[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10292-10321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3201]



[[Page 10291]]

Vol. 77

Tuesday,

No. 34

February 21, 2012

Part IV





 Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Part 431





Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Commercial 
Refrigeration Equipment; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 10292]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-TP-0034]
RIN 1904-AC40


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Commercial 
Refrigeration Equipment

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this final rule, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is 
amending its test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment 
(CRE), incorporating changes that will take effect 30 days after the 
final rule is published in the Federal Register. These changes will be 
mandatory for equipment testing to demonstrate compliance with the 
amended energy standards (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003). The 
amendments to the test procedure adopted in this final rule include 
updating references to industry test procedures to their current 
versions, incorporating methods to evaluate the energy impacts 
resulting from the use of night curtains and lighting occupancy sensors 
and controls, and allowing testing of certain commercial refrigeration 
equipment at the lowest temperature at which it is able to operate, 
referred to as its lowest application product temperature. In response 
to comments received in response to the relevant November 2010 Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), and to minimize the testing burden on 
manufacturers, DOE is also incorporating provisions to allow 
manufacturers to test at the rating temperatures and ambient conditions 
required by NSF International (founded in 1944 as the National 
Sanitation Foundation, now referred to simply as NSF) for food safety 
testing.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is March 22, 2012. The final 
rule changes will be mandatory for equipment testing starting on the 
compliance date of any amended energy conservation standards 
promulgated as a result of the on-going energy conservation standard 
rulemaking for commercial refrigeration equipment (Docket No. EERE-
2010-BT-STD-0003). Representations either in writing or in any 
broadcast advertisement with respect to energy consumption of 
commercial refrigeration equipment must also be made using the revised 
DOE test procedure beginning on that compliance date.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
this final rule is approved by the Director of the Office of the 
Federal Register as of March 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The docket is available for review at regulations.gov, 
including Federal Register notices, framework documents, public meeting 
attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index 
may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from 
public disclosure.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: 
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/refrigeration_equipment.html. This Web page will contain a link to the 
docket for this notice on the regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov 
Web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all 
documents, including public comments, in the docket. For further 
information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at 
(202) 586-2945 or by email: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Charles Llenza, 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) 586-2192. Email: 
[email protected].
    Ms. Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6111. 
Email:[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule incorporates by reference 
into Part 431 the following industry standards:
    (1) Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) 
Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010, ``2010 Standard for Performance Rating of 
Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets,'' 
and
    (2) Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) Standard 
HRF-1-2008, ``Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances 
(2008),'' including Errata to Energy and Internal Volume of 
Refrigerating Appliances, Correction Sheet issued November 17, 2009.
    Copies of AHRI standards may be purchased from the Air-
Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson Blvd., 
Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, 703-524-8800, or at www.ahrinet.org.
    Copies of AHAM standards may be purchased from the Association of 
Home Appliance Manufacturers, 1111 19th Street, NW., Suite 402, 
Washington, DC 20036, 202-872-5955, or at www.aham.org.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    C. Test Procedure Rulemaking Requirements and Impact on Energy 
Conservation Standards
II. Summary of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
    A. Amendments to the Test Procedure
    1. Updated References to Industry Test Procedures to Their Most 
Current Versions
    2. Inclusion of a Method for Determining Reduced Energy 
Consumption Due to the Use of Night Curtains on Open Cases
    a. Representative Use
    b. Applicable Equipment
    c. Cost Effectiveness
    3. Inclusion of a Calculation for Determining Reduced Energy 
Consumption Due to Use of Lighting Occupancy Sensors or Controls
    a. Definition of Lighting Control and Lighting Occupancy Sensor
    b. Manual Controls
    c. Remote Lighting Controls
    d. Representative Energy Savings
    e. Optional Physical Test
    4. Inclusion of a Provision for Testing at Lowest Application 
Product Temperature
    a. Definition of Lowest Application Product Temperature
    b. Extension of Lowest Application Product Temperature Rating to 
All Equipment Classes and Rating Temperatures
    c. Energy Conservation Standard for Equipment Tested at the 
Lowest Application Product Temperature
    d. Remote Condensing Units and the Lowest Application Product 
Temperature
    5. Provisions Allowing Testing of Equipment at NSF Test 
Temperatures
    B. Other Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Comments and DOE 
Responses
    1. Equipment Scope
    a. Remote Condensing Racks
    b. Testing of Part-Load Technologies at Variable Refrigeration 
Load
    2. Effective Date
    3. Preemption
    4. Burden of Testing
    a. Determination of Basic Models in the Context of Night Curtain 
and Lighting Occupancy Sensor and Scheduled Control Test Provisions
    b. Estimates of Burden
    c. Coordination With ENERGY STAR
    5. Association With Compliance, Certification, and Enforcement 
Regulations
    a. Test Tolerances

[[Page 10293]]

    6. Alternative Refrigerants
    7. Secondary Coolant Systems
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
    M. Congressional Notification
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

A. Authority

    Title III, Part C of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 
(EPCA), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), added by 
Public Law 95-619, title IV, section 441(a), established the Energy 
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, a program 
covering certain industrial equipment, which includes commercial 
refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers, the subject of this 
final rule.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Under EPCA, this program consists essentially of four parts: (1) 
Testing; (2) labeling; (3) Federal energy conservation standards \2\; 
and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The testing 
requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered 
equipment must use (1) as the basis for certifying to DOE that their 
equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards 
adopted under EPCA; and (2) for making representations about the 
efficiency of those pieces of equipment. Similarly, DOE must use these 
test requirements to determine whether the equipment complies with 
relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6315(b), 6295(s), 
and 6316(a)) The current test procedure for commercial refrigeration 
equipment appears under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) part 431, subpart C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPCA prescribes energy conservation standards for self-
contained commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-
freezers with solid or transparent doors designed for holding 
temperature applications, as well as self-contained refrigerators 
with transparent doors designed for pull-down applications. (42 
U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)-(3)) EPCA also requires DOE to develop standards 
for ice-cream freezers; self-contained commercial refrigerators, 
freezers, and refrigerator-freezers without doors; and remote 
condensing commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-
freezers. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(4)(A)) DOE conducted a rulemaking to 
establish standards for these equipment classes (2009 energy 
conservation standards rulemaking) and published a final rule on 
January 9, 2009 (the January 2009 final rule). 74 FR 1092.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPCA requires DOE to conduct an evaluation of each class of covered 
equipment at least once every 7 years to determine whether to, among 
other things, amend the test procedure for such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 
6314(a)(1)(A)) This rulemaking fulfills DOE's obligation under EPCA to 
evaluate the test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment 
every 7 years.
    In addition, EPCA contains specific provisions relating to the test 
procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment. The test procedure 
for commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers must 
be: (1) The test procedure determined to be generally accepted industry 
testing procedures; or (2) rating procedures developed or recognized by 
the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 
Engineers (ASHRAE) or by the American National Standards Institute 
(ANSI). (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(A)(i)) EPCA also establishes the initial 
test procedure for self-contained refrigerators, freezers, and 
refrigerator-freezers with doors. EPCA established the ASHRAE Standard 
117 test procedure, ``Method of Testing Closed Refrigerators,'' (ASHRAE 
117-2002) as the initial test procedure for commercial refrigeration 
equipment, which became effective on January 1, 2005. (42 U.S.C. 
6314(a)(6)(A)(ii))
    EPCA also establishes that if ASHRAE 117 is amended, the Secretary 
of Energy (Secretary) must, by rule, amend the DOE test procedure to 
ensure consistency with the amended ASHRAE 117 standard, unless a case 
can be made, through certain findings based on clear and convincing 
evidence, that the amended ASHRAE 117 does not meet the requirements 
for a test procedure set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(E) and 
6314(2)-(3)) In addition, EPCA states that if a test procedure other 
than ASHRAE 117 is approved by ANSI, the Secretary must review the 
relative strengths and weaknesses of such a new test procedure relative 
to the ASHRAE 117 test procedure and, based on that review, determine 
whether to adopt the alternate test procedure as the DOE test 
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(F))

B. Background

    ASHRAE amended ASHRAE 117-2002 and adopted ASHRAE Standard 72-2005, 
``Method of Testing Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers,'' in its 
place, which was approved by ANSI on July 29, 2005. During the 2006 en 
masse test procedure rulemaking, which adopted the test procedures 
specifically established in EPACT 2005, DOE reviewed ASHRAE Standard 
72-2005, as well as ARI Standard 1200-2006. 71 FR 71357 (Dec. 8, 2006). 
DOE determined that ARI Standard 1200-2006 references the test 
procedure in ASHRAE Standard 72-2005, as well as the rating 
temperatures prescribed in EPACT 2005 for certain types of commercial 
refrigerators and freezers. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(B)(i)) As a result, 
on December 8, 2006, DOE published a final rule (December 2006 en masse 
test procedure final rule) that, among other things, adopted ANSI/Air-
Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Standard 1200-2006, 
``2006 Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial Refrigerated 
Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets,'' (hereafter referenced as 
ARI Standard 1200-2006) as the referenced test procedure for measuring 
energy consumption for commercial refrigeration equipment. 71 FR 71370 
(Dec. 8, 2006); 10 CFR 431.63-64. ARI Standard 1200-2006 prescribes 
rating temperature specifications of 38 [deg]F (2 [deg]F) 
for commercial refrigerators and refrigerator compartments, 0 [deg]F 
(2 [deg]F) for commercial freezers and freezer 
compartments, and -5 [deg]F (2 [deg]F) for commercial ice-
cream freezers. Even though ARI Standard 1200-2006 specified a rating 
temperature for commercial ice-cream freezers, EPACT 2005 did not 
specify a rating temperature or standards for commercial ice-cream 
freezers. During the 2006 test procedure rulemaking, DOE determined 
that testing at a -15 [deg]F (2 [deg]F) rating temperature 
was more representative of the actual energy consumption of commercial 
freezers specifically designed for ice-cream application. 71 FR 71357 
(Dec. 8, 2006). Therefore, in the December 2006 en masse test procedure 
final rule, DOE adopted a -15 [deg]F (2 [deg]F) rating 
temperature for commercial ice-cream freezers, rather than the -
5[emsp14][deg]F (2 [deg]F) prescribed in the ARI Standard 
1200-2006. Id. at 71357 (Dec. 8, 2006). In addition, as part of the 
2006 en masse test procedure final rule, DOE adopted ANSI/AHAM Standard 
HRF-1-2004, ``Energy, Performance and Capacity of Household 
Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers,'' (hereafter 
referred to as AHAM HRF-1-2004) for measuring refrigerated compartment 
volumes for equipment covered under this rule. Id. at 71358 (Dec. 8, 
2006).

[[Page 10294]]

    Approximately one year after the publication of the December 2006 
en masse test procedure final rule, ARI merged with the Gas Appliance 
Manufacturers Association (GAMA) to form the Air-Conditioning, Heating, 
and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), and updated its test procedure, the 
most recent version of which is AHRI Standard 1200-2010, ``2010 
Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial Refrigerated Display 
Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets,'' (hereafter referenced as AHRI 
Standard 1200-2010), which was approved by ANSI on January 4, 2011. 
AHRI Standard 1200-2010 includes changes to (1) the equipment class 
nomenclature used in the test procedure, (2) the method of normalizing 
equipment energy consumption, (3) the ice-cream freezer test 
temperature, and (4) other minor clarifications. These changes aligned 
the AHRI test procedure with the nomenclature, rating temperatures, and 
normalization method used in DOE's 2009 energy conservation standards 
rulemaking for commercial refrigeration equipment. 74 FR 1092, 1093-96 
(Jan. 9, 2009).
    Similarly, AHAM updated Standard HRF-1-2004 to its most recent 
version, AHAM HRF-1-2008, ``Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating 
Appliances.'' The changes to this standard were mostly editorial and 
involved reorganizing some of the sections for greater simplicity and 
usability. As part of the reorganization, the sections of AHAM HRF-1-
2004 that currently are referenced within the DOE test procedure, 
specifically section 3.21, ``Volume''; sections 4.1 through 4.3, 
``Method for Computing Total Refrigerated Volume and Total Shelf Area 
of Household Refrigerators and Household Wine Chillers''; and sections 
5.1 through 5.3, ``Method for Computing Total Refrigerated Volume and 
Total Shelf Area of Household Freezers''; were reorganized and 
renumbered in the updated HRF-1-2008. However, the content of those 
sections was not changed substantially. The newly updated AHRI Standard 
1200-2010 references the most recent version of the AHAM standard, AHAM 
HRF-1-2008. As such, DOE is updating its test procedures to adopt AHRI 
Standard 1200-2010 as the test procedure for commercial refrigeration 
equipment and AHAM HRF-1-2008 as the prescribed method for determining 
refrigerated compartment volume.
    DOE is also incorporating new test methods in the DOE test 
procedure to better address certain energy efficiency features 
applicable to CRE that cannot be accounted for by the current test 
procedure. During the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking phase of 
the 2009 energy conservation standards rulemaking for commercial 
refrigeration equipment, DOE screened out several energy efficient 
technology options because their effects were not captured by the 
current test procedure. 72 FR 41162, 41179-80 (July 26, 2007). In the 
amended test procedure described in this final rule, DOE is adopting 
modifications to its test procedure to better address some of these 
technologies. Specific changes include provisions for measuring the 
impact of night curtains \3\ and lighting occupancy sensors and 
controls \4\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Night curtains are devices made of an insulating material, 
typically insulated aluminum fabric, designed to be pulled down over 
the open front of the case (similar to the way a window shade 
operates) to decrease infiltration and heat transfer into the case 
when the merchandizing establishment is closed.
    \4\ Lighting occupancy sensors are devices that automatically 
shut off or dim the lights in display cases when no motion is 
detected in the sensor's coverage area for a certain preset period 
of time. Scheduled lighting control means a device which 
automatically shuts off or dims the lighting in a display case at 
preset scheduled times throughout the day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 18, 2010, DOE held a public meeting (the May 2010 Framework 
public meeting) to discuss the rulemaking framework for the concurrent 
CRE energy conservation standards (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003). 
See 75 FR 24824 (May 6, 2010). During the May 2010 Framework public 
meeting, DOE received comments from several interested parties that 
additional rating temperatures should be considered in the test 
procedure for certain types of specialized commercial refrigeration 
equipment. The commenters stated that some covered commercial 
refrigeration equipment designed for operation at higher temperatures 
is not able to be tested at the prescribed 38 [deg]F, and they 
suggested that DOE consider this in both the test procedure and the 
standards rulemakings. (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003, California 
Codes and Standards, No. 1.3.005 \5\ at p. 3) For example, some 
equipment is designed for storing goods such as wine, candy, and 
flowers at temperatures that are held constant, but are higher than the 
temperatures typically used in commercial refrigerators for perishable 
food storage and merchandising. (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003, 
Structural Concepts, No. 1.2.006 at p. 59) Consequently, in the NOPR 
DOE issued on November 24, 2010 to propose amendments to the test 
procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment (November 2010 NOPR), 
DOE proposed provisions for testing commercial refrigeration equipment 
that is designed to operate at temperatures higher than 38 [deg]F at 
the lowest integrated average product temperature the equipment can 
achieve, defined as the lowest possible application product 
temperature. 76 FR 71596, 71605. On January 6, 2011, DOE held a public 
meeting (January 2011 NOPR public meeting) to discuss the amendments 
proposed in the November 2010 NOPR and to provide an opportunity for 
interested parties to comment (www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/fr_cre_nopr_11_24_2010.pdf). 
At the January 2011 NOPR public meeting, DOE received further comments 
from interested parties that the proposed provisions for testing 
equipment at the lowest application product temperature should be 
expanded to include freezers and ice-cream freezers. As an example, 
interested parties pointed out that ice storage units are designed to 
operate at 20 [deg]F. Equipment that operates at 20 [deg]F would fall 
into the freezer temperature category, but interested parties claim 
that this specific type of equipment cannot operate at 0 [deg]F, which 
is the prescribed rating temperature for freezers in the current test 
procedure. (True, No. 19 at p. 191 \6\; Hussmann, No. 19 at pp. 192-93; 
Traulsen, No. 19 at p. 194) In response to these comments, DOE is 
incorporating a provision in this final rule permitting testing any 
equipment that cannot be tested at the prescribed rating temperature to 
be tested at the ``lowest application product temperature.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In the Framework document docket for commercial 
refrigeration equipment energy conservation standards, comments were 
identified using the following format based on when the comment was 
submitted in the rulemaking process. Section 1.1.XXX refers to 
Federal Register documents, section 1.2.XXX refers public meeting 
support documents, and 1.3.XXX refers to comments submitted by 
interested parties. This particular notation refers to a comment (1) 
by California Codes and Standards, (2) in document number 5 of the 
written comments submitted by interested parties, and (3) appearing 
on page 3.
    \6\ A notation in this form provides a reference for information 
that is in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop test procedures 
for commercial refrigeration equipment (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-TP-
0034), which is maintained at www.regulations.gov. This notation 
indicates that the statement preceding the reference is document 
number 19 in the docket for the commercial refrigeration equipment 
test procedure rulemaking, and appears at page 191 of that document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Test Procedure Rulemaking Requirements and Impact on Energy 
Conservation Standards

    Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures 
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for 
covered equipment.

[[Page 10295]]

EPCA requires that the test procedures promulgated by DOE be reasonably 
designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy 
use, and estimated operating costs of the covered equipment during a 
representative average use cycle. EPCA also requires that the test 
procedure not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) 
In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is 
warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the 
public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on any 
amendment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)(1)-(2))
    EPCA also prescribes that if any rulemaking amends a test 
procedure, DOE must determine to what extent, if any, the proposed test 
procedure would alter the measured energy efficiency of any covered 
equipment as determined under the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(e)(1) and 6314(a)(6)) Further, if DOE determines that the amended 
test procedure would alter the measured efficiency of covered 
equipment, DOE must amend the applicable energy conservation standard 
accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2) and 6314(a)(6)) DOE recognizes that 
the test procedure amendments adopted in this final rule will affect 
the measured energy use of some commercial refrigeration equipment. 
However, DOE is currently considering amendments to the existing 
Federal energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration 
equipment in a concurrent rulemaking, (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-
0003). DOE will use the test procedure amendments adopted in this final 
rule as the basis for standards development in the concurrent energy 
conservation standards rulemaking.
    Today's rule also fulfills DOE's obligation to periodically review 
its test procedures under 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A). DOE anticipates that 
its next evaluation of this test procedure will occur in a manner 
consistent with the timeline set out in this provision.

II. Summary of the Final Rule

    DOE is modifying its test procedure for commercial refrigeration 
equipment to incorporate current industry-accepted test procedures, 
address certain energy efficiency features that are not accounted for 
in the current test procedure (i.e., night curtains and light occupancy 
sensors and controls), and allow testing of commercial refrigeration 
equipment at temperatures other than one of the three currently 
specified rating temperatures. Specifically, this test procedure final 
rule permits testing of commercial refrigeration equipment at the 
lowest application product temperature. This final rule also allows 
manufacturers to test equipment at the test conditions prescribed by 
NSF/ANSI-7, ``Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers'' (hereafter 
referred to as NSF-7), a food safety standard issued by NSF.\7\ The 
NSF-7 test conditions represent more stringent rating temperatures and 
ambient conditions than the DOE test procedure conditions and are 
required by NSF for food safety testing of certain commercial 
refrigeration equipment. These test procedure amendments alter the 
measured energy efficiency of some covered equipment. As such, DOE is 
establishing in this final rule that use of the amended test procedure 
for compliance with DOE energy conservation standards or 
representations with respect to energy consumption of commercial 
refrigeration equipment is required on the compliance date of any 
revised energy conservation standards, which are being considered in a 
concurrent rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003). DOE has added 
language to the final test procedure amendments to clarify that 
manufacturers are required to use the amended test procedure to 
demonstrate compliance with DOE's energy conservation standards, and 
for labeling or other representations as to the energy consumption of 
any covered equipment, beginning on the compliance date of any final 
rule establishing amended energy conservation standards for commercial 
refrigeration equipment. Prior to the compliance date of this final 
rule, manufacturers will continue to use the existing DOE test 
procedure established by the 2006 en masse test procedure final rule 
(71 FR 71370 (Dec. 8, 2006)),\8\ and set forth at 10 CFR 431.64, to 
show compliance with existing DOE energy conservation standards and for 
representations concerning the energy consumption of covered equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NSF International. ``NSF/ASNI 7--2009: Commercial 
Refrigerators and Freezers.'' Ann Arbor, MI. http://www.nsf.org/business/food_equipment/standards.asp.
    \8\ Hereafter, any reference in this document to the current or 
existing DOE test procedure will refer to the test procedure for 
commercial refrigeration equipment established by the 2006 en masse 
test procedure final rule. 71 FR 71370 (Dec 8, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed amendments to the existing 
test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment. 76 FR 71596 
(Nov. 24, 2010). DOE held a public meeting on January 6, 2011 to 
present the amendments proposed in the November 2010 NOPR and received 
comments from interested parties. DOE analyzed the comments received as 
a result of the January 2011 NOPR public meeting and incorporated 
recommendations, where appropriate, into this test procedure final 
rule. The specific test procedure amendments and responses to all 
comments DOE received as a result of the November 2010 NOPR are 
presented in section III, ``Discussion.''

