of using the methods contained in these standards and has 
received no comments objecting to their use.

[[Page 22348]]

M. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation of this 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).

N. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final 
rule.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

10 CFR Part 430

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 10, 2014.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 
430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth 
below:

PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER 
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.


0
2. Section 429.14 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(3), and by 
revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  429.14  Residential refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and 
freezers.

    (a) * * *
    (3) The value of total refrigerated volume of a basic model 
reported in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall be 
the mean of the total refrigerated volumes measured for each tested 
unit of the basic model or the total refrigerated volume of the basic 
model as calculated in accordance with Sec.  429.72(c).
    (b) * * *
    (2) Pursuant to Sec.  429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall 
include the following public product-specific information: The annual 
energy use in kilowatt hours per year (kWh/yr); the total refrigerated 
volume in cubic feet (ft\3\); and the adjusted total volume in cubic 
feet (ft\3\).
    (3) Pursuant to Sec.  429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall 
include the following additional product-specific information: whether 
the basic model has variable defrost control (in which case, 
manufacturers must also report the values, if any, of CTL 
and CTM (For an example, see section 5.2.1.3 in appendix A 
to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430) used in the calculation of energy 
consumption), whether the basic model has variable anti-sweat heater 
control (in which case, manufacturers must also report the values of 
heater Watts at the ten humidity levels (5%, 15%, 25%, 35%, 45%, 55%, 
65%, 75%, 85%, and 95%) used to calculate the variable anti-sweat 
heater ``Correction Factor''), and whether testing has been conducted 
with modifications to the standard temperature sensor locations 
specified by the figures referenced in section 5.1 of appendices A1, 
B1, A, and B to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.

0
3. Add Sec.  429.72 to read as follows:


Sec.  429.72  Alternative methods for determining non-energy ratings.

    (a) General. Where Sec.  429.14 through Sec.  429.54 authorize the 
use of an alternative method for determining a physical or operating 
characteristic other than the energy consumption or efficiency, such 
characteristics must be determined either by testing in accordance with 
the applicable test procedure and applying the specified sampling plan 
provisions established in those sections or as described in the 
appropriate product-specific paragraph below. In all cases, the 
computer-aided design (CAD) models, measurements, and calculations used 
to determine the rating for the physical or operating characteristic 
shall be retained as part of the test records underlying the 
certification of the basic model in accordance with Sec.  429.71.
    (b) Testing. [Reserved]
    (c) Residential refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. 
The total refrigerated volume of a basic model of refrigerator, 
refrigerator-freezer, or freezer may be determined by performing a 
calculation of the volume based upon computer-aided design (CAD) models 
of the basic model in lieu of physical measurements of a production 
unit of the basic model. Any value of total refrigerated volume of a 
basic model reported to DOE in a certification of compliance in 
accordance with Sec.  429.14(b)(2) must be calculated using the CAD-
derived volume(s) and the applicable provisions in the test procedures 
in 10 CFR part 430 for measuring volume, and must be within two 
percent, or 0.5 cubic feet (0.2 cubic feet for compact products), 
whichever is greater, of the volume of a production unit of the basic 
model measured in accordance with the applicable test procedure in 10 
CFR part 430.

0
4. Add Sec.  429.134 to read as follows:


Sec.  429.134  Product-specific enforcement provisions.

    (a) General. The following provisions apply to assessment and 
enforcement testing of the relevant products.
    (b) Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers-- (1) 
Verification of total refrigerated volume. The total refrigerated 
volume of the basic model will be measured pursuant to the test 
requirements of 10 CFR part 430 for each unit tested. The results of 
the measurement(s) will be averaged and compared to the value of total 
refrigerated volume certified by the manufacturer. The certified total 
refrigerated volume will be considered valid only if:
    (i) The measurement is within two percent, or 0.5 cubic feet (0.2 
cubic feet for compact products), whichever is greater, of the 
certified total refrigerated volume, or
    (ii) The measurement is greater than the certified total 
refrigerated volume.
    (A) If the certified total refrigerated volume is found to be 
valid, the certified adjusted total volume will be used as the basis 
for calculation of maximum allowed energy use for the basic model.
    (B) If the certified total refrigerated volume is found to be 
invalid, the average measured adjusted total volume will serve as the 
basis for calculation of maximum allowed energy use for the tested 
basic model.
    (2) Test for models with two compartments, each having its own 
user-operable temperature control. The test described in section 3.3 of 
the applicable test procedure for refrigerators or refrigerator-
freezers in appendix A to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 shall be used 
for all units of a tested basic model before DOE makes a determination 
of noncompliance with respect to the basic model.

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

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


[[Page 22349]]


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


0
6. Section 430.2 is amended by revising the definition of ``compact 
refrigerator/refrigerator-freezer/freezer'' to read as follows:


Sec.  430.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Compact refrigerator/refrigerator-freezer/freezer means any 
refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer or freezer with a total refrigerated 
volume of less than 7.75 cubic feet (220 liters). (Total refrigerated 
volume shall be determined using the applicable test procedure appendix 
prescribed in subpart B of this part.)
* * * * *

0
7. Section 430.3 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  430.3  Materials incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (e) AS/NZS. Australian/New Zealand Standard, GPO Box 476, Sydney 
NSW 2001, (02) 9237-6000 or (12) 0065-4646, or go to 
www.standards.org.au/Standards New Zealand, Level 10 Radio New Zealand 
House 144 The Terrace Wellington 6001 (Private Bag 2439 Wellington 
6020), (04) 498-5990 or (04) 498-5991, or go to www.standards.co.nz.
    (1) AS/NZS 4474.1:2007, Performance of Household Electrical 
Appliances--Refrigerating Appliances; Part 1: Energy Consumption and 
Performance, Second edition, published August 15, 2007, IBR approved 
for Appendix A to Subpart B.
    (2) [Reserved]
* * * * *

