[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 76 (Monday, April 21, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22320-22356]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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:
[email protected].
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: [email protected].
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: [email protected].
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