III. Discussion

    Section III.A presents all of the revisions to the DOE test 
procedure found at 10 CFR part 431, subpart C, ``Uniform test method 
for measuring the energy consumption of commercial refrigerators, 
freezers, and refrigerator-freezers,'' incorporated in this final rule, 
and discusses the comments received on these topics during the January 
2011 NOPR public meeting and the associated comment period. These 
revisions include the following:
    1. Updated references to industry test procedures to their most 
current versions;
    2. Inclusion of a method for determining energy savings due to the 
use of night curtains on open cases;
    3. Inclusion of a calculation for determining energy savings due to 
use of lighting occupancy sensors or controls;
    4. Inclusion of a provision for testing at lowest application 
product temperature; and
    5. Provisions allowing testing of equipment at NSF test 
temperatures.
    At the January 2011 NOPR public meeting and in subsequent written 
form, DOE received many comments from stakeholders that did not pertain 
to a specific test procedure amendment. In section III.B, DOE provides 
responses to comments pertaining to the following subject areas:
    1. Equipment scope;
    2. Effective date;
    3. Preemption;
    4. Burden of testing;
    5. Alternative refrigerants; and
    6. Secondary coolant systems.

A. Amendments to the Test Procedure

    Today's final rule incorporates the following changes to the test 
procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment in 10 CFR part 431, 
subpart C.
1. Updated References to Industry Test Procedures to Their Most Current 
Versions
    In this final rule, DOE is updating the industry test procedures 
referenced in the DOE test procedure for commercial refrigeration 
equipment to their most current versions, namely AHRI Standard 1200-
2010 and AHAM Standard HRF-

[[Page 10296]]

1-2008. The current DOE test procedure for commercial refrigeration 
equipment, published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2006, 
adopted ARI Standard 1200-2006, with additional provisions for testing 
ice-cream freezers at -15 [deg]F, as the test procedure used to 
establish compliance with the applicable energy conservation standard. 
71 FR 71340, 71356-58. Since the publication of the December 2006 en 
masse test procedure final rule, AHRI has released an updated version 
of its test procedure, AHRI Standard 1200-2010. The updated test 
procedure includes both editorial and technical changes to (1) the 
equipment class nomenclature used within the test procedure; (2) the 
integrated average rating temperature for ice-cream freezers; and (3) 
the method of normalizing and reporting units for equipment energy 
consumption. These changes align the AHRI test procedure with the 
nomenclature and method adopted by DOE in the January 2009 final rule. 
74 FR 1092 (Jan. 9, 2009); 10 CFR 431.66. AHRI Standard 1200-2010 is 
also the test procedure currently used in the commercial refrigeration 
industry. In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by 
reference AHRI 1200-2010 in the DOE test procedure. 75 FR 71602 (Nov. 
24, 2010).
    The current DOE test procedure also references AHAM HRF-1-2004 as 
the protocol for determining refrigerated compartment volume. AHAM has 
also updated its Standard HRF-1-2004 to newer version AHAM HRF-1-2008, 
which makes editorial changes including reorganizing some sections for 
greater simplicity and usability. AHRI 1200-2010 also references AHAM 
HRF-1-2008. For consistency, in the November 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed to 
incorporate by reference the more recent AHAM HRF-1-2008 in the test 
procedure for measuring refrigerated compartment volume. 75 FR 71602 
(Nov. 24, 2010).
    In commenting on the November 2010 NOPR, AHRI, the American Council 
for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), and the Northwest Energy 
Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) all supported DOE's proposals. (AHRI, No. 15 
at p. 2; ACEEE, No. 12 at p. 2; NEEA, No. 8 at p. 3) DOE did not 
receive any dissenting comments. DOE believes AHRI 1200-2010 and AHAM 
Standard HRF-1-2008 are the most up-to-date and commonly used test 
procedures for commercial refrigeration in the industry. DOE agrees 
with interested parties that these test procedures are appropriate to 
characterize the energy consumption of all commercial refrigeration 
equipment included within the scope of this rulemaking. Thus, in this 
final rule, DOE is updating the industry test procedures referenced in 
the DOE test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment to their 
most current versions, AHRI Standard 1200-2010 and AHAM Standard HRF-1-
2008.
2. Inclusion of a Method for Determining Reduced Energy Consumption Due 
to the Use of Night Curtains on Open Cases
    DOE's current test procedure does not account for potential 
decreased energy consumption resulting from the use of night curtains 
on commercial refrigeration equipment. Night curtains are devices made 
of an insulating material, typically insulated aluminum fabric, 
designed to be pulled down over the open front of the case (similar to 
the way a window shade operates) when the merchandizing establishment 
is either closed or the customer traffic is significantly decreased. 
The insulating shield, or night curtain, decreases infiltration by 
preventing the mixing of the cool air inside the case with the 
relatively warm, humid air in the store interior. It also reduces 
conductive and radiative heat transfer into the case. Night curtains 
reduce compressor loads and defrost cycles, which can decrease the 
total energy use of the commercial refrigeration equipment. A 1997 
study by the Southern California Edison Refrigeration Technology and 
Test Center found that, when used for 6 hours per day, night curtains 
reduce total energy use of the case by approximately 8 percent.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Southern California Edison, Refrigeration and Technology and 
Test Center, Energy Efficiency Division. Effects of the Low 
Emissivity Shields on Performance and Power Use of a Refrigerated 
Display Case. August 1997. Irwindale, CA. www.econofrost.com/acrobat/sce_report_long.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed adopting a standardized 
physical test method to allow manufacturers to account for the possible 
energy reduction associated with night curtains installed on open 
cases. DOE chose a physical test because it accurately captures 
differences in energy consumption as a function of similar technologies 
and case dimensions. 75 FR 71602-03 (Nov. 24, 2010). It is important to 
capture the different impacts on energy consumption among different 
night curtain designs because of the significant performance 
disparities that can exist. For example, night curtains made of low-
emissivity materials, such as aluminum, decrease the radiative losses 
from the case and therefore are much more effective at reducing heat 
loss than night curtains made of plastic, linoleum, or other non-
reflective materials. In addition, each night curtain may reduce energy 
consumption differently, depending on its particular insulating 
characteristics and design. Case dimensions, air curtain performance, 
and base infiltration load also impact night curtain performance. A 
physical test also accurately captures differences in the energy 
conservation performance of night curtains as a function of case 
dimension or night curtain design.
    In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed using a physical test 
method similar to section 7.2 in ASHRAE Standard 72-2005, ``Door-
Opening Requirements,'' which reads as follows:

    Night Curtain Requirements. For open display cases sold with 
night curtains installed, the night curtain shall be employed 
according to manufacturer instructions for a total of 6 hours, 3 
hours after the start of a defrost period. Upon the completion of 
the 6-hour period, the night curtain shall be raised until the 
completion of the 24-hour test period.

    DOE further clarified that the test procedure for night curtains 
would, if adopted, apply only to cases sold with night curtains 
installed. 75 FR 71602-03 (Nov. 24, 2010). Following publication of the 
November 2010 NOPR, DOE received comments regarding the representative 
use of night curtains, the types of cases on which night curtains can 
be used, and the cost effectiveness of night curtains. These comments 
and DOE's responses are presented in the following sections.
a. Representative Use
    While interested parties generally agreed with the proposed test 
procedure for night curtains, some interested parties expressed 
concerns regarding the way in which night curtains would be treated in 
the standards analysis, including the concern that the potential 
treatment might not be representative of actual use. Zero Zone stated 
that, while it agreed with the proposed test method for night curtains, 
it did not believe that night curtains should be allowed to be used to 
reduce measured energy consumption in the DOE test procedure because 
installing them does not necessarily mean that end users will deploy 
them. In addition, Zero Zone stated that 24-hour stores cannot use 
night curtains, and that night curtains may have a short lifetime. 
(Zero Zone, No. 16 at p. 1) AHRI supported providing a method to 
account for the reduced energy consumption of night curtains, but 
questioned the origin of DOE's 6-hour assumption. (AHRI, No. 19 at pp. 
72-73) Earthjustice stated that,

[[Page 10297]]

in accordance with the provisions of EPCA, which guide DOE's 
development of test procedures and call for the test procedures to 
reflect ``representative use,'' DOE should account for the 
inapplicability of night curtains to 24-hour retailers; the likelihood 
of end users actually deploying night curtains; and the relative 
lifetime of night curtains and likelihood of users replacing broken 
ones. Earthjustice added that, while CRE lifetimes span 10 to 15 years 
according to DOE's own figures, research has estimated a 7-year 
lifetime for night curtains. (Earthjustice, No. 11 at p. 1) California 
Codes and Standards agreed that night curtains have significantly 
shorter lifetimes than most of the other components that comprise an 
open display case, and suggested that any credit given to night 
curtains should be discounted because their effective life is short. 
(California Codes and Standards, No. 13 at p. 3) The Natural Resources 
Defense Council (NRDC) agreed with DOE's proposal, but reiterated 
Earthjustice's concern that night curtains are not reliably used in the 
field and have shorter lifetimes than the refrigerated cases. (NRDC, 
No. 14 at p. 2) ACEEE recommended that DOE base its treatment of night 
curtains on underlying data that present a realistic estimate of actual 
patterns of field use, the fraction of users who actually employ them, 
and the relative lifetimes of these features. (ACEEE, No. 12 at p. 4) 
California Codes and Standards expressed concern that DOE's treatment 
of night curtains might not be representative of actual in-field usage 
and thus might overstate the savings derived from night curtains. Such 
use, the comment stated, is dependent both on the specific application 
and on human (employee) behavior. (California Codes and Standards, No. 
13 at pp. 2-3) NEEA commented that it believes the use of night 
curtains for compliance testing could grant too much credit to a 
feature that has questionable in-field value, which would undermine the 
statutory requirement that the test procedure reasonably approximate 
actual use. In addition, NEEA commented that night curtains would have 
negligible impacts during periods of peak demand, and that if 
manufacturers preferred night curtains to features that would reduce 
energy consumption during peak demand periods, the incorporation of 
night curtains would not be advantageous. Because of this, NEEA agreed 
with DOE's proposed 6-hour cycle of use for night curtains in the test 
procedure when a case is tested with night curtains because it is more 
conservative than an 8-hour cycle. (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 4)
    In response to interested parties' comments that the intended use 
of a night curtain does not necessarily represent actual use in the 
field, DOE acknowledges that actual use of night curtains may be 
variable in the field. However, night curtains are an available 
technology for reducing energy consumption in commercial refrigeration 
equipment, and DOE believes that including night curtains in its test 
procedure provides manufacturers with a mechanism for estimating the 
energy consumption impacts of this technology and provides a more 
accurate representation of how those units may operate when installed. 
The test procedure adopted in this final rule is consistent across all 
cases sold with night curtains, regardless of their anticipated use. 
With regard to Earthjustice's concern with respect to the use of night 
curtains in 24-hour stores, DOE is not mandating the use of night 
curtains, but rather is simply accounting for the use of night curtains 
in the 24-hour test procedure. In addition, DOE notes that night 
curtains may in fact be used in 24-hour stores during periods of low 
use, although DOE concedes that this is less common.
    In response to AHRI's question regarding why DOE proposed 6 hours 
as the time period for night curtains to be implemented, DOE believes 
that 6 hours conservatively represents the amount of time a night 
curtain would be drawn in a typical, non-24-hour store, when accounting 
for stocking and the fact that not all night curtains can be deployed 
at once. In addition, 6 hours is consistent with all field data and 
studies that DOE has identified.10 11 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Southern California Edison, Refrigeration and Technology 
and Test Center, Energy Efficiency Division. Effects of the Low 
Emissivity Shields on Performance and Power Use of a Refrigerated 
Display Case. August 1997. Irwindale, CA. www.econofrost.com/acrobat/sce_report_long.pdf.
    \11\ Faramarzi, R. and Woodworth-Szieper, M. Effects of Low-E 
Shields on the Performance and Power Use of a Refrigerated Display 
Case. ASHRAE Transactions. 1999. 105(1).
    \12\ Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. Query of Database of 
GrocerySmart Data. Portland, OR. Received October 18, 2011. Last 
viewed July 23, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the comments regarding the expected life of a night 
curtain, DOE understands that a night curtain may have a shorter life 
than a display case. However, DOE accounts for repair and replacement 
costs in the energy conservation standards analyses and believes these 
issues are better addressed in that rulemaking. DOE believes a 6-hour 
period of use adequately represents the anticipated use of a night 
curtain, while DOE is also cognizant of potential reductions in energy 
savings due to application and field use issues. DOE will discuss 
treatment of night curtains further in the associated energy 
conservation standards rulemaking and its impact on the energy use of 
commercial refrigeration equipment (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003).
b. Applicable Equipment
    Southern Store Fixtures stated that night curtains can only be 
practicably used on vertical open display cases, and further clarified 
that on semi-vertical display cases the night curtain can interfere 
with the air flow in the case. (Southern Store Fixtures, No. 19 at p. 
135) True Manufacturing (True) responded that semi-vertical night 
curtains do exist. (True, No. 19 at p. 137) Southern Store Fixtures 
also commented that an air curtain, which blows air across the front of 
an open case to reduce infiltration, can be temporarily used to reduce 
infiltration and heat loss to the case, and inquired whether an air 
curtain would meet DOE's proposed definition of a night curtain. 
(Southern Store Fixtures, No. 19 at p. 136) NEEA supported DOE's 
proposed definition of night curtain, provided the definition would be 
applied only to open cases of all sorts. NEEA also stated that, while 
it is not opposed to the inclusion of air curtains in the definition of 
``night curtain,'' it has seen no data to show that air curtains are 
used to reduce infiltration and heat loss or that they would save 
energy. However, NEEA saw no reason to exclude air curtains from the 
definition of night curtain. (NEEA, No. 8 at pp. 3-4)
    Zero Zone requested clarification regarding whether the night 
curtain provision could be applied to cases with doors that also have 
night curtains installed (Zero Zone, No. 19 at p. 145), and offered 
that night curtains could provide benefits for doored cases. (Zero 
Zone, No. 16 at p. 1) True stated that it had seen night curtains 
implemented on doored cases and that this does save a minimal amount of 
energy, but that these minor savings did not justify consideration of 
night curtains in the DOE test procedure. (True, No. 19 at pp. 146-47) 
Zero Zone commented that DOE proposed in the test procedure NOPR that 
automatic controls be required on lighting in order to meet DOE's 
proposed definition of ``lighting occupancy sensor'' or ``lighting 
control.'' Given this proposal, Zero Zone questioned why automatic 
night curtains would not then be required to meet DOE's definition of 
``night

[[Page 10298]]

curtain.'' (Zero Zone, No. 16 at p. 1) Southern Store Fixtures 
commented that the provision for starting the night curtain test 3 
hours after a defrost period creates a problem for cases that are on a 
timed defrost and scheduled to defrost every 2 hours. (Southern Store 
Fixtures, No. 19 at p. 142) Southern Store Fixtures added that defrost 
occurs more frequently for some open cases. In response to Southern 
Store Fixtures, ACEEE stated that, if the 75/55 rating condition \13\ 
does not cause frost accumulation sufficient to require defrost after 3 
hours, it would oppose any special consideration for equipment without 
adaptive defrost. The test procedure, ACEEE commented, should not 
shelter legacy technologies when more modern alternatives are 
available. (ACEEE, No. 12 at pp. 5-6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ ``75/55 rating condition'' describes the standard ambient 
temperature and relative humidity requirements for testing 
commercial refrigeration equipment in the DOE test procedure. 
Specifically, the DOE test procedure requires equipment be tested at 
75 [deg]F and 55 percent relative humidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to interested parties' comments on the use of night 
curtains on doored cases, it is DOE's understanding that night curtains 
can be applied to all types of open cases (vertical, semi-vertical, and 
horizontal) and that night curtains are most effective and commonly 
used on open cases, rather than on doored cases. DOE was not able to 
identify any publicly available data regarding the use of night 
curtains on doored cases. Lacking a sound technical basis for including 
night curtains on doored cases, DOE is hesitant to expand the 
definition of night curtain to explicitly include doored cases at this 
time. DOE also agrees with True in that use of night curtains on doored 
cases will not significantly impact the daily energy consumption of the 
display case as measured by the DOE test procedure. Therefore, DOE is 
not extending the night curtain test procedure to include night curtain 
testing on cases with doors in this final rule. DOE will continue to 
monitor the prevalence and energy saving potential of these 
technologies in the market and may address them in a future rulemaking.
    In response to Southern Store Fixtures' comment regarding air 
curtains, the definition of a night curtain does not necessarily 
exclude air curtains because the definition does not specify a material 
or construction. DOE is defining a night curtain as a technology that 
is used temporarily to reduce infiltration and heat loss on commercial 
refrigeration equipment, without additional qualifiers. In response to 
Zero Zone's comment regarding automatic night curtains, both automatic 
and manual night curtains are included in this definition, as well as 
air curtains, provided that they are temporarily deployed to decrease 
air exchange and heat transfer between the refrigerated case and the 
surrounding environment. To accommodate all defrost cycles, the test 
procedure requires the night curtain to be drawn 3 hours after the 
first defrost cycle. This change is consistent with updates that ASHRAE 
is considering making to the ASHRAE Standard 72 requirements for door 
openings. This addresses Southern Store fixtures concern regarding 
cases which may defrost every 2 hours and would never reach a time 
period ``3 hours after defrost,'' since those cases now may select a 
defrost cycle as the ``first'' to begin the test and then initiate the 
night curtain test 3 hours following the first defrost.
c. Cost Effectiveness
    In response to DOE's proposal for testing night curtains, Southern 
Store Fixtures commented that DOE should consider the cost 
effectiveness of night curtains and noted that the analysis supporting 
the development of State of California's Title 24, ``California's 
Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential 
Buildings,'' \14\ recently showed that using night curtains is not cost 
effective. (Southern Store Fixtures, No. 19 at p. 70) AHRI did not 
object to the inclusion of testing provisions for night curtains, but 
did not believe the installation of night curtains is a cost-effective 
measure to save a significant amount of energy. AHRI referenced a study 
conducted by California Codes and Standards \15\ which examined the 
cost effectiveness of night curtains and suggested that DOE review this 
study as well. (AHRI, No. 15 at p. 2) California Codes and Standards 
responded that while the State of California determined that night 
curtains were not cost effective, the analysis did not include the 
potential for reduction in radiative heat losses, which could be 
substantial. (California Codes and Standards, No. 19 at pp. 74-75) AHRI 
also stated that night curtains should not be mandated. (AHRI, No. 19 
at pp. 72-73)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 6--
``Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential 
Buildings.'' April 23, 2008.
    \15\ California Utilities Statewide Codes and Standards Team. 
Working Draft Measure Information Template Supermarket 
Refrigeration: 2013 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards. 
April 2011. www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/prerulemaking/documents/2011-04-18_workshop/review/2013_CASE_NR15_Commercial_Refrigeration_working_draft_4.13.2011.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE acknowledges interested parties' concerns regarding the cost 
effectiveness of night curtains. DOE will perform a cost-effectiveness 
analysis as part of the process to consider amended energy conservation 
standards for commercial refrigeration equipment. Additionally, DOE's 
energy conservation standards are performance standards, and neither 
night curtains nor any other specific technology will be mandated. 
Night curtains will be treated as a design that manufacturers could use 
to reduce energy consumption in the energy conservation standards 
analysis. The comments described above pertain mainly to energy 
conservation standards and will be addressed in more detail in that 
rulemaking.
3. Inclusion of a Calculation for Determining Reduced Energy 
Consumption Due to Use of Lighting Occupancy Sensors or Controls
    The current DOE test procedure does not account for the potential 
reduction in energy consumption resulting from the use of lighting 
occupancy sensors and scheduled controls. The potential for decreased 
energy use due to the use of occupancy-based sensors or schedule-based 
controls varies in the field due to differing environmental and 
operating conditions. However, studies, including a demonstration 
project conducted through the DOE Solid State Lighting (SSL) Technology 
Demonstration GATEWAY program,\16\ have shown that lighting occupancy 
sensors or controls could reduce the total energy use of a typical 
refrigerated merchandising unit operating in a grocery store by up to 
40 percent.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ DOE's Solid State Lighting (SSL) Technology Demonstration 
GATEWAY program features high-performance SSL products for general 
illumination in a variety of exterior and interior applications. 
Eligible products are installed at demonstration host sites, where 
their performance can be evaluated. Performance measures include 
energy consumption, light output/distribution, and installation/
interface/control issues. Qualitative performance is investigated 
via feedback surveys of the relevant user communities. More 
information on the program is available at www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/gatewaydemos.html.
    \17\ U.S. Department of Energy. Demonstration Assessment of 
Light-Emitting Diode (LED) Freezer Case Lighting. October 2009. 
Prepared by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for the U.S. DOE 
Solid State Lighting Technology Demonstration GATEWAY Program. 
Washington, DC. http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/gateway_freezer-case.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed a calculation method to 
account for the reduced energy consumption due to the use of lighting