0
8. Section 430.23 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(10) and (b)(7) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  430.23  Test procedures for the measurement of energy and water 
consumption.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (10) The following principles of interpretation should be applied 
to the test procedure. The intent of the energy test procedure is to 
simulate typical room conditions (approximately 70 [deg]F (21 [deg]C)) 
with door openings by testing at 90 [deg]F (32.2 [deg]C) without door 
openings. Except for operating characteristics that are affected by 
ambient temperature (for example, compressor percent run time), the 
unit, when tested under this test procedure, shall operate in a manner 
equivalent to the unit in typical room conditions.
    (i) The energy used by the unit shall be calculated when a 
calculation is provided by the test procedure. Energy consuming 
components that operate in typical room conditions (including as a 
result of door openings, or a function of humidity), and that are not 
exempted by this test procedure, shall operate in an equivalent manner 
during energy testing under this test procedure, or be accounted for by 
all calculations as provided for in the test procedure. Examples:
    (A) 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.
    (B) The defrost heater shall neither function nor turn off 
differently during the energy test than it would when in typical room 
conditions. Also, the product shall not recover differently during the 
defrost recovery period than it would in typical room conditions.
    (C) Electric heaters that would normally operate at typical room 
conditions with door openings shall also operate during the energy 
test.
    (D) Energy used during adaptive defrost shall continue to be tested 
and adjusted per the calculation provided for in this test procedure.
    (ii) DOE recognizes that there may be situations that the test 
procedures do not completely address. In such cases, a manufacturer 
must obtain a waiver in accordance with the relevant provisions of 10 
CFR part 430 if:
    (A) A product contains energy consuming components that operate 
differently during the prescribed testing than they would during 
representative average consumer use and
    (B) Applying the prescribed test to that product would evaluate it 
in a manner that is unrepresentative of its true energy consumption 
(thereby providing materially inaccurate comparative data).
    (b) * * *
    (7) The following principles of interpretation should be applied to 
the test procedure. The intent of the energy test procedure is to 
simulate typical room conditions (approximately 70 [deg]F (21 [deg]C)) 
with door openings by testing at 90 [deg]F (32.2 [deg]C) without door 
openings. Except for operating characteristics that are affected by 
ambient temperature (for example, compressor percent run time), the 
unit, when tested under this test procedure, shall operate in a manner 
equivalent to the unit in typical room conditions.
    (i) The energy used by the unit shall be calculated when a 
calculation is provided by the test procedure. Energy consuming 
components that operate in typical room conditions (including as a 
result of door openings, or a function of humidity), and that are not 
exempted by this test procedure, shall operate in an equivalent manner 
during energy testing under this test procedure, or be accounted for by 
all calculations as provided for in the test procedure. Examples:
    (A) 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.
    (B) The defrost heater shall neither function nor turn off 
differently during the energy test than it would when in typical room 
conditions. Also, the product shall not recover differently during the 
defrost recovery period than it would in typical room conditions.
    (C) Electric heaters that would normally operate at typical room 
conditions with door openings shall also operate during the energy 
test.
    (D) Energy used during adaptive defrost shall continue to be tested 
and adjusted per the calculation provided for in this test procedure.
    (ii) DOE recognizes that there may be situations that the test 
procedures do not completely address. In such cases, a manufacturer 
must obtain a waiver in accordance with the relevant provisions of 10 
CFR part 430 if:
    (A) A product contains energy consuming components that operate 
differently during the prescribed testing than they would during 
representative average consumer use and
    (B) Applying the prescribed test to that product would evaluate it 
in a manner that is unrepresentative of its true energy consumption 
(thereby providing materially inaccurate comparative data).
* * * * *

0
9. Appendix A to subpart B of part 430 is amended:
0
a. By revising the introductory text;
0
b. In section 1. Definitions, by:
0
i. Redesignating section 1.18 as 1.26;
0
ii. Redesignating section 1.17 as 1.25;
0
iii. Redesignating section 1.16 as 1.23;
0
iv. Redesignating section 1.15 as 1.21;
0
v. Redesignating section 1.14 as 1.20;
0
vi. Redesignating section 1.13 as 1.19;
0
vii. Redesignating section 1.12 as 1.15;
0
viii. Redesignating section 1.11 as 1.13;
0
ix. Redesignating section 1.10 as 1.12;
0
x. Redesignating section 1.9 as 1.11 and revising the newly designated 
section 1.11;
0
xi. Redesignating section 1.8 as 1.10;
0
xii. Redesignating section 1.7 as 1.9;
0
xiv. Redesignating section 1.6 as 1.7;
0
xv. Redesignating section 1.5 as 1.6;
0
xvi. Adding sections 1.5, 1.8, 1.14, 1.16, 1.17, 1.18, 1.22, and 1.24;
0
c. In section 2. Test Conditions, by:
0
i. Revising sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.8;

[[Page 22350]]

0
ii. Adding sections, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, and 2.11;
0
d. In section 3. Test Control Setting, by:
0
i. Revising section 3.2.1;
0
ii. Revising Tables 1 and 2;
0
iii. Adding section 3.3;
0
e. In section 4. Test Period, by:
0
i. Revising sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.2.1.1, and 4.2.3;
0
ii. Adding sections 4.2.3.1, 4.2.3.2, 4.2.3.3, 4.2.3.4, 4.2.3.4.1, and 
4.2.3.4.2;
0
f. In section 5. Test Measurements, by revising sections 5.1, 5.1.1, 
5.1.2, 5.2.1.3, 5.2.1.4, and 5.3;
0
g. In section 6. Calculation of Derived Results from Test Measurements, 
by:
0
i. Revising sections 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.2.1, and 6.2.2.2;
0
ii. Adding section 6.2.2.3.
    The additions and 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

    Beginning on September 15, 2014, the test procedures in appendix 
A must be used to determine compliance with energy conservation 
standards for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. Prior to 
September 15, 2014, manufacturers may continue to use appendix A1 or 
may elect to use appendix A early to show compliance with the 
September 15, 2014 energy conservation standards. Manufacturers must 
use a single appendix for all representations of energy use of a 
basic model, including certifications of compliance, and may not use 
appendix A1 for certain representations and appendix A for other 
representations.

1. Definitions

* * * * *
    1.5 ``AS/NZS 44474.1:2007'' means Australian/New Zealand 
Standard 44474.1:2007, Performance of household electrical 
appliances--Refrigerating appliances, Part 1: Energy consumption and 
performance. Only sections of AS/NZS 44474.1:2007 (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3) specifically referenced in this test 
procedure are part of this test procedure. In cases where there is a 
conflict, the language of the test procedure in this appendix takes 
precedence over AS/NZS 44474.1:2007.
* * * * *
    1.8 ``Complete temperature cycle'' means a time period defined 
based upon the cycling of compartment temperature that starts when 
the compartment temperature is at a maximum and ends when the 
compartment temperature returns to an equivalent maximum (within 0.5 
[deg]F of the starting temperature), having in the interim fallen to 
a minimum and subsequently risen again to reach the second maximum. 
Alternatively, a complete temperature cycle can be defined to start 
when the compartment temperature is at a minimum and end when the 
compartment temperature returns to an equivalent minimum (within 0.5 
[deg]F of the starting temperature), having in the interim risen to 
a maximum and subsequently fallen again to reach the second minimum.
* * * * *
    1.11 ``Defrost cycle type'' means a distinct sequence of control 
whose function is to remove frost and/or ice from a refrigerated 
surface. There may be variations in the defrost control sequence 
such as the number of defrost heaters energized. Each such variation 
establishes a separate distinct defrost cycle type. However, defrost 
achieved regularly during the compressor off-cycles by warming of 
the evaporator without active heat addition, although a form of 
automatic defrost, does not constitute a unique defrost cycle type 
for the purposes of identifying the test period in accordance with 
section 4 of this appendix.
* * * * *
    1.14 ``Ice storage bin'' means a container in which ice can be 
stored.
* * * * *
    1.16 ``Multiple-compressor'' refrigerator or refrigerator-
freezer means a refrigerator or refrigerator-freezer with more than 
one compressor.
    1.17 ``Precooling'' means operating a refrigeration system 
before initiation of a defrost cycle to reduce one or more 
compartment temperatures significantly (more than 0.5 [deg]F) below 
its minimum during stable operation between defrosts.
    1.18 ``Recovery'' means operating a refrigeration system after 
the conclusion of a defrost cycle to reduce the temperature of one 
or more compartments to the temperature range that the 
compartment(s) exhibited during stable operation between defrosts.
* * * * *
    1.22 ``Stable operation'' means operation after steady-state 
conditions have been achieved but excluding any events associated 
with defrost cycles. During stable operation the average rate of 
change of compartment temperature must not exceed 0.042 [deg]F 
(0.023 [deg]C) per hour for all compartment temperatures. Such a 
calculation performed for compartment temperatures at any two times, 
or for any two periods of time comprising complete cycles, during 
stable operation must meet this requirement.
    (A) If compartment temperatures do not cycle, the relevant 
calculation shall be the difference between the temperatures at two 
points in time divided by the difference, in hours, between those 
points in time.
    (B) If compartment temperatures cycle as a result of compressor 
cycling or other cycling operation of any system component (e.g., a 
damper, fan, or heater), the relevant calculation shall be the 
difference between compartment temperature averages evaluated for 
whole compressor cycles or complete temperature cycles divided by 
the difference, in hours, between either the starts, ends, or mid-
times of the two cycles.
* * * * *
    1.24 ``Through-the-door ice/water dispenser'' means a device 
incorporated within the cabinet, but outside the boundary of the 
refrigerated space, that delivers to the user on demand ice and may 
also deliver water from within the refrigerated space without 
opening an exterior door. This definition includes dispensers that 
are capable of dispensing ice and water or ice only.
* * * * *

2. Test Conditions

    2.1 Ambient Temperature Measurement. Temperature measuring 
devices shall be shielded so that indicated temperatures are not 
affected by the operation of the condensing unit or adjacent units.
    2.1.1 Ambient Temperature. The ambient temperature shall be 
recorded at points located 3 feet (91.5 cm) above the floor and 10 
inches (25.4 cm) from the center of the two sides of the unit under 
test. The ambient temperature shall be 90.0  1.0 [deg]F 
(32.2  0.6 [deg]C) during the stabilization period and 
the test period.
    2.1.2 Ambient Temperature Gradient. The test room vertical 
ambient temperature gradient in any foot of vertical distance from 2 
inches (5.1 cm) above the floor or supporting platform to a height 
of 1 foot (30.5 cm) above the top of the unit under test is not to 
exceed 0.5 [deg]F per foot (0.9 [deg]C per meter). The vertical 
ambient temperature gradient at locations 10 inches (25.4 cm) out 
from the centers of the two sides of the unit being tested is to be 
maintained during the test. To demonstrate that this requirement has 
been met, test data must include measurements taken using 
temperature sensors at locations 10 inches (25.4 cm) from the center 
of the two sides of the unit under test at heights of 2 inches (5.1 
cm) and 36 inches (91.4 cm) above the floor or supporting platform 
and at a height of 1 foot (30.5 cm) above the unit under test.
    2.1.3 Platform. A platform must be used if the floor temperature 
is not within 3 [deg]F (1.7 [deg]C) of the measured ambient 
temperature. If a platform is used, it is to have a solid top with 
all sides open for air circulation underneath, and its top shall 
extend at least 1 foot (30.5 cm) beyond each side and front of the 
unit under test and extend to the wall in the rear.
    2.2 Operational Conditions. The unit under test shall be 
installed and its operating conditions maintained in accordance with 
HRF-1-2008 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), sections 
5.3.2 through section 5.5.5.5 (excluding section 5.5.5.4). 
Exceptions and clarifications to the cited sections of HRF-1-2008 
are noted in sections 2.3 through 2.8, and 5.1 of this appendix.
* * * * *
    2.8 Rear Clearance.
    (a) General. The space between the lowest edge of the rear plane 
of the cabinet and a vertical surface (the test room wall or 
simulated wall) shall be the minimum distance in accordance with the 
manufacturer's instructions, unless other provisions of this section 
apply. The rear plane shall be considered to be the largest flat 
surface at the rear of the cabinet, excluding features that protrude 
beyond this surface, such as brackets or compressors.
    (b) Maximum clearance. The clearance shall not be greater than 2 
inches (51 mm) from the lowest edge of the rear plane to the

[[Page 22351]]

vertical surface, unless the provisions of paragraph (c) of this 
section apply.
    (c) If permanent rear spacers or other components that protrude 
beyond the rear plane extend further than the 2 inch (51 mm) 
distance, or if the highest edge of the rear plane is in contact 
with the vertical surface when the unit is positioned with the 
lowest edge of the rear plane at or further than the 2 inch (51 mm) 
distance from the vertical surface, the appliance shall be located 
with the spacers or other components protruding beyond the rear 
plane, or the highest edge of the rear plane, in contact with the 
vertical surface.
    (d) Rear-mounted condensers. If the product has a flat rear-
wall-mounted condenser (i.e., a rear-wall-mounted condenser with all 
refrigerant tube centerlines within 0.25 inches (6.4 mm) of the 
condenser plane), and the area of the condenser plane represents at 
least 25% of the total area of the rear wall of the cabinet, then 
the spacing to the vertical surface may be measured from the lowest 
edge of the condenser plane.
* * * * *
    2.11 Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers with Demand-
Response Capability. Refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers that 
have a communication module for demand-response functions that is 
located within the cabinet shall be tested with the communication 
module in the configuration set at the factory just before shipping.
* * * * *

3. Test Control Settings

    3.2 * * *
    3.2.1 A first test shall be performed with all compartment 
temperature controls set at their median position midway between 
their warmest and coldest settings. For mechanical control systems, 
(a) knob detents shall be mechanically defeated if necessary to 
attain a median setting, and (b) the warmest and coldest settings 
shall correspond to the positions in which the indicator is aligned 
with control symbols indicating the warmest and coldest settings. 
For electronic control systems, the test shall be performed with all 
compartment temperature controls set at the average of the coldest 
and warmest settings; if there is no setting equal to this average, 
the setting closest to the average shall be used. If there are two 
such settings equally close to the average, the higher of these 
temperature control settings shall be used. A second test shall be 
performed with all controls set at their warmest setting or all 
controls set at their coldest setting (not electrically or 
mechanically bypassed). For all-refrigerators, this setting shall be 
the appropriate setting that attempts to achieve compartment 
temperatures measured during the two tests that bound (i.e., one is 
above and one is below) the standardized temperature for all-
refrigerators. For refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, the 
second test shall be conducted with all controls at their coldest 
setting, unless all compartment temperatures measured during the 
first part of the test are lower than the standardized temperatures, 
in which case the second test shall be conducted with all controls 
at their warmest setting. Refer to Table 1 of this appendix for all-
refrigerators or Table 2 of this appendix for refrigerators with 
freezer compartments and refrigerator-freezers to determine which 
test results to use in the energy consumption calculation. If any 
compartment is warmer than its standardized temperature for a test 
with all controls at their coldest position, the tested unit fails 
the test and cannot be rated.