[[Page 10299]]

occupancy sensors or controls. The proposed lighting occupancy sensor 
test procedure consisted of three primary calculations: (1) Calculation 
of direct energy use of lighting with occupancy sensors or scheduled 
controls installed; (2) calculation of reduced refrigeration load when 
energy use of lights located within the refrigerated compartment is 
decreased; and (3) calculation of the adjusted daily energy consumption 
based on the decreased lighting energy use and decreased compressor 
energy use. These calculations require several default assumptions, 
which would be used uniformly for all cases employing this test 
procedure. These assumptions designate values for the length of time 
lighting is off or dimmed due to lighting occupancy sensors or 
scheduled controls, the energy efficiency ratio (EER) \18\ of the 
compressor, and the portion of energy produced from the lights that 
becomes heat in the case and increases the refrigeration load. 75 FR 
71602-05 (Nov. 24, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The EER of a particular cooling device is a measure of its 
relative efficiency, expressed as the ratio of the cooling output to 
the energy consumed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the January 2011 NOPR public meeting, DOE presented its proposal 
for treatment of lighting occupancy sensors and scheduled controls. DOE 
received comments on the definitions DOE proposed, the scope of 
technology covered, the calculation of energy savings, and optional 
physical testing. As part of the associated CRE energy conservation 
standards rulemaking, DOE also received comments pertaining to the 
proposed test procedure provision for lighting occupancy sensors and 
scheduled lighting controls. The comments DOE received on these issues, 
as well as DOE's responses, are presented in the following sections.
a. Definition of Lighting Control and Lighting Occupancy Sensor
    In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed to define ``lighting 
control'' and ``lighting occupancy sensor'' as follows:

    Lighting control means an electronic device which automatically 
adjusts the lighting in a display case at scheduled times throughout 
the day.
    Lighting occupancy sensor means an electronic device which uses 
passive infrared, ultrasonic, or other motion-sensing technology to 
detect the presence of a customer or employee, allowing the lights 
within the equipment to be turned off or dimmed when no motion is 
detected in the sensor's coverage area.

75 FR 71611 (Nov. 24, 2010).
    In response, NEEA agreed with DOE's proposed definitions for 
lighting controls, but stated that the term ``electronic'' seemed 
superfluous. (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 4) Coca-Cola Company (Coca-Cola) 
suggested that the term ``automatic'' or ``automatically'' be added to 
the definitions of lighting occupancy sensor and lighting controls. 
(Coca-Cola, No. 19 at p. 157) ACEEE agreed with NEEA that the term 
``electronic'' should be removed from the definition of lighting 
control and occupancy sensor. Additionally, ACEEE added that the 
definition of lighting control should not be limited to scheduled 
times, as such a definition excludes the possibility of accounting for 
controllers that respond to ambient lighting conditions. (ACEEE, No. 12 
at p. 4) ACEEE added that, although such technologies have not been 
developed yet, DOE has allowed for the possibility of other, more 
advanced technologies in other rulemakings by marking some technologies 
``reserved.'' ACEEE also commented that it was partially DOE's 
responsibility to investigate these types of potentially attractive 
technology options that are not yet in the marketplace, and that it was 
important to ensure that any potential new technologies could be tested 
using the DOE test procedure. (ACEEE, No. 19 at pp. 181-82) True 
responded that the test procedure and energy conservation standards do 
not prevent manufacturers from innovating new technologies, but rather 
set a minimum standard that manufacturers must meet. True also 
commented that the desired lighting level in cases can differ based on 
a number of variables in addition to ambient lighting level (for 
example, based on marketing purposes). (True, No. 19 at pp. 183 and 
186)
    Southern Store Fixtures commented that DOE should consider the 
environmental impact of producing lighting occupancy sensors and 
controls and questioned their energy savings in the field. (Southern 
Store Fixtures, No. 19 at p. 153)
    DOE agrees with interested parties that the term ``electronic'' may 
be superfluous and is removing the term from the definitions for 
``lighting occupancy sensor'' and ``scheduled lighting control'' 
adopted in this final rule. In addition, DOE agrees with Coca-Cola that 
the term ``automatic'' more accurately describes the function of the 
devices described. DOE will also define ``scheduled lighting control'' 
instead of ``lighting control,'' as this term is more descriptive of 
the device being defined.
    With respect to lighting controls that respond to external factors 
other than motion or physical presence, such as ambient light, DOE does 
not believe any such technologies are widely used and is not aware of 
any data regarding their efficacy. While these factors do not prevent 
DOE from including the potential for such technologies in the 
definition of lighting controls or in a new definition, the 
calculations in the test method for lighting occupancy sensors and 
controls were based on the potential reduction in energy consumption 
associated specifically with lighting occupancy sensors and schedule-
based controls. DOE believes that applying these same ``time off'' or 
``time dimmed'' assumptions to other technologies may not be 
representative of their actual performance and would not be 
appropriate. DOE has not been able to identify any data related to the 
energy savings of lighting sensors that adjust case lighting based on 
ambient lighting. Because DOE is currently using a calculation method 
based on the estimated hours a lighting sensor will dim or turn off 
lights to calculate lighting energy savings, it would be difficult to 
incorporate provisions for other types of sensors without data 
regarding their anticipated or realized efficacy. In the absence of 
such data, it is difficult for DOE to estimate a representative energy 
savings from ambient light sensors. Therefore, DOE does not intend to 
include provisions for ambient light sensors or other sensor 
technologies in the definition of lighting sensors and/or controls.
    With respect to Southern Store Fixtures' comment that DOE should 
assess the environmental impact of manufacturing lighting occupancy 
sensors and weigh the impact against the achieved savings, DOE believes 
lighting occupancy sensors have proven effective over their lifetime 
and can save energy when installed on commercial refrigeration 
equipment. DOE will assess the environmental impact of lighting 
occupancy sensors in the energy conservation standards rulemaking 
(Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003). However, DOE notes that life-cycle 
environmental impacts of equipment manufacture and disposal are 
typically outside the scope of the environmental impact analysis 
performed in any standards rulemaking.
b. Manual Controls
    In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE's definitions of ``lighting 
control'' and ``lighting occupancy sensor'' both dealt exclusively with 
automatic technologies. 75 FR 71611 (Nov. 24, 2011). At January 2011 
NOPR public meeting, AHRI and Zero Zone commented that it was 
inconsistent for DOE to allow night curtains that must be deployed 
manually to achieve energy savings in the DOE test procedure, but not 
to allow manual light switches to

[[Page 10300]]

receive credit for energy savings. (AHRI, No. 19 at p. 152; Zero Zone, 
No. 19 at p. 160)
    While DOE acknowledges that manual switches can be used to dim or 
turn off case lighting to save energy when a store is closed, DOE is 
not aware of any data that substantiate their use. Because DOE does not 
have any data on which to base the treatment of manual switches, 
including a provision for manual light switches in the test procedure 
would be very speculative. In addition, DOE has observed that most 
cases spanning the full range of efficiencies currently available on 
the market already include manual light switches installed. In 
contrast, night curtains and other automatic lighting controls 
technologies are sold as energy efficiency features incorporated into 
only higher efficiency commercial refrigeration equipment. Further, 
manual switches have been installed on cases for some time as a utility 
feature, to turn off lights when replacing light bulbs for example, 
rather than as an energy saving feature.
    Lacking data that substantiate the use of manual switches to save 
additional energy, and given the fact that manual light switches are a 
baseline technology and are not installed to produce energy savings, 
DOE is not including manual switches in the definition of a lighting 
control technology.
c. Remote Lighting Controls
    In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed that remote lighting 
control systems would not receive credit for any potential energy 
savings in the DOE test procedure. 75 FR 71605 (Nov. 24, 2010). 
California Codes and Standards commented that some scheduled lighting 
controls are external to the case, and inquired whether cases in which 
the controls were installed external to the case would receive credit 
under the proposed test procedure. (California Codes and Standards, No. 
13 at p. 5) California Codes and Standards suggested that DOE clearly 
state that the credit for time switch control would only apply when the 
switch is on-board the display case. (California Codes and Standards, 
No. 19 at p. 187) As part of the rulemaking for the CRE energy 
conservation standards (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003), DOE 
published the Notice of Public Meeting and availability of the CRE 
Preliminary Analysis Technical Support Document (76 FR 17573 (March 30, 
2011)) and held a public meeting on April 19, 2011 at DOE headquarters 
in Washington, DC During the commercial refrigeration equipment 
preliminary analysis public meeting (April 2011 Preliminary Analysis 
public meeting) and in subsequent written comments, numerous interested 
parties stated that many cases were installed with remote lighting 
sensors or controls that were operated at the aisle or store level. 
(Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003, Southern Store Fixtures, No. 31 at 
pp. 190-91, 194; Zero Zone, No. 31 at p. 196; California Investor Owned 
Utilities,\19\ No. 42 at p. 4) NEEA responded that cases wired uniquely 
to receive a remote energy management system should receive credit in 
the DOE test procedure. (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003, NEEA, No. 31 
at p. 195)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ ``California Investor Owned Utilities'' refers here to a 
joint comment submitted by Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas 
and Electric Company, Southern California Gas Company, and San Diego 
Gas and Electric in Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are several ways in which a manufacturer, refrigeration 
contractor, or store owner can implement lighting controls, including 
individual case controls, single controls serving an entire case 
lineup, and storewide energy management systems. Including remote 
lighting controls in the test procedure could inadvertently set a 
precedent for deeming remote energy management technologies to be part 
of the covered equipment and allocating energy savings gained by these 
external devices to associated pieces of equipment. For example, a 
remote lighting control system may control systems other than 
commercial refrigeration equipment, and such systems are typically not 
sold with a piece of commercial refrigeration equipment. Cases set up 
to interact with these remote control systems have a dedicated circuit 
for lights so that the lights can be controlled separately from the 
rest of the case. However, this lighting circuit configuration does not 
inherently save energy and must be paired with an energy management 
control system. These energy management systems are sold separately 
from the piece of commercial refrigeration equipment, may be produced 
by a different manufacturer from the one that produces the case, and 
are not integral to the commercial refrigeration equipment.
    DOE acknowledges that remote lighting controls do save energy and 
may be the more commonly used technology to dim or turn off lights in 
the field. However, energy consumption for a piece of commercial 
refrigeration equipment must be determined using the DOE test procedure 
on a representative unit, as shipped from the point of manufacture. 76 
FR 12422, 12453 (March 7, 2011) Because a remote energy management 
system is not part of the piece of equipment as shipped from the 
manufacturer, but rather it is a separate piece of equipment that may 
be supplied by a separate manufacturer, remote energy management 
controls will not be considered in this test procedure final rule.
d. Representative Energy Savings
    In addition to conserving energy directly through decreased 
lighting electrical load, occupancy sensors also decrease the heat load 
from lights that are located inside the refrigerated space of 
refrigeration equipment. Therefore, as part of the calculation method 
for lighting occupancy sensors and controls, DOE proposed a calculation 
method to account for these energy impacts in the November 2010 NOPR. 
75 FR 71602-05 (Nov. 24, 2010). This calculation, as proposed, 
quantifies the reduced compressor energy use resulting from lighting 
occupancy sensors and scheduled controls and relies on a table of fixed 
compressor EERs, as described below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21FE12.000

Where:

CECA= alternate compressor energy consumption (kilowatt-hours);
LECsc = lighting energy consumption of internal case lights with 
lighting occupancy sensors and controls deployed (kilowatt-hours);
Pli = rated power of lights when they are fully on (watts);
tl = time lighting would be on without lighting occupancy sensors or 
controls (24 hours); and
EER = energy efficiency ratio from Table 1 in AHRI Standard 1200-
2010 for remote condensing equipment and the values shown in Table 
III.1 of this document for self-contained equipment (British thermal 
units per watt (Btu/W)).


[[Page 10301]]



   Table III.1--EER for Self-Contained Commercial Refrigerated Display
                   Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               EER  Btu/
                 Operating temperature class                       W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium.......................................................      11.26
Low..........................................................       7.14
Ice Cream....................................................       4.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. EER values for operating temperature classes are calculated based on
  the average EER value of all equipment in that class, analyzed as part
  of the previous energy conservation standards rulemaking for
  commercial refrigeration equipment (2009 rulemaking). 74 FR 1092 (Jan.
  9, 2009). This does not include equipment for which standards were set
  by Congress in EPACT 2005 (VCT, VCS, HCT, HCS, and SOC at medium (M)
  and low (L) temperatures) or classes for which standards were set
  using extension multipliers in the 2009 rulemaking (VOP.SC.L,
  SVO.SC.L, VOP.SC.I, SVO.SC.I, HZO.SC.I, VOP.SC.I, SVO.SC.I, HZO.SC.I,
  HCS.SC.I, SOC.SC.I). This nomenclature is described in the 2009
  rulemaking. 74 FR1093.
2. These values only represent compressor EERs and do not include
  condenser fan energy use.

    Southern Store Fixtures stated that assigning average values for 
the EER in the calculation of energy reduction due to lighting 
occupancy sensors would penalize manufacturers that have more efficient 
compressors. (Southern Store Fixtures, No. 19 at p. 170) NEEA stated 
that not including the condenser fan energy consumption in the EER 
value creates an over-credit for any heat load that is not imposed on 
the case, and agreed with Southern Store Fixtures that this approach 
gives more credit to less efficient compressors. (NEEA, No. 19 at p. 
171) NEEA further stated that, while it has no issue with the direct 
savings from lighting controls as proposed in the test procedure, it 
does not support the proposed method for calculating indirect energy 
savings. First, according to NEEA, DOE should account for condenser fan 
energy use. Second, NEEA disagreed with the compressor EER values in 
the November 2010 NOPR because the values are carried out to two 
decimal places, which NEEA described as unnecessary. Third, NEEA stated 
that light-emitting diode lighting would lessen the impact on 
compressor loads. Fourth, NEEA disagreed with the idea that a single 
factor be used for discounting lighting heat load, instead suggesting 
that this factor varies by case type. (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 5) California 
Codes and Standards also suggested that DOE research and incorporate 
different multiplicative factors for alternate compressor energy 
consumption for open versus closed cases, because a lower factor may be 
appropriate for open cases. (California Codes and Standards, No. 13 at 
pp. 4-5)
    With respect to its compressor EER values, DOE believes that the 
same values can be used for all self-contained equipment because 
compressor efficiency is primarily a function of compressor design for 
a given combination of load, product temperature, and ambient 
conditions, rather than a specific case geometry. In addition, as a 
precedent, Table 1 in AHRI 1200-2010 provides EER values for remote 
condensing equipment that are not specifically directed toward either 
open or closed refrigerated cases. DOE recognizes that the EER values 
presented in the November 2010 NOPR are not exact quantitative 
representations of specific compressor designs on the market, and that 
compressor performance will vary based on compressor manufacturer and 
model, operating conditions, and the overall design of the specific 
refrigeration system in which the compressor is used. However, DOE 
believes that the EER values it proposed are sound representations of 
default compressor performance available in the marketplace today that, 
when applied equally to all equipment, will yield a consistent and 
repeatable result. DOE acknowledges that two decimal points is not 
appropriate for these default values and has revised them to the 
nearest whole number for this final rule. (See the amendments to 10 CFR 
431.64 (b)(2)(iii), following this preamble).
    In response to comments that DOE did not account for condenser fan 
energy consumption, DOE assumed the compressor fan runs continuously in 
self-contained equipment in the calculations for reduced compressor 
energy consumption resulting from the use of lighting occupancy sensors 
and scheduled controls. This assumption may slightly underestimate the 
savings in some cases, but DOE believes it adequately represents 
expected energy savings in the field. DOE agrees that it is important 
that the default compressor EER values not exaggerate energy savings or 
disincentivize energy efficiency in compressors. However, because these 
values are applied to all commercial refrigeration equipment, 
regardless of actual performance, DOE does not believe the default 
values will affect or motivate compressor selection or design, as they 
will produce comparable results across all systems to which they are 
applied.
    Because DOE is allowing the option of a physical test to determine 
savings from lighting occupancy sensors and controls (see section 
III.A.3.e), DOE must be cognizant of the fact that the calculated 
reduction in refrigeration load and associated indirect energy savings 
are comparable to those that would be measured in the physical test. In 
revising the EER values, DOE has also attempted to ensure that the 
default values do not result in greater savings than would be achieved 
if a case with an efficient compressor were tested. Because the 
calculation does not account for reduced compressor fan power or heat 
leakage from the compressor into the case, DOE believes that the EER 
values will not significantly overestimate indirect lighting energy 
savings. In addition, because the physical test method is optional, a 
manufacturer may always choose to use the calculation method, which is 
consistent across all equipment.
e. Optional Physical Test
    In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed a calculation method to 
account for the energy savings due to the use of lighting occupancy 
sensors or controls. DOE proposed a calculation method because it 
believed it would be representative, consistent, and relatively less 
burdensome for manufacturers compared to a physical test. In this 
assessment, DOE accounted for the fact that manufacturers may need to 
conduct tests with lights on for the duration of the test for other 
programs, for example for ENERGY STAR[supreg] \20\ certification. 75 FR 
71600, 71605 (Nov. 24, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ ENERGY STAR is a joint program of the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency and DOE that establishes a voluntary rating, 
certification, and labeling program for highly energy efficient 
consumer products and commercial equipment. Information on the 
program is available at www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=home.index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the January 2011 public meeting and in subsequent written 
comments, Coca-Cola, NEEA, and California Codes and Standards suggested 
that DOE allow optional empirical testing for the energy reduction 
associated with lighting controls. (Coca-Cola, No. 19 at p. 172; NEEA, 
No. 19 at p. 175; California Codes and Standards, No. 13 at p. 5) 
Earthjustice stated that the method proposed in the November 2010 NOPR 
ignores condenser fan energy use, underestimates compressor EER, and 
uses a fixed discount factor for the lighting heat load that, in 
actuality, would vary by unit. Earthjustice further stated that testing 
with lighting off or dimmed would resolve this issue without adding 
additional burden. (Earthjustice, No. 11 at p. 2) NEEA agreed with 
Earthjustice and commented that actual testing of lighting controls 
would be a superior way to account for their impacts, and