                                                   Table 1--Temperature Settings for All-Refrigerators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          First test                                             Second test
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------       Energy calculation based on:
              Settings                        Results                  Settings                 Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid.................................  Low....................  Warm...................  Low...................  Second Test Only.
                                                                                        High..................  First and Second Tests.
                                      High...................  Cold...................  Low...................  First and Second Tests.
                                                                                        High..................  No Energy Use Rating.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                           Table 2--Temperature Settings for Refrigerators With Freezer Compartments and Refrigerator-Freezers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          First test                                             Second test
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------       Energy calculation based on:
              Settings                        Results                  Settings                 Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fzr Mid.............................  Fzr Low................  Fzr Warm...............  Fzr Low...............  Second Test Only.
FF Mid..............................  FF Low.................  FF Warm................  FF Low.
                                                                                        Fzr Low...............  First and Second Tests.
                                                                                        FF High.
                                                                                        Fzr High..............  First and Second Tests.
                                                                                        FF Low.
                                                                                        Fzr High..............  First and Second Tests.
                                                                                        FF High.
                                      Fzr Low................  Fzr Cold...............  Fzr Low...............  No Energy Use Rating.
                                      FF High................  FF Cold................  FF High.
                                                                                        Fzr Low...............  First and Second Tests.
                                                                                        FF Low.
                                      Fzr High...............  Fzr Cold...............  Fzr High..............  No Energy Use Rating.
                                      FF Low.................  FF Cold................  FF Low.
                                                                                        Fzr Low...............  First and Second Tests.
                                                                                        FF Low.
                                      Fzr High...............  Fzr Cold...............  Fzr Low...............  First and Second Tests.
                                      FF High................  FF Cold................  FF Low.
                                                                                        Fzr Low...............  No Energy Use Rating.
                                                                                        FF High.
                                                                                        Fzr High..............  No Energy Use Rating.
                                                                                        FF Low.
                                                                                        Fzr High..............  No Energy Use Rating.
                                                                                        FF High.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Fzr = Freezer Compartment, FF = Fresh Food Compartment.


[[Page 22352]]

* * * * *
    3.3 Optional Test for Models with Two Compartments and User 
Operable Controls. As an alternative to section 3.2, perform three 
tests such that the set of tests meets the ``minimum requirements 
for interpolation'' of AS/NZS 44474.1:2007 (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3) appendix M, section M3, paragraphs (a) 
through (c) and as illustrated in Figure M1. The target temperatures 
txA and txB defined in section M4(a)(i) of AS/
NZ 44474.1:2007 shall be the standardized temperatures defined in 
section 3.2 of this appendix.

4. Test Period

* * * * *
    4.1 Non-automatic Defrost. If the model being tested has no 
automatic defrost system, the test period shall start after steady-
state conditions (see section 2.9 of this appendix) have been 
achieved and be no less than three hours in duration. During the 
test period, the compressor motor shall complete two or more whole 
compressor cycles. (A compressor cycle is a complete ``on'' and a 
complete ``off'' period of the motor.) If no ``off'' cycling occurs, 
the test period shall be three hours. If fewer than two compressor 
cycles occur during a 24-hour period, then a single complete 
compressor cycle may be used.
    4.2 Automatic Defrost. If the model being tested has an 
automatic defrost system, the test period shall start after steady-
state conditions have been achieved and be from one point during a 
defrost period to the same point during the next defrost period. If 
the model being tested has a long-time automatic defrost system, the 
alternative provisions of section 4.2.1 may be used. If the model 
being tested has a variable defrost control, the provisions of 
section 4.2.2 shall apply. If the model is a multiple-compressor 
product with automatic defrost, the provisions of section 4.2.3 
shall apply. If the model being tested has long-time automatic or 
variable defrost control involving multiple defrost cycle types, 
such as for a product with a single compressor and two or more 
evaporators in which the evaporators are defrosted at different 
frequencies, the provisions of section 4.2.4 shall apply. If the 
model being tested has multiple defrost cycle types for which 
compressor run time between defrosts is a fixed time of less than 14 
hours for all such cycle types, and for which the compressor run 
times between defrosts for different defrost cycle types are equal 
to or multiples of each other, the test period shall be from one 
point of the defrost cycle type with the longest compressor run time 
between defrosts to the same point during the next occurrence of 
this defrost cycle type. For such products not using the procedures 
of section 4.2.4, energy consumption shall be calculated as 
described in section 5.2.1.1 of this appendix.
* * * * *
    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 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. Note that Figure 1 illustrates the concepts 
of precooling and recovery but does not represent all possible 
defrost cycles.
    4.2.3 Multiple-compressor Products with Automatic Defrost.
    4.2.3.1 Measurement Frequency. Measurements of power input, 
cumulative electric energy consumption (watt-hours or kilowatt-
hours), and compartment temperature shall be taken at regular 
intervals not exceeding one minute.
    4.2.3.2 Steady-state Condition. Steady state shall be considered 
to have been attained after 24 hours of operation after the last 
adjustment of the temperature controls.
    4.2.3.3 Primary Compressor. If at least one compressor cycles, 
test periods shall be based on compressor cycles associated with the 
primary compressor system (these are referred to as ``primary 
compressor cycles''). If the freezer compressor cycles, it shall be 
the primary compressor system.
    4.2.3.4 Test Periods. The two-part test described in this 
section shall be used. The first part is a stable continuous period 
of compressor operation that includes no defrost cycles or events 
associated with a defrost cycle, such as precooling or recovery, for 
any compressor system. The second part is a continuous test period 
designed to capture the energy consumed during all of the events 
occurring with the defrost control sequence that are outside of 
stable operation. The second part of the test shall be conducted 
separately for each automatic defrost system present.
    4.2.3.4.1 First Part of Test. If at least one compressor cycles, 
the test period for the first part of the test shall include a whole 
number of complete primary compressor cycles comprising at least 24 
hours of stable operation, unless a defrost occurs prior to 
completion of 24 hours of stable operation, in which case the first 
part of the test shall include a whole number of complete primary 
compressor cycles comprising at least 18 hours of stable operation. 
If no compressor cycles, the first part of the test shall comprise 
at least 24 hours of stable operation, unless a defrost occurs prior 
to completion of 24 hours of stable operation, in which case the 
first part of the test shall comprise at least 18 hours of stable 
operation.
    4.2.3.4.2 Second Part of Test. (a) If at least one compressor 
cycles, the test period for the second part of the test starts 
during stable operation before all portions of the defrost cycle, at 
the beginning of a complete primary compressor cycle. The test 
period for the second part of the test ends during stable operation 
after all portions of the defrost cycle, including recovery, at the 
termination of a complete primary compressor cycle. The start and 
stop for the test period shall both occur either when the primary 
compressor starts or when the primary compressor stops. For each 
compressor system, the compartment temperature averages for the 
first and last complete compressor cycles that lie completely within 
the second part of the test must be within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C) 
of the average compartment temperature measured for the first part 
of the test. If any one of the compressor systems is non-cycling, 
its compartment temperature averages during the first and last 
complete primary compressor cycles of the second part of the test 
must be within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C) of the average compartment 
temperature measured for the first part of the test.
    (b) If no compressor cycles, the test period for the second part 
of the test starts during stable operation before all portions of 
the defrost cycle, when the compartment temperatures of all 
compressor systems are within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C) of their 
average temperatures measured for the first part of the test. The 
test period for the second part ends during stable operation after 
all portions of the defrost cycle, including recovery, when the 
compartment temperatures of all compressor systems are within 0.5 
[deg]F (0.3 [deg]C) of their average temperatures measured for the 
first part of the test.

5. Test Measurements

* * * * *
    5.1 Temperature Measurements. (a) Temperature measurements shall 
be made at the locations prescribed in Figures 5.1 and 5.2 of HRF-1-
2008 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3) and shall be 
accurate to within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C). No freezer 
temperature measurements need be taken in an all-refrigerator model.
    (b) If the interior arrangements of the unit under test do not 
conform with those shown in Figure 5.1 and 5.2 of HRF-1-2008, the 
unit must be tested by relocating the temperature sensors from the 
locations specified in the figures to avoid interference with 
hardware or components within the unit, in which case the specific 
locations used for the temperature sensors shall be noted in the 
test data records maintained by the manufacturer in accordance with 
10 CFR 429.71, and the certification report shall indicate that non-
standard sensor locations were used. If any temperature sensor is 
relocated by any amount from the location prescribed in Figure 5.1 
or 5.2 of HRF-1-2008 in order to maintain a minimum 1-inch air space 
from adjustable shelves or other

[[Page 22353]]

components that could be relocated by the consumer, this constitutes 
a relocation of temperature sensors that shall be recorded in the 
test data and reported in the certification report as described 
above.
    5.1.1 Measured Temperature. The measured temperature of a 
compartment is the average of all sensor temperature readings taken 
in that compartment at a particular point in time. Measurements 
shall be taken at regular intervals not to exceed 4 minutes. 
Measurements for products with multiple-compressor systems shall be 
taken at regular intervals not to exceed one minute.
    5.1.2 Compartment Temperature. The compartment temperature for 
each test period shall be an average of the measured temperatures 
taken in a compartment during the test period as defined in section 
4 of this appendix. For long-time automatic defrost models, 
compartment temperatures shall be those measured in the first part 
of the test period specified in section 4.2.1 of this appendix. For 
models with variable defrost controls, compartment temperatures 
shall be those measured in the first part of the test period 
specified in section 4.2.2 of this appendix. For models with 
automatic defrost that is neither long-time nor variable defrost, 
the compartment temperature shall be an average of the measured 
temperatures taken in a compartment during a stable period of 
compressor operation that (a) includes no defrost cycles or events 
associated with a defrost cycle, such as precooling or recovery, (b) 
is no less than three hours in duration, and (c) includes two or 
more whole compressor cycles. If the compressor does not cycle, the 
stable period used for the temperature average shall be three hours 
in duration.
* * * * *
    5.2 * * *
    5.2.1 * * *
    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 = the shortest compressor run time between defrosts 
used in the variable defrost control algorithm (greater than or 
equal to 6 but less than or equal to 12 hours), or the shortest 
compressor run time between defrosts observed for the test (if it is 
shorter than the shortest run time used in the control algorithm and 
is greater than 6 hours), or 6 hours (if the shortest observed run 
time is less than 6 hours), in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of 
an hour;
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.

    5.2.1.4 Multiple-compressor Products with Automatic Defrost. For 
multiple-compressor products, the two-part test method in section 
4.2.3.4 of this appendix must be used. The energy consumption in 
kilowatt-hours per day shall be calculated equivalent to:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP14.014

Where:

1440, EP1, T1, and 12 are defined in 5.2.1.2;
i = a variable that can equal 1, 2, or more that identifies each 
individual compressor system that has automatic defrost;
D = the total number of compressor systems with automatic defrost;
EP2i = energy expended in kilowatt-hours during the 
second part of the test for compressor system i;
T2i = length of time in minutes of the second part of the 
test for compressor system i;
CTi = the compressor run time between defrosts for 
compressor system i in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an 
hour, for long-time automatic defrost control equal to a fixed time 
in hours, and for variable defrost control equal to

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

Where:

    CTLi = for compressor system i, the shortest 
compressor run time between defrosts used in the variable defrost 
control algorithm (greater than or equal to 6 but less than or equal 
to 12 hours), or the shortest compressor run time between defrosts 
observed for the test (if it is shorter than the shortest run time 
used in the control algorithm and is greater than 6 hours), or 6 
hours (if the shortest observed run time is less than 6 hours), in 
hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour;
CTMi = for compressor system i, the maximum compressor 
run time between defrosts in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of 
an hour (greater than CTLi but not more than 96 hours); 
and
F = default defrost energy consumption factor, equal to 0.20.

    For variable defrost models with no values for CTLi 
and CTMi in the algorithm, the default values of 6 and 96 
shall be used, respectively.
* * * * *
    5.3 Volume Measurements. (a) The unit's total refrigerated 
volume, VT, shall be measured in accordance with HRF-1-2008 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), section 3.30 and 
sections 4.2 through 4.3. The measured volume shall include all 
spaces within the insulated volume of each compartment except for 
the volumes that must be deducted in accordance with section 4.2.2 
of HRF-1-2008, and be calculated equivalent to:

VT = VF + VFF

Where:

VT = total refrigerated volume in cubic feet,
VF = freezer compartment volume in cubic feet, and
VFF = fresh food compartment volume in cubic feet.