[[Page 10302]]

that DOE should either require testing or make it optional rather than 
relying solely on calculations. (NEEA, No. 8 at pp. 5-6)
    ACEEE commented that alternative lighting methods, for example 
fiber bundles, could be developed, and that the DOE test procedure 
should provide a way for lighting vendors to capture the energy savings 
of new, innovative lighting technologies so that they can promote the 
technology to case manufacturers. (ACEEE, No. 19 at p. 173)
    Hussmann Corporation (Hussmann) cautioned that the DOE test 
procedure should be cognizant of the repeatability of test results 
using a physical test method, specifically when units are tested at 
third-party laboratories. (Hussmann, No. 19 at p. 175) Traulsen 
commented that physically testing the energy reduction of lighting 
occupancy sensors and scheduled controls could be done with a $20 to 
$60 timing device, which translates to approximately $100 when 
accounting for markups. Traulsen added that $100 could be problematic 
for some small manufacturers. (Traulsen, No. 19 at p. 177)
    DOE agrees with NEEA and Earthjustice that an optional physical 
testing method would be more representative of actual condensing unit 
energy reduction for a given case. However, DOE also agrees with 
Traulsen that physical testing should be an optional method due to the 
increased burden associated with additional testing. In response to 
Hussmann's comment, DOE believes the test procedure amendments for 
lighting occupancy sensors and scheduled controls adopted in this final 
rule, which allow for use of the calculation method or performance of a 
physical test, are sufficiently repeatable for the purpose of showing 
compliance with DOE energy conservation standards. Thus, in this test 
procedure final rule, DOE is incorporating provisions that allow 
manufacturers to choose either the calculation method or a physical 
test to demonstrate and credit energy savings associated with lighting 
occupancy sensors and scheduled controls. DOE believes that continuing 
to provide a calculation method for lighting occupancy sensors and 
controls is a less burdensome and more consistent method to account for 
the energy savings associated with these technologies. Nonetheless, if 
a manufacturer wishes to account for the energy reduction associated 
with lighting occupancy sensors and controls through physical testing, 
DOE is specifying that a physical test may be performed. The physical 
test will be prescribed as ``optional'' to allow the use of a 
calculation method to reduce burden on manufacturers and provide 
flexibility in the rating of equipment. In response to ACEEE's comment 
regarding the treatment of innovative new lighting technologies, DOE 
believes the optional physical test will allow manufacturers to measure 
the energy consumption of any new lighting technology that cannot be 
characterized by the calculation method. In either case, manufacturers 
will be expected to record which test method, calculation or physical, 
was used to determine the energy consumption of the equipment and to 
keep this information as part of the data underlying the certification. 
For DOE-initiated testing, DOE will run the optional physical test.
4. Inclusion of a Provision for Testing at Lowest Application Product 
Temperature
    DOE has developed equipment classes based on three distinct 
temperature categories: (1) refrigerators that operate at or above 32 
[deg]F and are tested at an integrated average temperature of 38 [deg]F 
(2 [deg]F); (2) freezers that operate below 32 [deg]F and 
above -5 [deg]F and are tested at an integrated average temperature of 
0 [deg]F (2 [deg]F); and (3) ice-cream freezers that 
operate at or below -5 [deg]F and are tested at an integrated average 
temperature of -15 [deg]F (2 [deg]F). 10 CFR 431.66(d)(1)
    During the May 2010 Framework public meeting, several parties 
commented that some equipment covered under this rulemaking is designed 
to operate at significantly higher temperatures than the designated 
temperature for the corresponding equipment class. Specifically, 
California Codes and Standards stated that DOE should review test 
methods for niche equipment that may require different temperature 
criteria and schedules. (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003; California 
Codes and Standards, No. 5 at p. 3) Structural Concepts also stated 
that some types of equipment, such as candy and wine cases, operate at 
55 or 60[emsp14][deg]F, yet would have to be tested at 38[emsp14][deg]F 
to meet an energy conservation standard, which is problematic because 
these units are not designed to operate at that temperature. (Docket 
No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003; Structural Concepts, No. 6 at p. 59)
    AHRI Standard 1200-2010 includes provisions for such equipment to 
be rated at the application product temperature. To accommodate 
equipment that operates at temperatures much greater than the 38 [deg]F 
(2 [deg]F) rating temperature, in the November 2010 NOPR 
DOE proposed including a provision for testing refrigerators that 
cannot operate at the prescribed 38 [deg]F (2 [deg]F) 
integrated average rating temperature, permitting them to be tested at 
the lowest application product temperature. In the November 2010 NOPR, 
``lowest application product temperature'' was defined as ``the lowest 
integrated average product temperature achievable and maintainable 
within  2 [deg]F for the duration of the test.'' 75 FR 
71605 (Nov. 24, 2010). DOE clarified that, for equipment rated at the 
lowest application product temperature, the integrated average 
temperature achieved during the test should be recorded, and that 
equipment tested at the lowest application product temperature would 
still be required to comply with the applicable standard for its 
respective equipment class. 75 FR 71605 (Nov. 24, 2010). DOE received 
several comments related to (1) the definition of lowest application 
product temperature; (2) expanding the definition of lowest application 
product temperature to include freezers and ice-cream freezers that 
cannot operate at the specified rating temperatures; (3) the energy 
conservation standard for equipment tested at the lowest application 
product temperature; and (4) how the provision for lowest application 
product temperature would accommodate remote condensing equipment. The 
specific comments and DOE's responses are provided in the subsequent 
sections.
a. Definition of Lowest Application Product Temperature
    In comments received during the November 2010 NOPR comment period, 
NEEA stated that lowest application product temperature could be 
defined as the lowest temperature setting on the thermostat, and that 
DOE needs to better define what the lowest temperature is and how it is 
determined. (NEEA, No. 19 at p. 213) True responded that the lowest 
application product temperature is based on a number of factors and 
that units should be tested at the lowest set point. (True, No. 19 at 
p. 214) NEEA also stated that, due to the differences in types, 
applications, and configurations for application-temperature equipment, 
DOE must establish test procedures for this equipment that address the 
way that they are designed and controlled, as well as the ambient 
conditions in which they are operated, regardless of the shipment 
volume, in accordance with EPCA. (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 6) ACEEE commented 
that the lowest application temperature should be standardized, and 
inquired whether manufacturers would be able to test to any temperature

[[Page 10303]]

they want, or if the lowest application product temperature will be 
restricted to one or a few values. ACEEE added that equipment 
comparison would be difficult if there is no standardization. (ACEEE, 
No. 19 at pp. 217 and 219)
    DOE believes that ``the lowest thermostat setting'' may not be a 
prescriptive enough definition in all cases. In some cases, the CRE 
does not contain an adjustable thermostat, which can be manually 
changed for testing. DOE agrees with True that the lowest application 
product temperature is based on a number of factors and cannot be 
limited to one CRE accessory. DOE intends to provide manufacturers with 
the flexibility to determine the lowest application product temperature 
for a given case only when the CRE cannot be tested at the specified 
rating temperatures. The phrase ``lowest application product 
temperature'' is also consistent with the nomenclature used in the 
Canadian energy efficiency regulations and test procedures for self-
contained commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator 
freezers, established by Natural Resources Canada.\21\ In most cases 
with thermostats, DOE agrees that the lowest application product 
temperature is, in fact, the lowest thermostat set point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency. 
``Energy Efficiency Regulations.'' Canada Gazette. Part I; June 
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to ACEEE's comments, DOE is not restricting the lowest 
application product temperature to specific values. To qualify to use 
the lowest application product temperature for a certain piece of 
equipment, a manufacturer should be confident that any case tested 
under that equipment rating could achieve the specified lowest 
application product temperature within 2 [deg]F and could 
not be tested at the rating temperature for the given equipment class. 
Further, manufacturers should clearly document any variation in rating 
temperature setting in the test data they maintain underlying the 
certification of each basic model. In this test procedure final rule, 
DOE has better defined how the proper test temperature is to be 
determined and has clarified that, for many pieces of equipment, this 
will be the lowest temperature setting on the unit's thermostat. DOE 
agrees with commenters that it is important to designate equipment 
tested using the lowest application product temperature provision to 
ensure they are not incorrectly compared with units that are tested at 
the specified rating temperature. While DOE is not modifying the 
certification requirements in this final rule to require manufacturers 
to report the temperature at which the unit was tested (if other than 
the rating temperature), DOE is requiring that documentation be 
maintained as part of the test data underlying the certification. 
Further, the certified ratings calculated from the test data and 
applicable sampling plans should reflect the energy consumption 
measured at the lowest application product temperature setting.
b. Extension of Lowest Application Product Temperature Rating to All 
Equipment Classes and Rating Temperatures
    At the January 2011 NOPR public meeting, several interested parties 
commented that there is a second category of equipment, including ice 
storage cases operating at 20 [deg]F, that are unable to be tested at 
the prescribed rating temperature for freezers, or 0 [deg]F (2 [deg]F). The commenters suggested that the provisions for 
testing at the lowest application product temperature should be 
expanded to freezers and ice-cream freezers to accommodate equipment 
that cannot be rated at the prescribed test temperature for its 
equipment class. (True, No. 19 at p. 191; Hussmann, No. 19 at pp. 192-
93; Traulsen, No. 19 at p. 194; Zero Zone, No. 16 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 15 
at pp. 2-3) Hussmann added that a case designed for 20 [deg]F that is 
not required to be designed to be tested at 0 [deg]F (2 
[deg]F) for certification would be more efficient overall. (Hussmann, 
No. 19 at pp. 192-93)
    DOE also has noticed that some equipment may not be able to be 
tested at the prescribed rating temperature because the operating 
temperatures are below the specified rating temperature (e.g., a piece 
of commercial refrigeration equipment that operates at temperatures 
between 32 and 36[emsp14][deg]F and cannot be tested at an integrated 
average temperature of 38 [deg]F).
    DOE understands that some equipment cannot be tested at its 
prescribed rating temperature and is adopting provisions in this final 
rule to accommodate testing for those units at the lowest application 
product temperature. In response to interested parties' comments 
regarding equipment that operates at, for example, 20 [deg]F, and thus 
falls into the freezer temperature range, but is not able to be tested 
at the prescribed rating temperature for freezers, 0 [deg]F (2 [deg]F), DOE is expanding the ``lowest application product 
temperature'' provision to freezers and ice-cream freezers. With regard 
to differentiation of equipment that was tested at the specified rating 
temperature, DOE is requiring manufacturers to maintain documentation 
of the temperature at which the unit was tested (if other than the DOE 
prescribed rating temperature) as part of the test data underlying the 
certification, as well as base any certified ratings on the energy 
consumption of the equipment as determined using the lowest application 
product temperature test procedure.
    DOE also notes that while some equipment theoretically may not be 
able to be tested at the prescribed rating temperature because it 
operates at temperatures lower than the specified rating temperature 
and cannot reach the specified rating temperature, DOE is not aware of 
this occurring in any equipment that is currently marketed and sold in 
the United States, and DOE believes there is little possibility of this 
occurring. To provide clarity in differentiating equipment that cannot 
be rated at the prescribed rating condition, DOE will continue to refer 
to this provision as the ``lowest application product temperature.'' 
However, to account for all possible temperature ranges of equipment, 
DOE is defining the ``lowest application product temperature'' as ``the 
temperature closest to the equipment's specified rating temperature 
that the unit can achieve (2 [deg]F).'' In this case, 
2 [deg]F refers to the repeatability of the lowest 
application product temperature.
c. Energy Conservation Standard for Equipment Tested at the Lowest 
Application Product Temperature
    In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed that equipment tested at 
the lowest application product temperature still be required to comply 
with the standard for its respective equipment class. 75 FR 71605-06 
(Nov. 24, 2010). DOE made this proposal due to the small fraction of 
equipment that DOE expects to be rated using the lowest application 
product temperature provision. DOE analyzed the shipments data provided 
by ARI during the Framework comment period of the 2009 energy 
conservation standards rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2006-BT-STD-0126, 
ARI, No. 7 Exhibit B at p. 1). DOE found that, excluding that equipment 
for which EPACT 2005 amended EPCA to set standards (i.e., self-
contained commercial refrigerators and commercial freezers with doors) 
(42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)), only 1.7 percent of units for which standards 
were established operate at ``application temperatures,'' namely 45 
[deg]F, 20 [deg]F, 10 [deg]F, or -30 [deg]F. Of these, units that 
operate at 45 [deg]F (typically ``wine chillers'') had the highest 
shipments, and these units were predominantly remote condensing 
equipment. Given

[[Page 10304]]

the relatively low shipment volumes of equipment that operates at 
application temperatures, DOE did not believe it was justified in 
developing separate standards for equipment that operates at an 
application temperature different than one of the three prescribed 
rating temperatures. 74 FR 1104 (Jan. 9, 2009).
    At the January 2011 NOPR public meeting and in written comments 
submitted during the public comment period, many interested parties 
commented on DOE's proposal that equipment tested at the lowest 
application product temperature would still be required to comply with 
the standard for its respective equipment class. California Codes and 
Standards, ACEEE, NEEA, and NRDC all agreed that it is reasonable to 
test equipment not capable of achieving a rating temperature at its 
lowest operating temperature, provided this equipment represents a 
small market share and is appropriately differentiated to prevent 
loopholes. (California Codes and Standards, No. 13 at p. 5; ACEEE, No. 
12 at p. 5; NEEA, No. 8 at pp. 6-7; NRDC, No. 14 at pp. 1-2) NRDC 
suggested that equipment that cannot be tested below 38 [deg]F should 
be labeled and sold with its projected annual energy consumption data 
indicating the lowest temperature achievable during testing, and should 
be clearly differentiated from equipment that meets the required 
testing temperatures. (NRDC, No. 14 at p. 2) ACEEE suggested that DOE 
define equipment classes in a manner that prevents the substitution of 
less efficient equipment for more efficient general-duty equipment. 
(ACEEE, No. 12 at pp. 1-2) ACEEE also expressed concern regarding the 
presence of ice cabinets on the market, and questioned how DOE could 
differentiate ice cabinets from freezers if they are rated at 
application temperature, so that they are not used inappropriately for 
frozen food storage. (ACEEE, No. 12 at p. 5) NEEA disagreed with DOE's 
tendency to refer to equipment with application temperatures above 38 
[deg]F as ``medium temperature'' because some of this equipment 
operates at significantly higher temperatures than the medium 
temperature rating condition of 38 [deg]F. Therefore, NEEA suggested 
that this equipment be referred to as ``high or elevated temperature'' 
equipment. Additionally, NEEA asserted that ice storage cabinets, or 
any other equipment operating at an operating temperature between 0 
[deg]F and 38 [deg]F, should not be called ``medium'' or ``low'' 
temperature. (NEEA, No. 8 at pp. 6-7)
    True asked whether ice chests or freezers that are designed to 
operate at 20 [deg]F and cannot be tested at 0 [deg]F (2 
[deg]F) would be required to meet the refrigerator or the freezer 
energy conservation standard. (True, No. 19 at p. 207) California Codes 
and Standards and NRDC also stated that the standard levels should be 
correspondingly adjusted to avoid loopholes, as otherwise, less 
efficient equipment potentially could comply if it were allowed to be 
tested at a higher operating temperature. (California Codes and 
Standards, No. 13 at p. 5; NRDC, No. 14 at pp. 1-2) California Codes 
and Standards suggested that DOE create a method to scale standards 
based on rating temperature, and stated that this would not require 
additional equipment classes. (California Codes and Standards, No. 19 
at pp. 223 and 227) NRDC stated that, while DOE's past reasoning for 
not setting specific requirements for application-temperature equipment 
was based on the small size of the market, a forward-looking standard 
should include this equipment and set efficiency levels for it. (NRDC, 
No. 14 at p. 2) Sean Gouw (unaffiliated) commented that DOE had created 
product classes for niche products with low market share before, for 
example built-in residential refrigerators. (Gouw, No. 19 at p. 234)
    AHRI commented that refrigerated cases that cannot operate at an 
integrated average temperature of 38 [deg]F are niche products and 
represent a small part of the market. (AHRI, No. 19 at p. 228) Southern 
Store Fixtures commented that cases rated for higher temperatures do 
not necessarily use less energy because they may require additional 
heaters for humidity control. (Southern Store Fixtures, No. 19 at p. 
229)
    DOE maintains that units tested at the lowest application product 
temperature will still be required to meet the applicable energy 
conservation standard based on their equipment class. While DOE 
understands that this approach may result in slightly less stringent 
standards for the small number of units that cannot be tested at the 
prescribed rating temperatures, as interested parties pointed out, DOE 
does not believe that establishing separate equipment classes for these 
niche types of equipment would be justified given their small shipment 
volume and the wide diversity of niche products.
    DOE agrees with interested parties that preventing loopholes that 
would allow less efficient equipment to be sold is very important. 
However, DOE believes that allowing testing at the lowest application 
product temperature for all temperature classes allows for coverage of 
more equipment and may allow ``intermediate'' equipment that cannot 
operate at its prescribed test temperatures to be designed to operate 
more efficiently. It is not expected that this will create an 
opportunity for less efficient equipment to be sold because DOE is 
requiring units tested at the lowest application product temperature to 
be retested if the thermostat is changed.
    California Codes and Standards also suggested scaling the energy 
consumption data for equipment tested at application temperatures to 
reflect projected energy consumption at the relevant rating 
temperature. (California Codes and Standards, No. 19 at pp. 223 and 
227) However, DOE agrees with Southern Store Fixtures that testing 
these units at a higher integrated average temperature does not 
necessarily mean that the unit will use less energy. The variability in 
energy use and the impact of variation in integrated average 
temperature will depend on case type, geometry, and configuration. This 
makes it very difficult to set a consistent scaling factor or 
incorporate temperature into the standards equations, as any value 
chosen would be not be representative of all cases. This issue will be 
discussed further in the energy conservation standards rulemaking 
(Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003).
    With respect to NEEA's suggestion that equipment rated at lowest 
application product temperature be referred to as ``high or elevated 
temperature'' equipment, DOE cannot control how equipment is referred 
to or categorized in the market beyond the equipment classes DOE 
specifies. Since DOE is not creating a unique equipment class for this 
equipment, DOE will continue to categorize the equipment based on its 
appropriate equipment class.
d. Remote Condensing Units and the Lowest Application Product 
Temperature
    In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed that the lowest application 
product temperature provision apply equally to self-contained and 
remote condensing commercial refrigeration equipment. 75 FR 71605 (Nov. 
24, 2010). AHRI inquired how the lowest application product temperature 
would apply to remote condensing equipment, because the lowest 
operating temperature for remote condensing equipment is dependent on 
the condensing unit to which it is attached. (AHRI, No. 19 at p. 203) 
Zero Zone commented that the approach for testing equipment at the 
lowest application product temperature was reasonable for