    (b) In the case of products with automatic icemakers, the volume 
occupied by the automatic icemaker, including its ice storage bin, 
is to be included in the volume measurement.
    (c) Total refrigerated volume is determined by physical 
measurement of the test unit. Measurements and calculations used to 
determine the total refrigerated volume shall be retained as part of 
the test records underlying the certification of the basic model in 
accordance with 10 CFR 429.71.
* * * * *

6. Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements

* * * * *
    6.2 Average Per-Cycle Energy Consumption. The average per-cycle 
energy consumption for a cycle type, E, is expressed in kilowatt-
hours per cycle to the nearest one hundredth (0.01) kilowatt-hour 
and shall be calculated according to the sections below.
    6.2.1 All-Refrigerator Models. The average per-cycle energy 
consumption shall depend upon the temperature attainable in the 
fresh food compartment as shown below.
* * * * *
    6.2.2 Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers. The average per-
cycle energy consumption shall be defined in one of the following 
ways as applicable.
    6.2.2.1 If the fresh food compartment temperature is at or below 
39 [deg]F (3.9 [deg]C) during both tests and the freezer compartment 
temperature is at or below 15[deg]F (-9.4 [deg]C) during both tests 
of a refrigerator or at or below 0[deg]F (-17.8 [deg]C) during both 
tests of a refrigerator-freezer, the average per-cycle energy 
consumption shall be:

E = ET1 + IET

Where:

ET is defined in 5.2.1;
IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle, equals 0 (zero) for 
products without an automatic icemaker, and equals 0.23 for products 
with an automatic icemaker; and
The number 1 indicates the test period during which the highest 
freezer compartment temperature was measured.

[[Page 22354]]

    6.2.2.2 If the conditions of 6.2.2.1 do not exist, the average 
per-cycle energy consumption shall be defined by the higher of the 
two values calculated by the following two formulas:

E = ET1 + ((ET2 - ET1) x (39.0 - TR1)/(TR2 - TR1)) + IET
and

E = ET1 + ((ET2 - ET1) x (k - TF1)/(TF2 - TF1)) + IET

Where:

ET is defined in 5.2.1;
IET is defined in 6.2.2.1;
TR and the numbers 1 and 2 are defined in 6.2.1.2;
TF = freezer compartment temperature determined according to 5.1.4 
in degrees F; 39.0 is the standardized temperature for fresh food 
compartments in degrees F; and
k is a constant 15.0 for refrigerators or 0.0 for refrigerator-
freezers, each being standardized freezer compartment temperatures 
in degrees F.

    6.2.2.3 Optional Test for Models with Two Compartments and User 
Operable Controls. If the procedure of section 3.3 of this appendix 
is used for setting temperature controls, the average per-cycle 
energy consumption shall be defined as follows:

E = Ex + IET
Where:

E is defined in 6.2.1.1;
IET is defined in 6.2.2.1; and
Ex is defined and calculated as described in AS/NZS 
44474.1:2007 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3) appendix 
M, section M4(a). The target temperatures txA and 
txB defined in section M4(a)(i) of AS/NZS 44474.1:2007 
shall be the standardized temperatures defined in section 3.2 of 
this appendix.
* * * * *


0
10. Appendix B to subpart B of part 430 is amended:
0
a. By revising the introductory text;
0
b. In section 1. Definitions, by:
0
i. Redesignating section 1.15 as 1.21;
0
ii. Redesignating section 1.14 as 1.19;
0
iii. Redesignating section 1.13 as 1.17;
0
iv. Redesignating section 1.12 as 1.16;
0
v. Redesignating section 1.11 as 1.15;
0
vi. Redesignating section 1.10 as 1.13;
0
vii. Redesignating section 1.9 as 1.11;
0
viii. Redesignating sections 1.6 through 1.8 as 1.7 through 1.9 
respectively;
0
ix. Adding sections 1.6, 1.10, 1.12, 1.14, 1.18, and 1.20;
0
c. In section 2. Test Conditions, by;
0
i. Revising sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.6;
0
ii. Adding sections 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.8, and 2.9;
0
d. Revising section 3.2.1 and Table 1 in section 3. Test Control 
Settings;
0
e. Revising sections 4.1 and 4.2.1.1 in section 4. Test Period;
0
f. Revising sections 5.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1.3, and 5.3 in section 5. Test 
Measurements;
0
g. In section 6. Calculation of Derived Results from Test Measurements, 
by:
0
i. Revising section 6.2;
0
ii. Removing section 6.2.1;
0
iii. Redesignating section 6.2.1.1 as 6.2.1 and revising the newly 
designated section 6.2.1;
0
iv. Redesignating section 6.2.1.2 as 6.2.2 and revising the newly 
designated section 6.2.2;
0
v. Redesignating section 6.2.2 as 6.2.3 and revising the newly 
designated section 6.2.3.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

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

    Beginning on September 15, 2014, the test procedures in appendix 
B must be used to determine compliance with energy conservation 
standards for freezers. Prior to September 15, 2014, manufacturers 
may continue to use appendix B1 or may elect to use appendix B early 
to show compliance with the September 15, 2014 energy conservation 
standards. Manufacturers must use a single appendix for all 
representations of energy use of a basic model, including 
certifications of compliance, and may not use appendix B1 for 
certain representations and appendix B for other representations.

1. Definitions

* * * * *
    1.6 ``Complete temperature cycle'' means a time period defined 
based upon the cycling of compartment temperature that starts when 
the compartment temperature is at a maximum and ends when the 
compartment temperature returns to an equivalent maximum (within 
0.5[emsp14][deg]F of the starting temperature), having in the 
interim fallen to a minimum and subsequently risen again to reach 
the second maximum. Alternatively, a complete temperature cycle can 
be defined to start when the compartment temperature is at a minimum 
and end when the compartment temperature returns to an equivalent 
minimum (within 0.5[emsp14][deg]F of the starting temperature), 
having in the interim risen to a maximum and subsequently fallen 
again to reach the second minimum.
* * * * *
    1.10 ``Ice storage bin'' means a container in which ice can be 
stored.
* * * * *
    1.12 ``Precooling'' means operating a refrigeration system 
before initiation of a defrost cycle to reduce one or more 
compartment temperatures significantly (more than 0.5 [deg]F) below 
its minimum during stable operation between defrosts.
* * * * *
    1.14 ``Recovery'' means operating a refrigeration system after 
the conclusion of a defrost cycle to reduce the temperature of one 
or more compartments to the temperature range that the 
compartment(s) exhibited during stable operation between defrosts.
* * * * *
    1.18 ``Stable operation'' means operation after steady-state 
conditions have been achieved but excluding any events associated 
with defrost cycles. During stable operation the average rate of 
change of compartment temperature must not exceed 0.042 [deg]F 
(0.023 [deg]C) per hour. Such a calculation performed for 
compartment temperatures at any two times, or for any two periods of 
time comprising complete cycles, during stable operation must meet 
this requirement.
    (a) If compartment temperatures do not cycle, the relevant 
calculation shall be the difference between the temperatures at two 
points in time divided by the difference, in hours, between those 
points in time.
    (b) If compartment temperatures cycle as a result of compressor 
cycling or other cycling operation of any system component (e.g., a 
damper, fan, or heater), the relevant calculation shall be the 
difference between compartment temperature averages evaluated for 
whole compressor cycles or complete temperature cycles divided by 
the difference, in hours, between either the starts, ends, or mid-
times of the two cycles.
* * * * *
    1.20 ``Through-the-door ice/water dispenser'' means a device 
incorporated within the cabinet, but outside the boundary of the 
refrigerated space, that delivers to the user on demand ice and may 
also deliver water from within the refrigerated space without 
opening an exterior door. This definition includes dispensers that 
are capable of dispensing ice and water or ice only.
* * * * *