[[Page 10305]]

self-contained equipment, but for remote condensing equipment, the size 
of the condensing unit would affect the operating temperature range. 
Zero Zone further inquired whether the test procedure would regulate 
the size of condensing units. (Zero Zone, No. 19 at p. 207) Zero Zone 
stated that there needs to be more specificity in the testing of 
application temperature for remote condensing equipment. Zero Zone 
continued by asserting that ASHRAE 72 requires that a pressure 
regulator be used to set the evaporating temperature to the correct 
value. This means that the limit of evaporating temperature is 
dependent on the size of the test laboratory's compressor rack. Zero 
Zone suggested that, for standardization purposes, the DOE test 
procedure should require that the saturated suction temperature be set 
to 5[emsp14][deg]F colder than the temperature needed to maintain the 
application temperature. (Zero Zone, No. 16 at p. 2)
    DOE has reviewed Zero Zone's comment and the pertinent sections of 
ASHRAE Standard 72. DOE concedes that, for remote condensing equipment 
that does not have a thermostat or another means to regulate 
temperature, the size of the compressor rack could impact the lowest 
achievable application product temperature. In this case, the saturated 
suction temperature at the compressor rack (also referred to as the 
Adjusted Dew Point Temperature in AHRI 1200-2010) impacts the amount of 
refrigerant that can flow through the evaporator. Larger compressor 
racks are able to achieve lower saturated suction temperatures, which 
will produce a lower operating temperature in the case than a smaller 
compressor. DOE acknowledges that the method included in Zero Zone's 
comment would create a standardized repeatable test for this type of 
equipment. However, DOE believes that the specification of a saturated 
suction temperature to 5 [deg]F lower than that required to maintain 
the application temperature is somewhat arbitrary and not necessarily 
indicative of the lowest operating temperature of the unit. This 
specification also could inadvertently restrict or burden manufacturers 
when testing their equipment. DOE did not receive comments from other 
manufacturers on this topic. DOE also notes that specification of a 
fixed saturated suction temperature is only required for remote 
condensing units without thermostats or other means of regulating 
temperatures that are rated at the lowest application product 
temperature. DOE is not currently aware of any equipment on the market 
that would fit this description.
    In the case of remote condensing equipment with a thermostat, DOE 
believes that the lowest application product temperature is 
sufficiently defined by the range of the thermostat and that the 
suction temperature is similarly limited by the thermostat. However, 
for remote cases that do not have a thermostat or other means for 
controlling temperature at the case level, DOE acknowledges that this 
relationship between compressor rack size and lowest application 
product temperature does create some variability in the lowest 
application product temperature that can be achieved by a given case. 
Thus, DOE is requiring that the adjusted dew point temperature, as 
defined in AHRI 1200-2010, be set to 5 [deg]F colder than that 
temperature required to maintain the manufacturer's lowest specified 
application temperature for those pieces of remote condensing 
commercial refrigeration equipment that do not have a means for 
controlling temperature at the case, such as a thermostat, and cannot 
be tested at their specified integrated average rating temperatures.
5. Provisions Allowing Testing of Equipment at NSF Test Temperatures
    Commercial refrigeration equipment that is marketed to hold 
perishable food items is classified and certified by NSF/ANSI-7, 
``Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers'' (hereafter referred to as 
NSF-7), a food safety standard issued by NSF.\22\ NSF-7 establishes two 
classes for commercial display cases: Type I, which is tested at ASHRAE 
Standard 72 standard ambient conditions (75 [deg]F dry bulb and 64 
[deg]F wet bulb temperature), and Type II, which is tested at higher 
ambient conditions (80 [deg]F dry bulb and 68 [deg]F wet bulb 
temperature). These two test conditions are also reported in terms of 
dry bulb temperature and percentage relative humidity. Type I 
corresponds to 75 [deg]F and 55 percent relative humidity, and Type II 
corresponds to 80 [deg]F and 60 percent relative humidity. NSF-7 also 
requires Type I and Type II equipment to be tested such that the 
average temperature of each test package containing an individual 
temperature sensor does not exceed 41 [deg]F and no single temperature 
sensor exceeds a reading of 43 [deg]F at any time during the test. NSF-
7 does not specify a required average temperature for all test sensors 
or the measurement of energy consumption during the test. On the other 
hand, DOE does require an integrated average test temperature of 38 
[deg]F  2 [deg]F. However, manufacturers have reported that 
they test cases at lower integrated average temperatures than that 
specified by DOE to ensure the NSF-7 requirements are met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ NSF International. ``NSF/ASNI 7--2009: Commercial 
Refrigerators and Freezers.'' Ann Arbor, MI. http://www.nsf.org/business/food_equipment/standards.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the January 2011 NOPR public meeting and in subsequent written 
comments, interested parties commented on the similarities and 
differences between the DOE test procedure and the NSF-7 test. 
Commenters also noted the additional burden associated with performing 
both tests. Southern Store Fixtures commented that if a unit designed 
to operate at higher ambient conditions is operated at a lower ambient 
temperature, the case will not perform as well because it will have an 
oversized compressor and could have operational issues with compressor 
cycling. Southern Store Fixtures further commented that the energy 
consumption of a case can increase by as much as 30 percent when 
changing from a rating condition of 75 [deg]F and 55 percent relative 
humidity to 80 [deg]F and 60 percent relative humidity. (Southern Store 
Fixtures, No. 19 at pp. 94-95) True and Coca-Cola stated that a 5 
[deg]F difference will not significantly affect energy consumption and 
that, for those few cases that would be significantly affected, they 
could apply for a waiver. (True, No. 19 at p. 122; Coca-Cola, No. 19 at 
p. 123) Southern Store Fixtures countered that only in cases with solid 
doors will the 5 [deg]F temperature difference be insignificant 
(Southern Store Fixtures, No. 19 at p. 131), and that the effects of a 
5 [deg]F increase in temperature can be significant for open cases or 
cases with single pane glass. (Southern Store Fixtures, No. 19 at p. 
97)
    Hussmann stated that, although the difference in energy use among 
self-contained cases may not be significant, Hussmann was concerned 
with the additional burden of testing a case twice. (Hussmann, No. 19 
at p. 123) Hussmann stated that all units must pass the NSF-7 
requirements in order to be certified for food safety. The NSF-7 
requirement differs from AHRI 1200 in that the maximum average 
temperature can never exceed 41 [deg]F at any time. Hussmann also 
stated that the integrated average temperature for the NSF-7 test 
(approximately 34 [deg]F) is actually lower than that required by the 
DOE test procedure, and that the energy consumption of a medium 
temperature self-contained case is higher during testing for NSF 
compliance than it is during the DOE energy consumption

[[Page 10306]]

test. Hussmann commented that, as it stands now, equipment that 
consumes more energy during the NSF-7 test than is allowed by the DOE 
test procedure would have to be re-tested at DOE conditions, thereby 
imposing an additional burden. Hussmann stated that 85 percent of its 
self-contained models require NSF testing, meaning that hundreds of 
additional DOE tests could be required. (Hussmann, No. 10 at pp. 1-2) 
Hussmann recommended that DOE allow for the use of a linear polynomial 
curve-fit in the development of a normalization equation from NSF to 
DOE internal temperatures. This would allow manufacturers test at NSF 
internal conditions and then normalize to the standard DOE conditions, 
which would reduce the testing burden because manufacturers already 
test to the NSF standard. (Hussmann, No. 10 at p. 2)
    California Codes and Standards and NEEA both suggested that DOE 
allow testing at both the 75 [deg]F and 55 percent relative humidity 
rating condition and NSF Type II conditions, provided the case, as 
tested, were to meet the applicable energy conservation standard. 
(California Codes and Standards, No. 19 at p. 124; NEEA, No. 19 at p. 
127) ACEEE stated its belief that commercial refrigeration equipment 
can be divided into two types of equipment: that for which food safety 
is a true concern, and that which cools and displays product for the 
purposes of presenting value to the consumer. The former subset of 
equipment is rated in accordance with NSF food safety standards, while 
the latter is not. Therefore, ACEEE suggested making a distinction 
between the two in the DOE test procedure, with the NSF-7 test 
procedure being used for equipment for which food safety is a true 
concern, and the AHRI/ASHRAE method being used for the remaining 
equipment. ACEEE stated that it would endorse such a method as long as 
the two subsets of equipment were separated clearly, such as via 
labeling. (ACEEE, No. 12 at pp. 2-3)
    True stated that the current Federal test procedure relies on 
ASHRAE Standard 72, which specifies a rating condition of 75 [deg]F and 
55 percent relative humidity, and that this reflects the way cases are 
currently tested. True added that if the test temperatures were to be 
changed, comparison with historical data could be difficult. (True, No. 
19 at pp. 127-28) True also acknowledged that self-contained cases 
currently required to meet the EPACT 2005 standard must test at the DOE 
rating condition of 75 [deg]F and 55 percent relative humidity and, 
optionally, at NSF Type II conditions, so there is no incremental 
increase in burden. (True, No. 19 at p. 129)
    DOE acknowledges the burden on manufacturers that have to certify 
equipment with both the DOE test procedure and the NSF-7 test 
procedure. DOE also agrees with interested parties that testing cases 
at an ambient temperature of 80 [deg]F, rather than the currently 
specified 75 [deg]F, will not have a significant impact on energy 
consumption for cases with doors. DOE recognizes that, as Southern 
Store Fixtures mentioned, the impact on open cases may be greater than 
on closed cases, but does not believe that equipment will have 
operation or performance issues if tested at a the temperatures 
prescribed by the DOE test procedure. DOE believes the energy 
consumption of a case should scale with ambient temperature and does 
not believe these issues will prevent units from being tested using the 
DOE-prescribed test temperatures or demonstrating compliance with DOE 
energy conservation standards. DOE researched the equipment available 
on the market and requested specific data regarding the existence of 
cases that cannot meet the standard or the characteristics of their 
operation. DOE has found no evidence or firm data supporting the 
creation of a separate equipment class and standard for equipment 
designed to operate at higher ambient conditions. Thus, DOE will not 
create specific new equipment classes for equipment that is designed to 
operate at internal or ambient temperatures other than the test 
conditions prescribed by DOE.
    DOE does not believe development of a scaling factor that would be 
sufficiently representative of equipment energy consumption and 
consistent across an equipment class is justified within the scope of 
this rulemaking. The geometry and design of each case will cause the 
magnitude of the impact of variation in temperature to vary, making 
development of any scaling factor extremely burdensome. This is true 
for both external and internal temperature variations.
    Continuing to require testing at standard rating conditions, as 
prescribed in the DOE test procedure, without allowances for variation 
in internal or external temperatures, will not increase the burden for 
manufacturers. However, it will also not reduce the total burden of 
testing, which could be accomplished through coordination of test 
requirements with other programs, such as NSF.
    In response to the suggestion that cases could optionally be tested 
at NSF-7 conditions (ambient or internal) as long as the unit, as 
tested, complies with the energy conservation standard, DOE believes 
that this will effectively reduce the burden on manufacturers while 
ensuring that all cases meet or exceed the DOE energy conservation 
standard, provided the NSF-7 rating temperatures and ambient conditions 
represent a more stringent test. In most cases, using the NSF internal 
temperature requirements or Type II external ambient conditions 
represents a more conservative test in that equipment will have to be 
more efficient to operate at NSF internal temperatures or ambient 
conditions and still comply with DOE energy conservation standards. For 
example, as Hussmann notes, manufacturers often perform the NSF-7 test 
at a lower integrated average temperature than that required by the DOE 
test procedure to ensure their cases will comply with NSF's food safety 
requirements. However, DOE notes that this method is optional, and 
manufacturers are technically allowed to test cases at up to 41 [deg]F 
integrated average temperature under the NSF-7 test, provided the air 
is perfectly mixed and the spatial temperature variation within the 
case is very well controlled. In an effort to reduce burden for 
manufacturers and allow testing for the purposes of NSF certification 
and DOE compliance to occur in the same test, DOE is adopting in this 
final rule provisions that allow manufacturers to optionally use NSF 
internal or ambient conditions to test equipment in a given equipment 
class, provided the NSF conditions are more stringent than the 
prescribed DOE rating temperatures and conditions for that equipment 
class. To clarify, manufacturers may test at the prescribed 75 [deg]F 
and 55 percent relative humidity ambient rating condition, or they may 
optionally test at the NSF Type II conditions of 80 [deg]F and 60 
percent relative humidity. In either case, the equipment would be 
required to show compliance with the relevant energy conservation 
standard for that equipment class. Additionally, manufacturers are 
allowed to test equipment at integrated average temperatures that 
satisfy the DOE-specified rating temperatures or are lower than the 
DOE-specified rating temperatures.
    DOE acknowledges that allowing equipment to be tested at NSF-7 
conditions in the DOE test procedure would make comparison of equipment 
within the same equipment class difficult and confusing, given that 
there could be cases tested at four different conditions in the same 
class. However, DOE is requiring that equipment rated at

[[Page 10307]]

NSF-7 rating temperatures maintain documentation of the internal and 
ambient temperatures as part of the test data underlying the 
certification, so that informed comparisons can be made.
    As True acknowledged, manufacturers that produce equipment covered 
by EPACT 2005 standards are currently testing to both the DOE and NSF-7 
test procedures. Thus, maintaining the proposed equipment classes and 
test temperatures for equipment that must also be tested using the NSF-
7 test for food safety certification does not introduce any incremental 
burden on manufacturers. Instead, the provision to demonstrate 
compliance by testing the equipment at NSF-7 test conditions is only 
meant to provide an opportunity to the manufacturers to reduce the 
number of tests for equipment that can comply with DOE standards even 
when tested at the more stringent NSF-7 test conditions. However, this 
provision will not be advantageous to equipment that may be unable to 
comply by DOE standards when tested at the more stringent NSF-7 test 
conditions due to a large difference in energy consumption at the two 
different test conditions.
    In summary, DOE is incorporating language in the test procedure 
final rule that will allow manufacturers to optionally test at NSF-7 
conditions that are more stringent than the DOE test conditions to 
reduce the repetitive test burden of testing at both DOE and NSF-7 
conditions, provided the case still meets DOE's energy conservation 
standards.

B. Other Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Comments and DOE Responses

    At the January 2011 NOPR public meeting and in the ensuing comment 
period, DOE received comments from interested parties regarding several 
issues that pertain to the CRE test procedure and energy conservation 
standard rulemakings, but not to specific provisions or amendments. DOE 
received comments on the scope of covered equipment; the testing of 
part-load technologies not currently referenced explicitly in the test 
procedure; the effective date of the test procedure rulemaking; 
preemption of State regulations; the burden of testing; the association 
of this final rule with DOE's certification, compliance, and 
enforcement regulations; alternative refrigerants; and secondary 
coolant systems.
1. Equipment Scope
    The test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment 
prescribes methods for testing all commercial refrigeration equipment, 
as defined in 10 CFR 431.62. The definition of commercial refrigerator, 
freezer, and refrigerator-freezer includes all refrigeration equipment 
that:

    (1) Is not a consumer product (as defined in Sec.  430.2 of part 
430);
    (2) Is not designed and marketed exclusively for medical, 
scientific, or research purposes;
    (3) Operates at a chilled, frozen, combination chilled and 
frozen, or variable temperature;
    (4) Displays or stores merchandise and other perishable 
materials horizontally, semi-vertically, or vertically;
    (5) Has transparent or solid doors, sliding or hinged doors, a 
combination of hinged, sliding, transparent, or solid doors, or no 
doors;
    (6) Is designed for pull-down temperature applications or 
holding temperature applications; and
    (7) Is connected to a self-contained condensing unit or to a 
remote condensing unit.

10 CFR 431.62
a. Remote Condensing Racks
    California Codes and Standards commented that DOE should consider 
regulating remote condensing racks and that significant energy savings 
were possible in that type of equipment. (California Codes and 
Standards, No. 19 at p. 12) California Codes and Standards further 
asked DOE to review the pros and cons of establishing a separate 
rulemaking on remote condensers and to consider which parts of remote 
condensing equipment should be covered by energy conservation 
standards. These standards, the comment stated, would be well suited to 
establishing a baseline efficiency for the remote condensing unit, 
independent of the type of equipment it serves. (California Codes and 
Standards, No. 13 at pp. 1-2) ACEEE stated that DOE should recognize 
the distinction between dedicated remote condensing units and rack 
systems that serve multiple pieces of equipment. ACEEE suggested that 
DOE should develop an appropriate method for rating dedicated remote 
compressors across various capacities and temperature needs, 
potentially using standard loads for the testing of remote rack 
systems. (ACEEE, No. 12 at p. 5)
    During the 2009 CRE energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE 
made the determination not to cover remote condensers within the scope 
of the January 2009 final rule, and to limit the standards analyses to 
refrigerated cases only and not the remote condensers. In the advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking, DOE stated:

    In its Framework Document, DOE pointed out that EPCA defines a 
``self-contained condensing unit,'' in part, as an assembly of 
refrigerating components ``that is an integral part of the 
refrigerated equipment * * *'' (42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(F), added by EPACT 
2005, section 136(a)(3)) EPCA also defines a ``remote condensing 
unit,'' in part, as an assembly of refrigerating components ``that 
is remotely located from the refrigerated equipment * * *.'' (42 
U.S.C. 6311(9)(E), added by EPACT 2005, section 136(a)(3)) DOE also 
stated in the Framework Document that this difference in the 
definitions may mean that, under EPCA, remote condensing units are 
not a part of the refrigerated equipment and that energy 
conservation standards for remote condensing commercial 
refrigerators, commercial freezers, and commercial refrigerator-
freezers would apply only to the refrigerated equipment (i.e., 
storage cabinets and display cases), but not to the remote 
condensing units.

72 FR 41170-71 (July 26, 2007).
    Several interested parties commented at that time that coverage of 
remote condensers would be difficult due to the wide variety of this 
type of equipment. (Docket No. EERE-2006-STD-0126, Zero Zone, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 3.4 at p. 48; \23\ ARI, No. 7, at p. 3) 
Additionally, energy efficiency advocates and utilities expressed the 
opinion that these units should be covered, but not necessarily within 
the scope of that rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2006-STD-0126, Joint 
Comment,\24\ No. 9 at p. 5) DOE decided to not cover remote condensers 
in the January 2009 final rule. DOE further stated that it would 
address later whether it has the authority to regulate this equipment, 
and if so, would examine then whether standards for remote condensers 
are warranted and feasible. 74 FR 1105 (Jan. 9, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ A notation in the form ``Docket No. EE-2006-STD-0126, Zero 
Zone, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 3.4 at p. 48'' identifies an 
oral comment that DOE received during the May 16, 2006 Framework 
public meeting and which was recorded on page 48 of the public 
meeting transcript (document number 3.4) in the docket for the 2009 
CRE energy conservation standards rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2006-
STD-0126).
    \24\ Joint Comment refers to a written comment submitted by the 
Alliance to Save Energy, ACEEE, the Appliance Standards Awareness 
Project, NRDC, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, and 
Northwest Power and Conservation Council in Docket No. EERE-2006-
STD-0126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE believes that nothing has changed to affect this stance. DOE 
continues to believe that the condenser rack to which a piece of remote 
condensing commercial refrigeration equipment is attached to, is a 
separate piece of equipment that may serve other equipment types (e.g., 
walk-in coolers and freezers). As such, DOE is not

[[Page 10308]]

considering remote condensing racks in the current associated energy 
conservation standards rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003). 
DOE is not introducing test procedures for remote condensers in this 
rulemaking, and maintains that DOE has no obligation to do so. DOE, if 
it proposed to regulate or develop a test procedure for remote 
condensing racks, would do so in a separate rulemaking.
b. Testing of Part-Load Technologies at Variable Refrigeration Load
    Technologies that operate as a function of variable ambient 
conditions can reduce annual energy consumption of commercial 
refrigeration equipment by adapting to changes in refrigeration load 
that result from changes in ambient conditions. These variable load, or 
part-load, technologies include higher efficiency expansion valves, 
condenser fan motor controllers, and anti-sweat heater controllers. In 
the November 2010 NOPR, DOE suggested that, although ASHRAE Standard 
72-2005 is a steady-state test, some variation in refrigeration load is 
experienced in that test due to the door opening and night curtain 
provisions. This variation in refrigeration load inherent in the test 
procedure means the effects of variable load, or part-load, features 
are already captured to some degree in the proposed test procedure for 
commercial refrigeration equipment. DOE further argued that additional 
independent or explicit part-load testing would result in increased 
cost and burden for manufacturers of covered equipment. DOE estimated 
that part-load testing at additional rating conditions could more than 
double the cost and burden of testing for all commercial refrigeration 
equipment. In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE stated that explicit testing 
at multiple sets of conditions was not justified because of this 
increased burden, and proposed that the test procedure continue to 
reference only one standard ambient condition, relying on the transient 
effects inherent in the proposed test procedure to capture part-load 
performance. 75 FR 71601 (Nov. 24, 2010).
    At the January 2011 NOPR public meeting and in subsequent written 
comments, NEEA and California Codes and Standards agreed with DOE that 
the ASHRAE Standard 72 test method does include variation in the 
refrigeration load, which would realize the benefits of part-load 
technologies, such as floating head pressure controls, liquid suction 
heat exchangers, and improved thermal expansion loads in equipment with 
doors. These interested parties asked DOE to evaluate part-load 
technologies in the energy conservation standards rulemaking. (NEEA, 
No. 8 at p. 2; California Codes and Standards, No. 19 at p. 13)
    AHRI commented that additional, specific requirements for testing 
of part-load technologies will add an additional burden on 
manufacturers, and agreed with DOE that ASHRAE 72 already accounts to 
some degree for the effects of part-load technologies. As a result, 
AHRI recommended against new testing requirements for these 
technologies. (AHRI, No. 15 at p. 2) NEEA agreed that short-term part-
load impacts are limited, and that longer-term variations, such as 
those induced by changes in ambient conditions, would be difficult to 
capture without imposing a significant additional burden. (NEEA, No. 8 
at p. 2)
    Conversely, NRDC commented that it believed that DOE had not 
provided sufficient data to show that testing at varying loads would 
impose an undue burden on manufacturers. NRDC further stated that 
manufacturers that use advanced control strategies and variable-load 
technologies need to have such features properly credited. According to 
NRDC, to not adequately credit such features would conflict with 
section 342 of EPCA, which requires DOE to adopt test procedures that 
reflect representative energy use. (NRDC, No. 14 at pp. 3-4)
    ACEEE stated its belief that gains due to technologies such as 
adaptive controls and modulating components must be captured in a test 
procedure to fairly express to consumers the better value that may be 
presented by equipment that performs more efficiently in the field. In 
ACEEE's opinion, to not capture the effects of these features would 
result in a loss of competitiveness by domestic manufacturers. (ACEEE, 
No. 12 at p. 2) ACEEE added that it does not believe that the current 
test methods account for modulating components and their benefits. 
(ACEEE, No. 12 at p. 6)
    DOE recognizes the desire to better characterize the performance of 
these devices. However, DOE believes that the refrigerant load changes 
inherent in the amended test procedure are representative of average 
use and that the test procedure established in this final rule meets 
the requirements for a test procedure established by EPCA section 342 
(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)). Given that, DOE believes the establishment of 
new, independent test requirements for part-load conditions is not 
necessary and would impose undue burden on manufacturers. As stated 
previously, testing of part-load technologies would more than double 
the burden on manufacturers to test equipment. DOE maintains that part-
load technologies that respond to changes in refrigeration load will be 
partially captured in the DOE test procedure due to door openings, 
night-curtain deployment, compressor cycling, and minor fluctuations in 
the thermodynamic state of the case during the test. In any event, 
manufacturers may implement any part-load technologies as they see fit. 
DOE believes the efficiency gains achieved by part-load technologies in 
the current test procedure are sufficient, and that further independent 
testing is not justified.
2. Effective Date
    EPCA requires that, in any rulemaking to amend a test procedure, 
DOE must determine to what extent, if any, the proposed test procedure 
would alter the measured energy efficiency of any covered product as 
determined under the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1) and 
6314(a)(6)(D)) If DOE determines that the amended test procedure would 
alter the measured efficiency of a covered product, DOE must amend the 
applicable energy conservation standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(e)(2) and 6314(a)(6)(D)) Several of the provisions in this test 
procedure final rule will change the measured energy use of some 
commercial refrigeration equipment covered under the scope of current 
standards. As such, DOE is in the process of amending the current 
energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment in 
a concurrent rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003).
    In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed to require that the use of 
the amended test procedure be consistent with the compliance date of 
any revised energy conservation standards. 75 FR 71599 (Nov. 24, 2010). 
DOE is adding language to the final test procedure amendments 
clarifying that the amendments shall not be used at the time of 
publication to determine compliance with the current energy 
conservation standards. Instead, manufacturers will be required to use 
the amended test procedure to demonstrate compliance with DOE's energy 
conservation standards on the compliance date of any final rule 
establishing amended energy conservation standards for commercial 
refrigeration equipment. Until this date, manufacturers must continue 
to use the existing DOE test procedure, as set forth at 10 CFR 431.64, 
to demonstrate compliance with existing energy conservation standards.
    However, EPCA also states that, effective 360 days after any 
amended

[[Page 10309]]

test procedure final rule is prescribed, any representations of the 
``maximum daily energy consumption'' of covered equipment, for example 
in labeling or advertising, must be based on results generated using 
the amended test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) In the November 2010 
NOPR, DOE proposed that, as of 360 days after publication of any test 
procedure final rule, representations of energy consumption of any 
covered equipment would need to be based on results generated using the 
amended test procedure. 75 FR 71599 (Nov. 24, 2010). This would result 
in possible dual testing requirements for some cases between the period 
360 days after publication of the amended test procedure final rule and 
the effective date of any amended standards. However, because many of 
the test procedure amendments are optional, this is not expected to 
affect many units. For example, if a case is sold with and without 
occupancy sensors, the case would be tested in accordance with the 
current DOE test procedure, without amendments, to show compliance with 
DOE energy conservation standards. Because this case is not required to 
be tested with occupancy sensors in the amended test procedure, the 
test using the current DOE test procedure is also in accordance with 
the amended test procedure and the established daily energy consumption 
values may be reported and publicized. Representations of the ``maximum 
daily energy consumption'' of cases accounting for the energy savings 
of lighting occupancy sensors, for example, could be made only after 
testing the case in accordance with the lighting occupancy sensor 
provisions in the amended test procedure. However, the amended test 
procedure could not be used to show compliance with DOE energy 
conservation standards until the effective date of any amended energy 
conservation standards. This is also true for covered equipment sold 
with night curtains. The provision for testing cases at the lowest 
application product temperature will not affect the reported energy of 
any covered product because manufacturers of cases that cannot be 
tested at the prescribed rating temperature are currently advised to 
request a waiver, since these cases cannot be tested under the existing 
test procedure.
    ACEEE, NEEA, and Earthjustice all expressed the view that the test 
procedure effective date should be equivalent to that of any amended 
energy conservation standards published in the concurrent energy 
conservation standards rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003). 
(ACEEE, No. 12 at p. 3; NEEA, No. 31 at p. 2; Earthjustice, No. 11 at 
p. 2) Earthjustice also stated that DOE must clarify that manufacturers 
may not use night curtains and/or occupancy sensors to comply with 
minimum efficiency standards prior to the compliance date of amended 
standards that account for those features. (Earthjustice, No. 11 at p. 
2) Earthjustice further commented that EPCA requires that, if DOE 
amends test procedures, it must also determine to what extent the 
proposed test procedure would alter measured energy use as determined 
under the existing test procedure. If the test procedure is found to 
alter measured energy use, DOE must amend the energy conservation 
standard to account for this, taking into consideration the performance 
of existing minimally compliant equipment under the amended test 
procedure. (Earthjustice, No. 11 at pp. 2-3)
    DOE understands that, if the amended test procedure will affect the 
measured energy consumption of a covered piece of equipment, DOE must 
amend energy conservation standards accordingly. DOE is pursuing 
amended standards based on the test procedure amendments being adopted 
in this final rule. As such, DOE is requiring that the use of any 
amended test procedure not be required until the compliance date of any 
amended standards. As these amended test procedures will only be used 
with standards that have been set based on those amendments, DOE 
believes there is no risk of backsliding, but is conscious of and 
accounting for this issue in the associated energy conservation 
standards rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003).
    With respect to representations of the maximum daily energy 
consumption of covered equipment, it is DOE's understanding that 360 
days following publication of the test procedure final rule, 
representations of energy consumption must be made using the amended 
test procedure. However, this could create a situation where 
manufacturers may have to test equipment using two different test 
procedures beginning 360 days after publication of the test procedure 
final rule (anticipated October 2012) and until 3 years after the 
publication of the CRE energy conservation standards final rule 
(anticipated January 2016). DOE believes this potentially would be 
confusing and burdensome for manufacturers. To simplify testing 
activities, DOE is specifying in this final rule that use of the 
amended test procedure for compliance and representations of energy use 
will be required on the compliance date of any amended energy 
conservation standards resulting from the ongoing rulemaking (Docket 
No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003). This stance is similar to that proposed for 
walk-in coolers and freezers with respect to the testing of insulation 
values and is the most practical to implement. 76 FR 48745 (Aug. 9, 
2011). DOE is including a clarifying statement in the test procedure 
rule language regarding when the amended test procedure must be used 
for purposes of compliance and labeling or other representations of 
energy consumption.
3. Preemption
    At the January 2011 NOPR public meeting, California Codes and 
Standards asked DOE to consider which features of commercial 
refrigeration equipment should be addressed by DOE, as opposed to 
others that could be left uncovered and regulated by State or local 
building efficiency standards and codes. Features that could be more 
appropriately covered by State or local building regulations, according 
to the comment, could include controls not integral to a single unit 
(centralized, storewide controls); liquid-suction heat exchangers 
serving an entire lineup of cases; and application-specific devices, 
such as night curtains, which could be very valuable in some 
applications but inapplicable in others (such as 24-hour stores). 
California Codes and Standards requested that DOE clarify which of 
these types of features would be ``covered'' or ``uncovered'' under the 
current and forthcoming CRE regulations (California Codes and 
Standards, No. 13 at pp. 15-16) and requested clarification on the 
ability of State or local building standards to specify additional 
prescriptive requirements for equipment based on building occupancy. 
(California Codes and Standards, No. 19 at p. 75)
    Federal minimum efficiency standards for commercial refrigeration 
equipment supersede State or local efficiency standards (42 U.S.C. 
6297, 6316(e)(2)), unless such standards are contained in a State or 
local building code for new construction that meets the requirements of 
42 U.S.C. 6297(f)(3), including the requirement that one pathway for 
compliance under the State building code is through the use of 
appliances that meet Federal standards.
4. Burden of Testing
    DOE understands that amending test procedures or including 
additional

[[Page 10310]]

provisions in those test procedures could increase the burden on 
manufacturers to quantify the performance of their equipment. EPCA 
requires that the test procedures promulgated by DOE be reasonably 
designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy 
use, and estimated operating costs of the covered equipment during a 
representative average use cycle. EPCA also requires that the test 
procedure not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
    DOE has analyzed the expected incremental cost of the test 
procedure amendments adopted in this final rule and its impact on 
manufacturers. The amendments to the DOE test procedure for commercial 
refrigeration equipment consist of updating the referenced industry 
test procedures to the most current versions; testing requirements for 
units sold with night curtains and lighting occupancy sensors or 
controls installed; and provisions for testing units at temperatures 
other than the specified rating temperatures of 38 [deg]F, 0 [deg]F, 
and -15 [deg]F.
    All commercial refrigeration equipment for which standards were set 
in EPACT 2005 are currently required to be tested using the DOE test 
procedure to show compliance with the EPACT 2005 standards. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(c)(2)-(3); 10 CFR 431.66(b)) Manufacturers of equipment for which 
standards were set in the January 2009 final rule are similarly 
required to test units using the DOE test procedure to show compliance 
with the 2009 standards levels as of January 1, 2012. 74 FR 1093 (Jan. 
9, 2009); 10 CFR 431.66(d)). The current DOE test procedure references 
AHRI Standard 1200-2006 and AHAM HRF-1-2004. This test procedure 
consists of one 24-hour test at standard rating conditions to determine 
daily energy consumption.
    The updated versions of AHRI Standard 1200-2010 and AHAM HRF-1-2008 
do not vary substantially from the previously referenced versions. 
Aligning the DOE test procedure with the most recent industry test 
procedures currently in use--AHRI standard 1200-2010 and AHAM HRF-1-
2008--simplifies testing requirements and reduces the burden of testing 
for both small and large manufacturers.
    For equipment that is sold with night curtains installed, the 
current test procedure requires one 24-hour test that does not account 
for the energy savings associated with night curtain deployment. The 
amended test procedure adopted in this final rule incorporates 
provisions to account for the energy savings associated with night 
curtain deployment. The night curtain test procedure requires the night 
curtain to be pulled down for 6 hours during the test. DOE believes the 
incremental burden of pulling down the night curtain at a certain time 
and retracting it 6 hours later requires less than half a minute each 
and is not significant relative to the burden of conducting the test. 
Thus, DOE has determined that the testing costs for CRE models with 
added night curtains are approximately the same as those for models 
without night curtains and concludes there are no significant 
incremental costs associated with testing models with night curtains.
    For units sold with lighting occupancy sensors and scheduled 
controls installed, no additional testing or measurements will be 
required. Manufacturers will be permitted to use a calculation method 
to determine the energy savings due to lighting occupancy sensors and 
scheduled controls. DOE believes that these additional calculations 
will only require approximately 30 minutes of additional time. These 
calculations are straightforward and similar to the calculations for 
alternate component energy consumption, which are part of the existing 
test procedure. When compared to the burden associated with the 
physical testing segment of the procedure, the additional calculations 
required by the lighting occupancy sensor and scheduled control 
requirements will not significantly increase the total burden of the 
test. Thus, DOE believes that the additional calculations for lighting 
occupancy sensors and controls will not significantly increase the 
burden of test for manufacturers of covered equipment. Also, DOE notes 
that manufacturers may optionally incorporate the testing of lighting 
occupancy sensors and controls into the physical test. In this case, 
manufacturers would be required to turn off and turn on the lights once 
each during the 24-hour test. DOE believes these additional steps would 
involve negligible effort in comparison to the burden associated with 
conducting the complete test and, thus, the incremental increase in 
burden would be negligible.
    For equipment that cannot be tested at the specified integrated 
average rating temperature for its respective equipment class, 
manufacturers are currently required to test the unit using AHRI 
Standard 1200 at the specified test temperature. Under the adopted 
revisions, these manufacturers will be allowed to test units that 
cannot meet the specified test temperature for their equipment class at 
the lowest application product temperature, with the only difference 
being the integrated average temperature. Because the same test will be 
performed for cases that cannot be tested at the prescribed rating 
temperature and must be tested at lowest application product 
temperature, as compared to cases that are tested at DOE's prescribed 
rating temperature, DOE believes that this method will not increase the 
burden of test for those manufacturers and is likely to lead to more 
representative energy consumption values. DOE notes that the AHRI 
Standard 1200-2010 test is often already performed by manufacturers for 
participation in voluntary programs, independent collection of energy 
consumption information, or other reasons.
    In this test procedure final rule, DOE is also allowing 
manufacturers to test at the internal temperatures and/or ambient 
conditions required for NSF-7 testing. This could dramatically reduce 
the burden for manufacturers that produce equipment for food storage, 
as under the amended test procedure these two 24-hour tests can be 
combined. The NSF-7 test is similar in length and burden to the DOE 
test, but is performed at slightly different internal and external 
temperatures. Certification of equipment tested at NSF-7 test 
temperatures for the purposes of compliance with DOE energy 
conservation standards will only be possible for equipment that is able 
to meet the DOE energy conservation standard at the more stringent NSF-
7 test conditions. However, DOE believes this provision can still 
potentially decrease the burden of test for some manufacturers.
    The amendments to the test procedure for commercial refrigeration 
equipment were chosen to help minimize the impact of additional testing 
while updating the DOE test procedure to include the most current 
versions of industry standards, capture new energy efficiency 
technologies, and provide more accurate test methods for equipment that 
cannot be tested at the currently prescribed integrated average rating 
temperature. Because none of these amendments significantly increase 
the burden of a test, DOE believes that the test procedure finalized 
here will not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
    For further discussion of the economic impact of additional testing 
on small CRE manufacturers, the entities that will be the most impacted 
by additional testing requirements, please see section IV.B of this 
final rule.

[[Page 10311]]

a. Determination of Basic Models in the Context of Night Curtain and 
Lighting Occupancy Sensor and Scheduled Control Test Provisions
    In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed that if a unit is tested 
and demonstrates compliance with the relevant energy conservation 
standard without night curtains or lighting occupancy sensors 
installed, that unit can also be sold with night curtains or lighting 
occupancy sensors installed without additional testing. DOE proposed 
this same provision for lighting occupancy sensors and controls in 
order to minimize the testing burden on manufacturers and because DOE 
believed that the addition of night curtains and lighting occupancy 
sensors and controls would only decrease energy consumption. If, 
however, a piece of equipment does not meet DOE's energy conservation 
standards without night curtains (or lighting controls) installed, DOE 
proposed to require the unit to be tested with night curtains (or 
lighting controls) installed. In this instance, assuming the energy 
conservation standard is met, the equipment would also be required to 
be sold with night curtains (or lighting controls) installed. 75 FR 
71600 (Nov. 24, 2010). However, if a manufacturer wishes to publicize 
the certified ratings of a unit with night curtains (or lighting 
controls) installed, that energy consumption value must be determined 
using the DOE test procedure and applicable sampling plans. (42 U.S.C. 
6314(d)) In addition, the energy consumption of this basic model must 
be certified. 76 FR 12422, 12453 (March 7, 2011).
    Coca-Cola commented that a manufacturer could sell a case with a 
lighting controller installed without testing the case to prove the 
energy savings as long as it made no claims regarding energy savings. 
Coca-Cola further commented that performing the additional tests could 
be burdensome for the manufacturer and should remain optional. (Coca-
Cola, No. 19 at p. 243) However, California Codes and Standards 
commented that the additional burden to calculate, or test, with and 
without occupancy sensors seemed minimal and that perhaps it should be 
required. (California Codes and Standards, No. 19 at p. 250) NRDC 
encouraged DOE to require manufacturers of open cases with night 
curtains to test them with the curtains deployed for 6 hours as 
proposed, and to require labeling of equipment accordingly to explain 
the relevant efficiency features to potential buyers. (NRDC, No. 14 at 
p. 2) Similarly, NEEA disagreed with DOE's proposal to allow night 
curtains to be used to establish compliance in units that are 
noncompliant without night curtains. (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 4)
    Coca-Cola agreed with DOE's proposal to allow manufacturers the 
option of testing with night curtains. (Coca-Cola, No. 19 at p. 243) 
This provision would require that cases be tested with night curtains 
if (1) the case without night curtains does not meet the energy 
conservation standard; or (2) the manufacturer wishes to publicize the 
energy consumption of the case with night curtains installed. In 
response to California Codes and Standards and NRDC's comments 
regarding the requirement of units sold with night curtains to be 
tested with night curtains, DOE has adopted the provision to allow 
cases that meet DOE's energy conservation standard without night 
curtains to be sold with and without night curtains to minimize burden 
on manufacturers.
    Furthermore, implementation of night curtains will only improve 
energy efficiency of the equipment. This is consistent with the 
provisions for grouping into basic model families established in the 
certification, compliance, and enforcement (CCE) final rule. (CCE final 
rule; 76 FR 12422, 12423 (March 7, 2011)). These provisions allow 
manufacturers to group individual models with essentially identical, 
but not exactly the same, energy performance characteristics into a 
basic model to reduce testing burden. Under DOE's certification 
requirements, all the individual models within a basic model identified 
in a certification report as being the same basic model must have the 
same certified efficiency rating and use the same test data underlying 
the certified rating. The CCE final rule also establishes that the 
efficiency rating of a basic model must be based on the least efficient 
or most energy consuming individual model, or, put another way, all 
individual models within a basic model must be at least as good as the 
certified rating. 76 FR 12428-29 (March 7, 2011). Because night 
curtains would only serve to decrease energy consumption or increase 
energy efficiency of commercial refrigeration equipment, DOE believes 
the provisions for optionally testing cases with night curtains if the 
case without night curtains meets the energy conservation standard for 
its equipment class ensures that all equipment sold meets DOE's energy 
conservation standards and minimizes burden on manufacturers. This same 
argument applies to the testing provisions for cases with lighting 
occupancy sensor and/or scheduled lighting controls installed. DOE 
notes that manufacturers are free to test a case both with and without 
night curtains (or lighting occupancy sensors and/or lighting controls) 
to establish separate efficiency ratings and must do so if they wish to 
make representations of both values.
    Regarding NEEA's comment criticizing the fact that testing of cases 
with night curtains could be used to certify otherwise noncompliant 
equipment, DOE sets performance standards, but cannot control or 
restrict what design options or technologies a manufacturer chooses to 
employ to meet a certain standard level. Thus, like any other design 
option, manufacturers may employ night curtains as a means to increase 
efficiency of a case to meet DOE's energy conservation standards.
b. Estimates of Burden
    In the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), presented in 
the November 2010 NOPR, DOE quantified the incremental burden on small 
manufacturers and certified that this rulemaking, as proposed, would 
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. 75 FR 71596, 71606-08 (Nov. 24, 2010). In the IRFA, DOE 
presented several estimates of the cost of testing and the number of 
small U.S. commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers. DOE 
estimated testing costs to be approximately $5,000 per unit to conduct 
the baseline test, as outlined in AHRI 1200-2010. 75 FR 71607 (Nov. 24, 
2010). In response to these estimates, Southern Store Fixtures, 
Traulsen, and Hussmann all commented that the cost of testing is 
actually much greater than $5,000. (Southern Store Fixtures, No. 19 at 
p. 237; Traulsen, No. 19 at p. 238; Hussmann, No. 19 at p. 238) 
Traulsen stated that an estimate for total cost of testing a unit, 
including shipping, product costs, etc., would be $15,000. (Traulsen, 
No. 9 at p. 8) NEEA agreed with other interested parties that stated 
that DOE's estimate of $5,000 for testing a unit was likely too low. 
However, NEEA also stated that, based on its own experience, the cost 
of additional testing of a model is not nearly double the cost of the 
first test, since the unit is only shipped and set up once. Thus, 
according to NEEA, additional tests would only slightly add to the 
burden of testing. (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 7) NEEA stated that it did not 
believe DOE's proposal to be overly burdensome, as in every instance 
only one 24-hour test should be required for a given piece of 
equipment. (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 7)
    Traulsen stated that it believes DOE's estimate of 22 small 
businesses in the

[[Page 10312]]