2. Test Conditions

    2.1 Ambient Temperature Measurement. Temperature measuring 
devices shall be shielded so that indicated temperatures are not 
affected by the operation of the condensing unit or adjacent units.
    2.1.1 Ambient Temperature. The ambient temperature shall be 
recorded at points located 3 feet (91.5 cm) above the floor and 10 
inches (25.4 cm) from the center of the two sides of the unit under 
test. The ambient temperature shall be 90.0 1.0 [deg]F 
(32.2 0.6 [deg]C) during the stabilization period and 
the test period.
    2.1.2 Ambient Temperature Gradient. The test room vertical 
ambient temperature gradient in any foot of vertical distance from 2 
inches (5.1 cm) above the floor or supporting platform to a height 
of 1 foot (30.5 cm) above the top of the unit under test is not to 
exceed 0.5 [deg]F per foot (0.9 [deg]C per meter). The vertical 
ambient temperature gradient at locations 10 inches (25.4 cm) out 
from the centers of the two sides of the unit being tested is to be 
maintained during the test. To demonstrate that this requirement has 
been met, test data must include measurements taken using 
temperature sensors at locations 10 inches (25.4 cm) from the center 
of the two sides of the unit under test at heights of 2 inches (5.1 
cm) and 36 inches (91.4 cm) above the floor or supporting platform 
and at a height of 1 foot (30.5 cm) above the unit under test.
    2.1.3 Platform. A platform must be used if the floor temperature 
is not within 3 [deg]F (1.7 [deg]C) of the measured ambient 
temperature. If

[[Page 22355]]

a platform is used, it is to have a solid top with all sides open 
for air circulation underneath, and its top shall extend at least 1 
foot (30.5 cm) beyond each side and front of the unit under test and 
extend to the wall in the rear.
    2.2 Operational Conditions. The freezer shall be installed and 
its operating conditions maintained in accordance with HRF-1-2008 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), sections 5.3.2 through 
section 5.5.5.5 (but excluding sections 5.5.5.2 and 5.5.5.4). The 
quick freeze option shall be switched off except as specified in 
section 3.1 of this appendix. Additional clarifications are noted in 
sections 2.3 through 2.9 of this appendix.
    2.3 Anti-Sweat Heaters. The anti-sweat heater switch is to be on 
during one test and off during a second test. In the case of a 
freezer with variable anti-sweat heater control, the standard cycle 
energy use shall be the result of the calculation described in 
6.2.3.
* * * * *
    2.6 Rear Clearance.
    (a) General. The space between the lowest edge of the rear plane 
of the cabinet and a vertical surface (the test room wall or 
simulated wall) shall be the minimum distance in accordance with the 
manufacturer's instructions, unless other provisions of this section 
apply. The rear plane shall be considered to be the largest flat 
surface at the rear of the cabinet, excluding features that protrude 
beyond this surface, such as brackets or compressors.
    (b) Maximum clearance. The clearance shall not be greater than 2 
inches (51 mm) from the lowest edge of the rear plane to the 
vertical surface, unless the provisions of subsection (c) of this 
section apply.
    (c) If permanent rear spacers or other components that protrude 
beyond the rear plane extend further than the 2 inch (51 mm) 
distance, or if the highest edge of the rear plane is in contact 
with the vertical surface when the unit is positioned with the 
lowest edge of the rear plane at or further than the 2 inch (51 mm) 
distance from the vertical surface, the appliance shall be located 
with the spacers or other components protruding beyond the rear 
plane, or the highest edge of the rear plane, in contact with the 
vertical surface.
    (d) Rear-mounted condensers. If the product has a flat rear-
wall-mounted condenser (i.e., a rear-wall-mounted condenser with all 
refrigerant tube centerlines within 0.25 inches (6.4 mm) of the 
condenser plane), and the area of the condenser plane represents at 
least 25% of the total area of the rear wall of the cabinet, then 
the spacing to the vertical surface may be measured from the lowest 
edge of the condenser plane.
* * * * *
    2.8 Freezers with Demand-Response Capability. Freezers that have 
a communication module for demand-response functions that is located 
within the cabinet shall be tested with the communication module in 
the configuration set at the factory just before shipping.
    2.9 For products that require the freezer compartment to be 
loaded with packages in accordance with section 5.5.5.3 of HRF-1-
2008, the number of packages comprising the 75% load shall be 
determined by filling the compartment completely with the packages 
that are to be used for the test, such that the packages fill as 
much of the usable refrigerated space within the compartment as is 
physically possible, and then removing from the compartment a number 
of packages so that the compartment contains 75% of the packages 
that were placed in the compartment to completely fill it. If 
multiplying the total number of packages by 0.75 results in a 
fraction, the number of packages used shall be rounded to the 
nearest whole number, rounding up if the result ends in 0.5. For 
multi-shelf units, this method shall be applied to each shelf. For 
both single- and multi-shelf units, the remaining packages shall be 
arranged as necessary to provide the required air gap and 
thermocouple placement. The number of packages comprising the 100% 
and 75% loading conditions shall be recorded in the test data 
maintained in accordance with 10 CFR 429.71.

3. Test Control Settings

* * * * *
    3.2 * * *
    3.2.1 A first test shall be performed with all temperature 
controls set at their median position midway between their warmest 
and coldest settings. For mechanical control systems, (a) knob 
detents shall be mechanically defeated if necessary to attain a 
median setting, and (b) the warmest and coldest settings shall 
correspond to the positions in which the indicator is aligned with 
control symbols indicating the warmest and coldest settings. For 
electronic control systems, the test shall be performed with all 
compartment temperature controls set at the average of the coldest 
and warmest settings; if there is no setting equal to this average, 
the setting closest to the average shall be used. If there are two 
such settings equally close to the average, the higher of these 
temperature control settings shall be used. A second test shall be 
performed with all controls set at either their warmest or their 
coldest setting (not electrically or mechanically bypassed), 
whichever is appropriate, to attempt to achieve compartment 
temperatures measured during the two tests that bound (i.e., one is 
above and one is below) the standardized temperature. If the 
compartment temperatures measured during these two tests bound the 
standardized temperature, then these test results shall be used to 
determine energy consumption. If the compartment temperature 
measured with all controls set at their coldest setting is above the 
standardized temperature, the tested unit fails the test and cannot 
be rated. If the compartment temperature measured with all controls 
set at their warmest setting is below the standardized temperature, 
then the result of this test alone will be used to determine energy 
consumption. Also see Table 1 of this appendix, which summarizes 
these requirements.

                                                       Table 1--Temperature Settings for Freezers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          First test                                             Second test
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------       Energy calculation based on:
              Settings                        Results                  Settings                 Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid.................................  Low....................  Warm...................  Low...................  Second Test Only.
                                                                                        High..................  First and Second Tests.
                                      High...................  Cold...................  Low...................  First and Second Tests.
                                                                                        High..................  No Energy Use Rating.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

4. Test Period

* * * * *
    4.1 Non-automatic Defrost. If the model being tested has no 
automatic defrost system, the test period shall start after steady-
state conditions (see section 2.7 of this appendix) have been 
achieved and be no less than three hours in duration. During the 
test period, the compressor motor shall complete two or more whole 
compressor cycles. (A whole compressor cycle is a complete ``on'' 
and a complete ``off'' period of the motor.) If no ``off'' cycling 
occurs, the test period shall be three hours. If less than two 
compressor cycles occur during a 24-hour period, then a single 
complete compressor cycle may be used.
* * * * *
    4.2 * * *
    4.2.1 * * *
    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

[[Page 22356]]

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. 
Note that Figure 1 illustrates the concepts of precooling and 
recovery but does not represent all possible defrost cycles.
* * * * *

5. Test Measurements

* * * * *
    5.1 Temperature Measurements. (a) Temperature measurements shall 
be made at the locations prescribed in Figure 5.2 of HRF-1-2008 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3) and shall be accurate 
to within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C).
    (b) If the interior arrangements of the unit under test do not 
conform with those shown in Figure 5.2 of HRF-1-2008, the unit may 
be tested by relocating the temperature sensors from the locations 
specified in the figures to avoid interference with hardware or 
components within the unit, in which case the specific locations 
used for the temperature sensors shall be noted in the test data 
records maintained by the manufacturer in accordance with 10 CFR 
429.71, and the certification report shall indicate that non-
standard sensor locations were used. If any temperature sensor is 
relocated by any amount from the location prescribed in Figure 5.2 
of HRF-1-2008 in order to maintain a minimum 1-inch air space from 
adjustable shelves or other components that could be relocated by 
the consumer, this constitutes a relocation of temperature sensors 
that shall be recorded in the test data and reported in the 
certification report as described above.
* * * * *
    5.1.2 Compartment Temperature. The compartment temperature for 
each test period shall be an average of the measured temperatures 
taken in a compartment during the test period as defined in section 
4 of this appendix. For long-time automatic defrost models, 
compartment temperature shall be that measured in the first part of 
the test period specified in section 4.2.1 of this appendix. For 
models with variable defrost controls, compartment temperature shall 
be that measured in the first part of the test period specified in 
section 4.2.2 of this appendix. For models with automatic defrost 
that is neither long-time nor variable defrost, the compartment 
temperature shall be an average of the measured temperatures taken 
in a compartment during a stable period of compressor operation that 
(a) includes no defrost cycles or events associated with a defrost 
cycle, such as precooling or recovery, (b) is no less than three 
hours in duration, and (c) includes two or more whole compressor 
cycles. If the compressor does not cycle, the stable period used for 
the temperature average shall be three hours in duration.
* * * * *
    5.2 * * *
    5.2.1 * * *
    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 = the shortest compressor run time between defrosts 
used in the variable defrost control algorithm (greater than or 
equal to 6 but less than or equal to 12 hours), or the shortest 
compressor run time between defrosts observed for the test (if it is 
shorter than the shortest run time used in the control algorithm and 
is greater than 6 hours), or 6 hours (if the shortest observed run 
time is less than 6 hours), in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of 
an hour;
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.
* * * * *
    5.3 Volume Measurements. (a) The unit's total refrigerated 
volume, VT, shall be measured in accordance with HRF-1-2008 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), section 3.30 and 
sections 4.2 through 4.3. The measured volume shall include all 
spaces within the insulated volume of each compartment except for 
the volumes that must be deducted in accordance with section 4.2.2 
of HRF-1-2008.
    (b) In the case of freezers with automatic icemakers, the volume 
occupied by the automatic icemaker, including its ice storage bin, 
is to be included in the volume measurement.
    (c) Total refrigerated volume is determined by physical 
measurement of the test unit. Measurements and calculations used to 
determine the total refrigerated volume shall be retained as part of 
the test records underlying the certification of the basic model in 
accordance with 10 CFR 429.71.
* * * * *

6. Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements

* * * * *
    6.2 Average Per-Cycle Energy Consumption. The average per-cycle 
energy consumption for a cycle type, E, is expressed in kilowatt-
hours per cycle to the nearest one hundredth (0.01) kilowatt-hour, 
and shall be calculated according to the sections below.
    6.2.1 If the compartment temperature is always below 0.0 [deg]F 
(-17.8 [deg]C), the average per-cycle energy consumption shall be 
equivalent to:

E = ET1 + IET

Where:

ET is defined in 5.2.1;
The number 1 indicates the test period during which the highest 
compartment temperature is measured; and
IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle, equals 0 (zero) for 
products without an automatic icemaker, and equals 0.23 for products 
with an automatic icemaker.

    6.2.2 If one of the compartment temperatures measured for a test 
period is greater than 0.0 [deg]F (17.8 [deg]C), the average per-
cycle energy consumption shall be equivalent to:

E = ET1 + ((ET2 - ET1) x (0.0 - TF1)/(TF2 - TF1)) + IET

Where:

IET is defined in 6.2.1 and ET is defined in 5.2.1;
TF = freezer compartment temperature determined according to 5.1.3 
in degrees F;
The numbers 1 and 2 indicate measurements taken during the first and 
second test period as appropriate; and
0.0 = standardized compartment temperature in degrees F.

    6.2.3 Variable Anti-Sweat Heater Models. The standard cycle 
energy consumption of a freezer with a variable anti-sweat heater 
control (Estd), expressed in kilowatt-hours per day, 
shall be calculated equivalent to:

Estd = E + (Correction Factor) where E is determined by 
6.2.1, or 6.2.2, whichever is appropriate, with the anti-sweat 
heater switch in the ``off'' position or, for a product without an 
anti-sweat heater switch, the anti-sweat heater in its lowest energy 
use state.
Correction Factor = (Anti-sweat Heater Power x System-loss Factor) x 
(24 hrs/1 day) x (1 kW/1000 W)

Where:

Anti-sweat Heater Power = 0.034 * (Heater Watts at 5%RH)
+ 0.211 * (Heater Watts at 15%RH)
+ 0.204 * (Heater Watts at 25%RH)
+ 0.166 * (Heater Watts at 35%RH)
+ 0.126 * (Heater Watts at 45%RH)
+ 0.119 * (Heater Watts at 55%RH)
+ 0.069 * (Heater Watts at 65%RH)
+ 0.047 * (Heater Watts at 75%RH)
+ 0.008 * (Heater Watts at 85%RH)
+ 0.015 * (Heater Watts at 95%RH)
Heater Watts at a specific relative humidity = the nominal watts 
used by all heaters at that specific relative humidity, 72 [deg]F 
ambient (22.2 [deg]C), and DOE reference freezer (FZ) average 
temperature of 0 [deg]F (-17.8 [deg]C).
System-loss Factor = 1.3
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-08644 Filed 4-18-14; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P