CRE manufacturing sector to be too low, and that it believes most or 
even all CRE manufacturers employ fewer than 750 employees if 
subsidiaries of larger companies are considered as independent business 
units. Traulsen submitted a list of 39 brands or manufacturers of 
commercial refrigeration equipment. (Traulsen, No. 9 at pp. 4-5)
    Southern Store Fixtures commented that the proposed test procedure 
would impact its operation. (Southern Store Fixtures, No. 19 at p. 253) 
Traulsen stated that equipment sampling provisions and the increasing 
scope of standards are causing testing costs to increase significantly 
and, according to Traulsen, the company's marginal costs incurred as a 
result will be approximately $250,000 per year. (Traulsen, No. 9 at pp. 
1-2) Zero Zone commented that applying additional tests is only easy if 
it is known that these tests must be performed when the unit is 
originally tested. Re-testing of units is much more burdensome than 
adding additional tests to a unit being tested, as re-testing requires 
that the test setup be re-installed and calibrated. Zero Zone also 
commented that, while the test procedure changes will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, the 
addition of DOE regulations to existing regulations will create a 
barrier to entry into the market for small start-up companies. (Zero 
Zone, No. 16 at pp. 1-2)
    DOE has attempted to minimize the burden on manufacturers by 
keeping all test procedure amendments confined to the existing single 
24-hour test. Thus, the test procedure amendments should not 
significantly increase the burden of testing a piece of equipment 
covered under the rule.
    DOE appreciates the information related to cost of testing and the 
number of small businesses covered by this rule. DOE has considered 
these new numbers in revising the regulatory flexibility analysis. 
However, DOE notes that the costs cited by manufacturers represent the 
cost to conduct the AHRI 1200 test, which is required by both the 
existing test procedure and the new amended test procedure. Thus, the 
$15,000 test burden is not an incremental cost associated with this 
test procedure final rule. The incremental cost to test a piece of 
commercial refrigeration equipment covered under this rulemaking will 
not increase significantly because the amendments in this final rule do 
not significantly impact the time, labor, or materials required to 
conduct a test. Because the testing burden will not increase 
significantly as a result of this rule, DOE believes the incremental 
impact on small businesses will be small. DOE's revised final 
regulatory flexibility analysis can be found in section IV.
c. Coordination with ENERGY STAR
    Traulsen expressed concern that increased requirements for third-
party testing and compliance with DOE and U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) programs are escalating the burden on manufacturers. 
(Traulsen, No. 9 at pp. 1-2) Traulsen also commented that the most 
significant improvement DOE could make in terms of reducing burden for 
manufacturers would be to align DOE and ENERGY STAR testing and 
reporting requirements. (Traulsen, No. 5 at p. 254) Traulsen and True 
commented that ENERGY STAR is currently requiring equipment to be 
tested ``out of the box,'' including testing at the product temperature 
at which the unit is shipped. (Traulsen, No. 19 at p. 195; True, No. 19 
at p. 198) Traulsen explained how this requirement has created issues 
because it ships its cases at an internal temperature set point of 
34[emsp14][deg]F for marketing reasons, which may create problems when 
the cases are tested at that temperature. Traulsen asked if DOE was 
also going to be requiring the testing of cases ``out of the box'' 
without adjusting the integrated average temperature set point. 
(Traulsen, No. 19 at p. 195) NEEA commented it had been involved with 
ENERGY STAR since its inception and that it is not possible to test 
units out of the box, and that ``out of the box'' simply means that the 
unit is not specially fabricated or adjusted. (NEEA, No. 19 at p. 198) 
Traulsen stated that DOE must ensure that the test procedure allows for 
adjustment of the equipment to the test set points, as ``out of the 
box'' set points may not be 38[emsp14][deg]F. Traulsen further stated 
that this would differ from EPA testing, where units must be tested as 
is, out of the box. (Traulsen, No. 9 at p. 7)
    DOE attempts, to the extent possible, to minimize duplicative 
reporting or testing requirements. Further, this final rule does not 
require ``out of the box'' testing as interpreted by Traulsen. All 
equipment tested for the purposes of compliance with DOE energy 
conservation standards must be tested using the DOE test procedure. DOE 
is working with EPA to ensure that the test procedures for commercial 
refrigeration equipment for the regulatory program and the ENERGY STAR 
program are the same.
5. Association With Compliance, Certification, and Enforcement 
Regulations
    Interested parties inquired as to how the provision allowing 
equipment that complies with the energy conservation standard to be 
sold with and without night curtains (or lighting controls) without 
being retested relates to the concurrent CCE rulemaking. 76 FR 12422 
(March 7, 2011). AHRI commented that there was a disconnect between 
what is being proposed in the CCE rulemaking and the provisions for 
testing night curtains and lighting control devices in the November 
2010 NOPR. (AHRI, No. 19 at p. 254) AHRI also commented that because of 
issues related to compliance and claiming energy savings from night 
curtains without testing, manufacturers were going to be required to 
test cases twice. (AHRI, No. 19 at p. 216) NEEA added that utility 
programs and ENERGY STAR will require certified values for inclusion in 
their programs. (NEEA, No. 19 at p. 162) Coca-Cola inquired whether a 
unit that had been tested without night curtains had to be certified 
with night curtains under the current CCE requirements. (Coca-Cola, No. 
19 at p. 161) Heatcraft inquired whether the provision for selling 
commercial refrigeration equipment with and without night curtains if 
the unit met DOE's energy conservation standards without night curtains 
installed could apply to other components, such as a unit that was sold 
with a permanent split capacitor or evaporative condensed screw 
condenser fan. (Heatcraft, No. 19 at p. 155)
    In response to AHRI's comment that the proposal for testing and 
certifying units with night curtains may conflict with the CCE 
rulemaking (76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011)), DOE notes that testing of 
equipment with or without night curtains is not required because there 
are currently no Federal prescriptive standards that include night 
curtains and no test procedure to quantify their effect on equipment 
energy consumption. DOE believes that the test procedure established in 
this final rule for units equipped with night curtains and/or lighting 
occupancy sensors and scheduled lighting controls does not conflict 
with the CCE requirements that DOE published in the CCE final rule. 76 
FR 12423 (March 7, 2011). Specifically, as mentioned above, 
implementation of night curtains (or lighting occupancy sensors and/or 
controls) will only reduce the reported energy consumption of the 
equipment and is consistent with the basic model provisions, 
established

[[Page 10313]]

in the CCE final rule. 76 FR 12428-29 (March 7, 2011).
    Thus, in this final rule DOE is adopting provisions that allow 
units equipped with night curtains and/or lighting occupancy sensors 
and controls to be tested. As described in the CCE final rule, DOE 
allows CRE manufacturers to group individual models into basic models 
for the purposes of testing and certification. 76 FR 12428-29 (March 7, 
2011). A manufacturer may group individual models with and without 
night curtains into one basic model provided that the certified ratings 
of all individual models in the group are identical and representative 
of the least efficient individual model within the basic model (i.e., 
the most consumptive model without night curtains). Today's final rule 
also provides that if manufacturers wish to make representations 
regarding reduced energy consumption associated with any feature, such 
as night curtains, manufacturers must use multiple basic models to 
distinguish between those with and without night curtains and the 
certified ratings of energy consumption must be developed either 
through testing or calculations as permitted by this final rule.
    Regarding Heatcraft's comment, manufacturers have some discretion 
regarding how to rate units with permanent split capacitor or 
evaporative condensed screw condenser fans. Manufacturers may group 
individual models, with different condenser fans or other features, 
into a single basic model to show compliance with DOE's energy 
conservation standards, provided all models identified in a 
certification report as being the same basic model must have the same 
certified efficiency rating, which is based on the least efficient 
model. 76 FR 12428-29 (March 7, 2011).
a. Test Tolerances
    In comments received during the November 2010 NOPR public comment 
period, Traulsen stated that the proposal presented by DOE does not 
address tolerances, but that many components have tolerances of 10 to 
15 percent, and that test laboratories recognize variations of 5 to 10 
percent. Traulsen suggested a 20 percent tolerance on standards 
testing. (Traulsen, No. 9 at pp. 7-8) DOE's current test tolerances for 
commercial refrigeration equipment were established in the CCE final 
rule and are based on a specified sampling plan and statistical 
variances approximated with a Student's t-distribution. 76 FR 12430 
(March 7, 2011). Amendment of these tolerances, sampling plans, or 
other items related specifically to CCE activities for commercial 
refrigeration equipment are not addressed in this test procedure final 
rule.
6. Alternative Refrigerants
    At the January 2011 NOPR public meeting, DOE received several 
comments regarding alternative refrigerants. AHRI stated that there is 
proposed legislation (unspecified) that would require the phase down of 
hydrofluorocarbons, which would require the use of alternative 
refrigerants in commercial refrigeration equipment, and suggested that 
DOE assess the performance of different refrigerants. (AHRI, No. 19 at 
p. 22) California Codes and Standards commented that DOE should address 
the burden of testing the same piece of equipment when different 
refrigerants are used. (California Codes and Standards, No. 19 at pp. 
16-17)
    True commented that if the refrigerant in a case changes, the 
evaporator coil, the expansion valve, and several other components 
would also have to change, which would effectively change the entire 
system. (True, No. 19 at pp. 19-20) Coca-Cola also commented that 
different refrigerants are not used in the same case. Coca-Cola further 
stated that different refrigerants work better at different 
temperatures, which is one reason the cabinets are treated separately. 
(Coca-Cola, No. 19 at pp. 20-21)
    DOE agrees with Traulsen and Coca-Cola that if a different 
refrigerant were used in a case, it would require a new case design. 
Thus, cases with different refrigerants should be treated as different 
basic models and will require separate tests regardless. The DOE test 
procedure finalized here is capable of testing units using any primary 
refrigerant that enters and leaves the case as a single phase. However, 
each unit employing a different refrigerant would be treated as an 
individual basic model because of the different design considerations 
and performance characteristics. DOE acknowledges AHRI's comment 
suggesting that there may be proposed legislation which would influence 
the availability of hydroflourocarbon refrigerants; however this 
legislation is not in place and DOE does not wish to speculate on the 
specific requirements or impacts of any such legislation.
7. Secondary Coolant Systems
    In the January 2009 final rule, DOE determined secondary coolant 
systems to be outside the scope of that rulemaking because secondary 
coolant systems constitute a small market share and there is no 
industry test procedure that covers all secondary coolant systems in 
the market. 74 FR 1105 (Jan. 9, 2009). Neither of these factors has 
changed significantly since the January 2009 final rule and, thus, DOE 
will continue to exclude secondary coolant systems from this test 
procedure and the concurrent energy conservation standards rulemaking 
(Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003).
    Nevertheless, several interested parties commented regarding 
secondary coolant systems at both the January 2011 NOPR public meeting 
and the April 2011 Preliminary Analysis public meeting. At the January 
2011 NOPR public meeting, AHRI stated that secondary coolant systems 
are excluded from AHRI 1200, but that AHRI is in the process of 
developing a relevant standard that would be issued soon. (AHRI, No. 19 
at p. 58) True commented that secondary coolant systems are very 
difficult to test and are not covered by ASHRAE Standard 72. True added 
that the ASHRAE Standard 72 committee is reviewing test methods for 
secondary coolant systems, but currently there is no definitive, 
repeatable test method. (True, No. 19 at pp. 17-18) True stated that 
the ASHRAE Standard 72 committee is also working to incorporate test 
methods for secondary coolant equipment, but so far has found the 
variability of results in the currently available test methods quite 
large. True added that a revised standard would probably not be ready 
for inclusion in the DOE test procedure. (True, No. 19 at pp. 58-59) 
Traulsen agreed that it does not believe that secondary coolant systems 
can be effectively tested and rated. (Traulsen, No. 9 at p. 6) 
California Codes and Standards agreed with DOE's proposed exclusion of 
secondary coolant systems from the test procedure because it believed 
that coverage of them by DOE at this time could result in a hastily 
developed regulation, which would also pre-empt States from regulating 
such systems themselves. In addition, California Codes and Standards 
stated that because there is no test method in place and thus no data, 
more data must be collected prior to developing any standard levels for 
this equipment. (California Codes and Standards, No. 13 at p. 4) NEEA 
agreed with DOE's plan to exclude secondary coolant equipment from this 
round of rulemaking, citing the fact that there is currently no 
industry test procedure for this equipment. Instead, NEEA encouraged 
DOE to plan to address this equipment in the next rulemaking, 
potentially by including a ``reserved''

[[Page 10314]]

section in this notice. (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 2)
    ACEEE expressed concern about the lack of coverage of secondary 
coolant systems, stating that hydrochlorfluorocarbon phase-downs and 
other factors are increasing the attention paid to these sorts of 
systems. Not regulating these systems, in the opinion of ACEEE, will 
prevent customers from being able to fairly compare them with existing 
systems. However, ACEEE conceded that it is not clear how to make 
accommodations in the test procedure to cover such equipment. At a 
minimum, ACEEE agreed with NEEA that placeholders for the systems 
should be inserted into the rule. (ACEEE, No. 12 at p. 3) True 
similarly expressed that secondary loop systems, often with carbon 
dioxide (CO2), are becoming more common, which offers an 
environmental emissions improvement but can result in decreased energy 
efficiency. (True, No. 19 at pp. 17-18)
    California Codes and Standards stated that the State of California 
is considering incorporating secondary loop CO2 systems as 
part of its building standards, and will be addressing both energy 
efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions. (California Codes and 
Standards, No. 19 at pp. 18-19) ACEEE stated that manufacturers would 
likely prefer that secondary coolant systems be covered by a DOE rule, 
as excluding them would allow States to publish their own standards. 
(ACEEE, No. 12 at p. 3)
    At the April 2011 Preliminary Analysis public meeting, interested 
parties also commented regarding the lack of an industry-accepted test 
procedure for secondary coolant systems. True stated that existing test 
methods for secondary coolant systems work only for systems for which 
there is not a phase change and test methods for transcritical or 
slurry systems have yet to be developed or verified. (Docket No. EERE-
2010-BT-STD-0003, True, No. 31 at p. 162-63) Southern Store Fixtures 
stated that AHRI has recently developed a test procedure for secondary 
coolant systems, but that it is only applicable to fully liquid systems 
and does not accommodate two-phase flow. (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-
0003, Southern Store Fixtures, No. 31 at p. 165) AHRI added that its 
work with secondary coolant applications is linked to ASHRAE's work, 
and that it too would have to wait for ASHRAE to produce a method of 
test (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003, AHRI, No. 31 at pp. 165-66) 
Traulsen agreed with DOE that secondary coolant technologies have not 
matured to the point where regulatory oversight would be required or 
beneficial. (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003, Traulsen, No. 31 at p. 
5)
    DOE previously excluded secondary coolant systems in the January 
2009 final rule, in part, because there were no established test 
procedures to evaluate their energy consumption. As AHRI mentioned, 
secondary coolant systems are still excluded from AHRI 1200-2010. In 
December 2011, AHRI published AHRI Standard 1320 (I-P)-2011, 
``Performance Rating of Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers 
and Storage Cabinets for Use with Secondary Refrigerants.'' However, as 
interested parties noted, this new standard specifies a reference 
working fluid and is applicable only to the portion of secondary 
coolant systems that use secondary coolants with similar 
characteristics. Specifically, this standard will not be applicable to 
transcritical CO2, brine, or ammonia secondary coolant 
systems. The ASHRAE Standard 72 committee is also considering a method 
of testing to evaluate secondary coolant systems, including 
transcritical CO2 systems; however, this standard was not 
available in time for this rulemaking.
    DOE agrees with many of the interested parties that testing 
secondary coolant systems accurately will be difficult and an accepted 
and vetted method to do so does not yet exist. Given this uncertainty 
and the small market share of this equipment, DOE believes it best to 
continue to exclude secondary coolant systems from the DOE test 
procedure; however, DOE will continue to consult with ASHRAE and AHRI 
regarding the development of a future test procedure for secondary 
coolant systems. In the next DOE test procedure revision, DOE will 
reassess the status and accuracy of industry test procedures for 
secondary coolant systems and, if available, could include the test 
procedures in the DOE test procedure at that time. Since it is not 
clear when a reliable and vetted test procedure for transcritical 
secondary coolant systems will be available, DOE does not wish to 
reserve a section in this test procedure final rule.

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 OMB.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an IRFA whenever an agency is required to publish a 
general notice of proposed rulemaking. When an agency promulgates a 
final rule after being required to publish a general notice of proposed 
rulemaking, the agency must prepare a final regulatory flexibility 
analysis (FRFA). The requirement to prepare these analyses does not 
apply to any proposed or final rule if the agency certifies that the 
rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. If the agency makes such a 
certification, the agency must publish the certification in the Federal 
Register along with the factual basis for such certification.
    As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of 
Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE 
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, so that the 
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990 (Feb. 12, 2003). 
DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the 
General Counsel's Web site at www.gc.doe.gov.
    In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE reviewed the proposed rule to amend 
the test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment, under the 
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and 
policies published on February 19, 2003. DOE certified that the 
proposed rule, if adopted, would not result in a significant impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. DOE received comments on its 
certification and the economic impacts of the test procedure, and has 
responded to these comments in section III.B.4. After consideration of 
these comments, DOE certifies that the test procedure amendments set 
forth in this final rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this 
certification is set forth below.
    For the CRE manufacturing industry, the Small Business 
Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines those 
entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the purpose of the 
statute. DOE used the SBA's size standards to determine whether any 
small entities would be required to

[[Page 10315]]

comply with the rule. The size standards are codified at 13 CFR part 
121. The standards are listed by North American Industry Classification 
System (NAICS) code and industry description and are available at 
www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. CRE 
manufacturers are classified under NAICS 333415, ``Air-Conditioning and 
Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration 
Equipment Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 750 employees or 
less for an entity to be considered as a small business for this 
category.
    DOE conducted a focused inquiry into small business manufacturers 
of equipment covered by this rulemaking. During its market survey, DOE 
used all available public information to identify potential small 
manufacturers. DOE's research involved the review of industry trade 
association membership directories (including AHRI), equipment 
databases (e.g., Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Thomas Register, 
California Energy Commission (CEC), and ENERGY STAR databases), 
individual company Web sites, and marketing research tools (e.g., Dunn 
and Bradstreet reports, Manta) to create a list of companies that 
manufacture or sell commercial refrigeration equipment covered by this 
rulemaking. DOE also referred to a list of small businesses that 
manufacture commercial refrigeration equipment, supplied by Traulsen in 
a written comment. (Traulsen, No. 9 at pp. 4-5) Using these sources, 
DOE identified 61 manufacturers of commercial refrigeration equipment.
    DOE then reviewed this data to determine whether the entities met 
the SBA's definition of a small business manufacturer of commercial 
refrigeration equipment and screened out companies that do not offer 
equipment covered by this rulemaking, do not meet the definition of a 
``small business,'' or are foreign owned and operated. Based on this 
review, DOE has identified 26 companies that would be considered small 
manufacturers. DOE had originally identified 22 manufacturers of 
commercial refrigeration equipment. 75 FR 71596, 71606-07 (Nov. 24, 
2010). DOE referred to the list supplied by Traulsen to revise its 
estimate of the number of small entities considered in this rule. 
(Traulsen, No. 9 at pp. 4-5)
    Table IV.1 stratifies the small businesses according to their 
number of employees. The smallest company has 6 employees and the 
largest company has 400 employees. The majority of the small businesses 
affected by this rulemaking (85 percent) have fewer than 200 employees. 
Annual revenues associated with these small manufacturers were 
estimated at $569.3 million ($21.9 million average annual sales per 
small manufacturer). According to DOE's analysis, small entities 
comprise 43 percent of the entire commercial refrigeration equipment 
manufacturing industry.

                             Table IV.1--Small Business Size by Number of Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of     Percentage of
                       Number of employees                             small           small        Cumulative
                                                                    businesses      businesses      percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-10............................................................               4            15.4            15.4
11-20...........................................................               3            11.5            26.9
21-30...........................................................               2             7.7            34.6
31-40...........................................................               1             3.8            38.5
41-50...........................................................               2             7.7            46.2
51-60...........................................................               1             3.8            50.0
61-70...........................................................               1             3.8            53.8
71-80...........................................................               2             7.7            61.5
81-90...........................................................               0             0.0            61.5
91-100..........................................................               1             3.8            65.4
101-110.........................................................               1             3.8            69.2
111-120.........................................................               0             0.0            69.2
121-130.........................................................               2             7.7            76.9
131-140.........................................................               0             0.0            76.9
141-150.........................................................               0             0.0            76.9
151-200.........................................................               2             7.7            84.6
201-300.........................................................               3            11.5            96.2
301-400.........................................................               1             3.8           100.0
401-750.........................................................               0             0.0           100.0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................              26  ..............  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All commercial refrigeration equipment for which standards were set 
in EPACT 2005 are currently required to be tested using the DOE test 
procedure to show compliance with the EPACT 2005 standard levels. 
Manufacturers of equipment for which standards were set in the January 
2009 final rule will similarly be required to test units using the DOE 
test procedure to show compliance with the 2009 standards levels 
beginning January 1, 2012. The current DOE test procedure references 
AHRI Standard 1200-2006 and AHAM HRF-1-2004. This test procedure 
consists of one 24-hour test at standard rating conditions to determine 
daily energy consumption.
    In the November 2010 NOPR, DOE estimated the cost of conducting the 
DOE test procedure as $5,000 per 24-hour test. 75 FR 71607 (Nov. 24, 
2010). DOE received comments from interested parties presenting cost 
estimates of $15,000 per test. (Southern Store Fixtures, No. 19 at p. 
237; Hussmann, No. 19 at p. 238; Traulsen, No. 9 at p. 8; NEEA, No. 8 
at p. 7) DOE revised its analysis using a cost of $15,000 per 24-hour 
test, as suggested by interested parties. DOE notes that $15,000 
represents the cost of conducting the current DOE test procedure, not 
the incremental cost associated with the amendments in this final rule.
    In this final rule, DOE is adopting amendments that align the DOE 
test procedure with the most recent industry test procedures currently 
in use (AHRI Standard 1200-2010 and AHAM HRF-1-2008); incorporate 
provisions for testing certain energy efficiency features, including 
night curtains and lighting occupancy sensor and

[[Page 10316]]

scheduled controls; and provide a test procedure for specialty 
equipment that cannot be tested at the prescribed rating temperature. 
The updated standards referenced in this test procedure final rule, 
namely AHRI Standard 1200-2010 and AHAM HRF-1-2008, are not 
substantially different from those referenced in the current DOE test 
procedure. DOE estimates that the amended test procedure will still 
require 24 hours to conduct and cost approximately $15,000 per test.
    For cases with night curtains installed, manufacturers can now take 
advantage of the reduced energy consumption associated with night 
curtains in the DOE test procedure. The night curtain provisions in the 
test procedure require the night curtain to be pulled down for 6 hours 
during the test. DOE believes the incremental burden of pulling down 
the night curtain at a certain time and retracting it 6 hours later 
requires less than half a minute each and is not significant relative 
to the burden of conducting the test. Although there is a small labor 
requirement associated with pulling down night curtains, DOE believes 
this is not an incremental burden because conducting the test already 
requires personnel to be present to check temperature probes and 
monitor the status of the test. Thus, DOE has determined that the 
testing costs for CRE models with added night curtains are 
approximately the same as those for models without night curtains and 
therefore concludes there are no significant incremental costs 
associated with testing models with night curtains.
    The amendments in this final rule allowing calculations to quantify 
the energy savings associated with lighting occupancy sensors and 
controls will not lead to significant additional testing burden. DOE 
estimates the minimal costs associated with conducting the necessary 
calculations as $26.67 per test. DOE bases its estimate on the 
assumption that it would take an engineer 30 minutes to perform the 
calculation. The average hourly salary for an engineer completing this 
task is estimated at $38.74.\25\ Fringe benefits are estimated at 30 
percent of total compensation, which brings the hourly costs to 
employers to $55.34.\26\ As this incremental cost represents 0.4 
percent of the total testing cost for a unit, DOE believes this 
increase is not significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009. 
National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. Washington, DC.
    \26\ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010. 
Employer Costs for Employee Compensation--Management, Professional, 
and Related Employees. Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For equipment that cannot be tested at the prescribed integrated 
average product temperature, manufacturers currently are required to 
test the unit using AHRI Standard 1200 at the integrated average 
temperature associated with their respective equipment class. Under the 
revisions adopted in this final rule, these manufacturers will be 
allowed to test units that cannot meet the prescribed rating 
temperature at the lowest application product temperature, with the 
only difference being the integrated average product temperature. Since 
the same test is performed in both cases, DOE believes that this 
amendment to the test procedure will not increase the burden of test 
for those manufacturers. In addition, the provision for testing units 
that cannot operate at the specified integrated average product 
temperature will affect only a small percentage of units. DOE believes 
there would not be an incremental increase in testing burden, for small 
or large manufacturers, due to this provision.
    DOE also notes that, if a unit is tested and shows compliance with 
the relevant energy conservation standard without night curtains or 
lighting occupancy sensors and scheduled controls installed, that unit 
can also be sold with these efficiency features installed without 
additional testing. DOE believes this provision will reduce burden on 
manufacturers.
    Because there is not a significant incremental burden associated 
with any of the individual amendments adopted in this final rule, DOE 
concludes that there is not a significant incremental burden associated 
with the test procedure amendments in this final rule. In fact, the 
burden of conducting the amended test procedure is almost identical to 
the burden of conducting the existing DOE test procedure. Since there 
is no incremental burden associated with the amended test procedure, 
DOE has determined that this test procedure final rule does not impose 
negative economic impacts on manufacturers, including small entities. 
Thus, DOE continues to certify that this rule will not have a 
``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities,'' and the preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis is 
not warranted. DOE has transmitted the certification and supporting 
statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of commercial refrigeration equipment must certify to 
DOE that their equipment complies with any applicable energy 
conservation standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must 
test their equipment according to the DOE test procedure for commercial 
refrigeration equipment, including any amendments adopted for the test 
procedure. DOE has established regulations for the certification and 
recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and 
commercial equipment, including commercial refrigeration equipment. 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

    In this final rule, DOE amends its test procedure for commercial 
refrigeration equipment. 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.

[[Page 10317]]

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 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 equipment that is 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 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 www.gc.doe.gov. 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. 
Today's 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 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) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive 
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the 
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy 
supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of 
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on 
energy supply, distribution, and use.
    Today's regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has 
it been designated as

[[Page 10318]]

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 NOPR 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 FTC concerning the impact of the 
commercial or industry standards on competition.
    The proposed rule incorporates testing methods contained in the 
following commercial standards: (1) AHAM HRF-1-2008, which supersedes 
ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004, ``Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating 
Appliances,'' including errata issued November 17, 2009, section 3.30, 
``Volume,'' and sections 4.1 through 4.3, ``Method for Computing 
Refrigerated Volume of Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, Wine 
Chillers and Freezers,'' in 10 CFR 431.64(b)(3) and 431.66(a)(1); and 
(2) AHRI Standard 1200-2010, which supersedes ARI Standard 1200-2006, 
``Performance Rating of Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers 
and Storage Cabinets,'' section 3, ``Definitions,'' section 4, ``Test 
Requirements,'' and section 7, ``Symbols and Subscripts,'' in 10 CFR 
431.64(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(4)(i), and (b)(4)(ii), and 431.66(a)(3), 
(d)(2) and (3). As stated in the November 2010 NOPR, DOE has evaluated 
these standards and is unable to conclude whether they fully comply 
with the requirements of section 323(b) of the Federal Energy 
Administration Act (i.e., determine that they were developed in a 
manner that fully provides for public participation, comment, and 
review). 75 FR 71596, 71609 (Nov. 24, 2010). 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.

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).

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

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

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation test procedures, Incorporation by 
reference.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 31, 2012.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends part 431 of 
Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND 
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Section 431.62 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the 
definitions of ``lighting occupancy sensor,'' ``lowest application 
product temperature,'' ``night curtain,'' and ``scheduled lighting 
control'' to read as follows:


Sec.  431.62  Definitions concerning commercial refrigerators, 
freezers, and refrigerator-freezers.

* * * * *
    Lighting occupancy sensor means a device which uses passive 
infrared, ultrasonic, or other motion-sensing technology to 
automatically turn off or dim lights within the equipment when no 
motion is detected in the sensor's coverage area for a certain preset 
period of time.
    Lowest application product temperature means the integrated average 
temperature closest to the specified rating temperature for a given 
piece of equipment achievable and repeatable, such that the integrated 
average temperature of a given unit is within 2 [deg]F of 
the average of all integrated average temperature values for that basic 
model.
    Night curtain means a device which is temporarily deployed to 
decrease air exchange and heat transfer between the refrigerated case 
and the surrounding environment.
* * * * *
    Scheduled lighting control means a device which automatically shuts 
off or dims the lighting in a display case at scheduled times 
throughout the day.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 431.63 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(2) and revising 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  431.63  Materials incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) AHAM HRF-1-2008 (``HRF-1-2008''), Association of Home Appliance 
Manufacturers, Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances 
(2008) including Errata to Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating 
Appliances, Correction Sheet issued November 17, 2009, IBR approved for 
Sec.  431.64.
    (c) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, 
2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, 
[email protected], or http://www.ahrinet.org/Content/StandardsProgram_20.aspx.
    (1) ARI Standard 1200-2006, Performance Rating of Commercial 
Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets, 2006, IBR 
approved for Sec. Sec.  431.64 and 431.66.
    (2) AHRI Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010 (``AHRI Standard 1200 (I-P)-
2010''), 2010 Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial 
Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets, 2010, IBR 
approved for Sec.  431.64.

0
4. Section 431.64 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  431.64  Uniform test method for the measurement of energy 
consumption of commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-
freezers.

* * * * *
    (b) Testing and calculations. Manufacturers shall use this 
paragraph (b) for the purposes of certifying compliance with the 
applicable energy conservation standards and for all representations of 
energy efficiency/energy use. For equipment manufactured prior to 
January 1, 2016, determine the daily energy consumption of each covered 
commercial refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-freezer by conducting 
the test procedure set forth in the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration 
Institute (ARI) Standard 1200-2006, ``Performance Rating of Commercial 
Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets,'' section 3, 
``Definitions,'' section 4, ``Test

[[Page 10319]]

Requirements,'' and section 7, ``Symbols and Subscripts'' (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  431.63). For each commercial refrigerator, 
freezer, or refrigerator-freezer with a self-contained condensing unit, 
also use ARI Standard 1200-2006, section 6, ``Rating Requirements for 
Self-contained Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 
Storage Cabinets.'' For each commercial refrigerator, freezer, or 
refrigerator-freezer with a remote condensing unit, also use ARI 
Standard 1200-2006, section 5, ``Rating Requirements for Remote 
Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets.'' 
For equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 2016, determine the 
daily energy consumption of each covered commercial refrigerator, 
freezer, refrigerator-freezer or ice-cream freezer by conducting the 
test procedure set forth in the AHRI Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010, section 
3, ``Definitions,'' section 4, ``Test Requirements,'' and section 7, 
``Symbols and Subscripts'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.63). For each commercial refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-
freezer with a self-contained condensing unit, also use AHRI Standard 
1200 (I-P)-2010, section 6, ``Rating Requirements for Self-contained 
Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets.'' 
For each commercial refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-freezer with 
a remote condensing unit, also use AHRI Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010, 
section 5, ``Rating Requirements for Remote Commercial Refrigerated 
Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets.''
    (1) For display cases manufactured after January 1, 2016 and sold 
with night curtains installed, the night curtain shall be employed for 
6 hours; 3 hours after the start of the first defrost period. Upon the 
completion of the 6-hour period, the night curtain shall be raised 
until the completion of the 24-hour test period.
    (2) For commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-
freezers manufactured after January 1, 2016 and sold with lighting 
occupancy sensors, scheduled lighting controls, or lighting occupancy 
sensors and scheduled lighting controls installed on the unit, the 
effect on daily energy consumption will be determined by either a 
physical test or a calculation method and using the variables that are 
defined as:

    CECA is the Alternate Compressor Energy Consumption (kilowatt-
hours);
    LECsc is the lighting energy consumption of internal case lights 
with lighting occupancy sensors and controls deployed (kilowatt-
hours);
    Pli is the rated power of lights when they are fully on (watts);
    Pli(off) is the power of lights when they are off (watts);
    Pli(dim) is the power of lights when they are dimmed (watts);
    TDECo is the total daily energy consumption with lights fully 
on, as measured by AHRI Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010 (kilowatt-hours);
    tdim is the time period which the lights are dimmed due to the 
use of lighting occupancy sensors or scheduled lighting controls 
(hours);
    tdim,controls is the time case lighting is dimmed due to the use 
of lighting controls (hours);
    tdim,sensors is the time case lighting is dimmed due to the use 
of lighting occupancy sensors (hours);
    tl is the time period when lights would be on without lighting 
occupancy sensors and/or scheduled lighting controls (24 hours);
    toff is the time period which the lights are off due to the use 
of lighting occupancy sensors and/or scheduled lighting controls 
(hours);
    toff,controls is the time case lighting is off due to the use of 
scheduled lighting controls (hours);
    toff,sensors is the time case lighting is off due to the use of 
lighting occupancy sensors (hours); and
    tsc is the time period when lighting is fully on with lighting 
occupancy sensors and scheduled lighting controls enabled (hours).
    (i) For both a physical test and a calculation method, determine 
the estimated time off or dimmed, toff or 
tdim, as the sum of contributions from lighting occupancy 
sensors and scheduled lighting controls which dim or turn off 
lighting, respectively, as shown in the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21FE12.001

    The sum of tsc, toff, and tdim 
should equal 24 hours and the total time period during which the 
lights are off or dimmed shall not exceed 10.8 hours. For cases with 
scheduled lighting controls, the time the case lighting is off and/
or dimmed due to scheduled lighting controls 
(toff,controls and/or tdim,controls, as 
applicable) shall not exceed 8 hours. For cases with lighting 
occupancy sensors installed, the time the case lighting is off and/
or dimmed due to lighting occupancy sensors (toff,sensors 
and/or tdim,sensors, as applicable) shall not exceed 10.8 
hours. For cases with lighting occupancy sensors and scheduled 
lighting controls installed, the time the case lighting is off and/
or dimmed due to lighting occupancy sensors (toff,sensors 
and/or tdim,sensors, as applicable) shall not exceed 2.8 
hours and the time the case lighting is off and/or dimmed due to 
scheduled lighting controls (toff,controls and/or 
tdim,controls, as applicable) shall not exceed 8 hours.
    (ii) If using a physical test to determine the daily energy 
consumption of a commercial refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-
freezer sold with lighting occupancy sensors, scheduled lighting 
controls, or lighting occupancy sensors and scheduled lighting 
controls installed on the unit, turn off the lights for a time 
period equivalent to toff and dim the lights for a time 
period equal to tdim. If night curtains are also being 
tested on the case, the period of lights off and/or dimmed shall 
begin at the same time that the night curtain is being deployed and 
shall continue consecutively, in that order, for the appropriate 
number of hours.
    (iii) If using a calculation method to determine the daily 
energy consumption of a commercial refrigerator, freezer, or 
refrigerator-freezer sold with lighting occupancy sensors, scheduled 
lighting controls, or lighting occupancy sensors and scheduled 
lighting controls installed on the unit--
    (A) Calculate the LECsc using the following equation:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21FE12.002
    
    (B) Calculate the CECA using the following equation:

[[Page 10320]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21FE12.003

    Where EER represents the energy efficiency ratio from Table 1 in 
AHRI Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.63) for remote condensing equipment or the values shown in the 
following table for self-contained equipment:


EER for Self-Contained Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and
                            Storage Cabinets
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               EER  Btu/
                 Operating temperature class                       W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium.......................................................         11
Low..........................................................          7
Ice Cream....................................................          5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (C) For remote condensing commercial refrigerators, freezers, and 
refrigerator-freezers with lighting occupancy sensors, scheduled 
lighting controls, or lighting occupancy sensors and scheduled lighting 
controls installed, the revised compressor energy consumption 
(CECR) shall be the CECA added to the compressor 
energy consumption (CEC) measured in AHRI Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.63). The CDEC for the entire 
case shall be the sum of the CECR and LECsc (as 
calculated above) and the fan energy consumption (FEC), anti-condensate 
energy consumption (AEC), defrost energy consumption (DEC), and 
condensate evaporator pan energy consumption (PEC) (as measured in AHRI 
Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010).
    (D) For self-contained commercial refrigerators, freezers, and 
refrigerator-freezers with lighting occupancy sensors, scheduled 
lighting controls, or lighting occupancy sensors and scheduled lighting 
controls installed, the TDEC for the entire case shall be the sum of 
total daily energy consumption as measured by the AHRI Standard 1200 
(I-P)-2010 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.63) test with the 
lights fully on (TDECo) and CECA, less the 
decrease in lighting energy use due to lighting occupancy sensors and 
scheduled lighting controls, as shown in following equation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21FE12.004

    (3) Conduct the testing required in paragraphs (b) introductory 
text, (b)(1), and (2) of this section, and determine the daily energy 
consumption, at the applicable integrated average temperature in the 
following table. The integrated average temperature is determined using 
the required test method.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Test procedure prior to    Test procedure on or      Integrated average
               Category                    January 1, 2016       after January 1, 2016         temperatures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Refrigerator with Solid Door(s)..  ARI Standard 1200-2006.  AHRI Standard 1200.....  38 [deg]F (2 [deg]F).
(ii) Refrigerator with Transparent     ARI Standard 1200-2006.  AHRI Standard 1200.....  38 [deg]F (2 [deg]F).
(iii) Freezer with Solid Door(s).....  ARI Standard 1200-2006.  AHRI Standard 1200.....  0 [deg]F (2
                                                                (I-P)-2010.............   [deg]F).
(iv) Freezer with Transparent Door(s)  ARI Standard 1200-2006.  AHRI Standard 1200.....  0 [deg]F (2
                                                                (I-P)-2010.............   [deg]F).
(v) Refrigerator-Freezer with Solid    ARI Standard 1200-2006.  AHRI Standard 1200.....  38 [deg]F (2 [deg]F) for
                                                                                          refrigerator
                                                                                          compartment.
                                                                                         0 [deg]F (2
                                                                                          [deg]F) for freezer
                                                                                          compartment.
(vi) Commercial Refrigerator with a    ARI Standard 1200-2006.  AHRI Standard 1200.....  38 [deg]F (2 [deg]F).
 Designed for Pull-Down Temperature
 Applications and Transparent Doors.
(vii) Ice-Cream Freezer..............  ARI Standard 1200-2006.  AHRI Standard 1200.....  -15.0 [deg]F (2 [deg]F).
(viii) Commercial Refrigerator,        ARI Standard 1200-2006.  AHRI Standard 1200.....  (A) 0 [deg]F (2 [deg]F) for
 with a Self-Contained Condensing                                                         low temperature
 Unit and without Doors.                                                                  applications.
                                                                                         (B) 38.0 [deg]F (2 [deg]F) for
                                                                                          medium temperature
                                                                                          applications.
(ix) Commercial Refrigerator,          ARI Standard 1200-2006.  AHRI Standard 1200.....  (A) 0 [deg]F (2 [deg]F) for
 with a Remote Condensing Unit.                                                           low temperature
                                                                                          applications.
                                                                                         (B) 38.0 [deg]F (2 [deg]F) for
                                                                                          medium temperature
                                                                                          applications.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (A) If a piece of commercial refrigeration equipment is not able 
to be tested at the specified integrated average temperatures of 38 
[deg]F (2 [deg]F), 0 [deg]F (2 [deg]F), or -15 
[deg]F (2 [deg]F) for refrigerators, freezers, and ice-
cream freezers, respectively, the unit may be tested at the lowest 
application product temperature, as defined in Sec.  431.62. For many 
pieces of equipment, this will be the lowest thermostat setting. For 
remote condensing equipment without a thermostat or other means of 
controlling temperature at the case, the lowest application product 
temperature shall be that achieved with the adjusted dew point 
temperature (as defined in AHRI 1200 (I-P)-2010) set to 5 degrees 
colder than that required to maintain the manufacturer's lowest 
specified application temperature.
    (B) For commercial refrigeration equipment that is also tested in 
accordance with NSF test procedures

[[Page 10321]]

(Type I and Type II), integrated average temperatures and ambient 
conditions used for NSF testing may be used in place of DOE prescribed 
integrated average temperatures and ambient conditions provided they 
result in a more stringent test. That is, the measured daily energy 
consumption of the same unit, when tested at the rating temperatures 
and/or ambient conditions specified in the DOE test procedure, will be 
lower than or equal to the measured daily energy consumption of the 
unit when tested with the rating temperatures or ambient conditions 
used for NSF testing. The integrated average temperature measured 
during the test may be lower than the range specified by the DOE rating 
temperature specifications, provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this 
section, but may not exceed the upper value of the specified range. 
Ambient temperatures and/or humidity values may be higher than those 
specified in the DOE test procedure.
    (4) For equipment manufactured prior to January 1, 2016, determine 
the volume of each covered commercial refrigerator, freezer, or 
refrigerator-freezer using the methodology set forth in the ANSI/AHAM 
HRF-1-2004, ``Energy, Performance and Capacity of Household 
Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers'' (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.63), section 3.21, ``Volume,'' sections 4.1 
through 4.3, ``Method for Computing Total Refrigerated Volume and Total 
Shelf Area of Household Refrigerators and Household Wine Chillers,'' 
and sections 5.1 through 5.3, ``Method for Computing Total Refrigerated 
Volume and Total Shelf Area of Household Freezers.'' For equipment 
manufactured on or after January 1, 2016, determine the volume of any 
covered commercial refrigerator, freezer, refrigerator-freezer, or ice-
cream freezer using the method set forth in the HRF-1-2008 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.63), section 3.30, 
``Volume,'' and sections 4.1 through 4.3, ``Method for Computing 
Refrigerated Volume of Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, Wine 
Chillers and Freezers.''

[FR Doc. 2012-3201 Filed 2-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P