[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 246 (Monday, December 23, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70842-70880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26903]
[[Page 70841]]
Vol. 84
Monday,
No. 246
December 23, 2019
Part V
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 430
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Consumer Refrigeration
Products; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 70842]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2017-BT-TP-0004]
RIN 1904-AD84
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Consumer
Refrigeration Products
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') proposes to amend the
test procedures for consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and
freezers, and miscellaneous refrigeration products (collectively
``consumer refrigeration products''). The proposed test procedure
amendments would, among other things, define the term ``compartment,''
and revise the method for including the energy use of automatic
icemakers and certain other energy-using functions. DOE is also
proposing to adjust the standards for these products to ensure that
this change in test methodology does not require manufacturers to
increase the efficiency of already compliant products or allow
previously non-compliant products to meet the current energy
conservation standard. DOE is announcing a public meeting and comment
period to collect comments and data on its proposal, and methods to
reduce regulatory burden while ensuring the test procedures'
representativeness of energy use during an average use cycle or period
of use.
DATES: Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting on January 9, 2020 from
9 a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be broadcast
as a webinar. See section V, ``Public Participation,'' of this document
for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and
information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposal no later than February 21, 2020. See section V, ``Public
Participation,'' for details.
ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons
may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2017-BT-TP-0004,
by any of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
(2) Email: ConsumerRefrigFreezer [email protected]. Include the
docket number EERE-2017-BT-TP-0004 or regulatory information number
(RIN) 1904-AD84 in the subject line of the message.
(3) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
(4) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202)
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the
rulemaking process, see section V, ``Public Participation,'' of this
document.
Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the
index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public
disclosure, may not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0004. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section V for information on how to submit comments
through http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Stephanie Johnson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1943. Email: [email protected].
Mr. Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or regarding a public meeting, contact
the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445
or by email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE proposes to maintain a previously
approved incorporation by reference and to incorporate by reference the
following industry standard into 10 CFR part 430:
AHAM HRF-1-2016, (``HRF-1-2016''), Energy and Internal Volume of
Refrigerating Appliances (January 1, 2016), including Errata to Energy
and Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances, Correction Sheet.
Copies of HRF-1-2016 can be obtained from the Association of Home
Appliance Manufacturers, 1111 19th Street NW, Suite 402, Washington, DC
20036, (202) 872-5955, or go to http://www.AHAM.org.
See section IV.N of this document for a more detailed discussion of
this industry standard.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Discussion
A. Scope of Applicability
B. Compartment Definitions
C. AHAM HRF-1 Standard
D. Icemaking Energy Consumption
E. Built-In Test Configuration
F. Test Setup
1. Thermocouple Configuration for Freezer Drawers
2. Test Platform Requirements
3. Separate External Temperature Controls
G. Test Conditions
1. Vertical Gradient
2. Stabilization
H. Features Not Directly Addressed in Appendix A or Appendix B
1. Door-in-Door Designs
2. Display Screens and Connected Functions
I. Corrections
J. Compliance Date and Waivers
1. Compliance Date
2. Waivers
a. Waivers Relevant to the Proposed Amendments
b. MREF Waivers
[[Page 70843]]
K. Test Procedure Impacts and Other Topics
1. Test Procedure Costs and Impacts
a. Proposed Amendment Regarding the Stabilization and Test
Periods
b. Proposed Amendment Regarding Products With Demand-Response
Capability
c. Proposed Amendment Regarding Energy Use Associated With
Automatic Icemaking
d. Impact of the Other Proposed Amendments
2. Harmonization With Industry Standards
3. Other Test Procedure Topics
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
K. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
M. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Public Participation
A. Attendance at Public Meeting
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of Public Meeting
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers are
included in the list of ``covered products'' for which DOE is
authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and
test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1)) DOE's energy conservation
standards for consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and
freezers are currently prescribed at title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (``CFR'') 430.32(a). DOE's test procedures are currently
prescribed at 10 CFR 430.23(a) and part 430, subpart B, appendix A
(``Appendix A'') for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, and 10
CFR 430.23(b) and 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix B (``Appendix
B'') for freezers.
Additionally, under 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20), DOE may extend coverage
over a particular type of consumer product provided that DOE determines
that classifying products of such type as covered products is necessary
or appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA, and specified
requirements are met. See 42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1) and 6295(l)(1).
Consistent with its statutory obligations, DOE established regulatory
coverage over miscellaneous refrigeration products (``MREFs'').\1\ 81
FR 46768 (July 18, 2016). The current test procedures for MREFs are
prescribed at 10 CFR 430.23(ff) and Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An MREF is defined as a consumer refrigeration product other
than a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer, which
includes coolers and combination cooler refrigeration products. 10
CFR 430.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish and
amend test procedures for consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-
freezers, freezers, and MREFs, as well as relevant background
information regarding DOE's proposed amendments to the test procedures
for these products.
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended, (EPCA)
\2\ among other things, authorizes DOE to regulate the energy
efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial
equipment (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317). Title III, Part B \3\ of EPCA
established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other
Than Automobiles, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to
improve energy efficiency. These products include consumer
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, the subject of this
document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018,
Public Law 115-270 (October 23, 2018).
\3\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially
of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy
conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C.
6295), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C.
6294), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for: (1)
Certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)),
and (2) making representations about the efficiency of those consumer
products (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test
procedures to determine whether the products comply with relevant
standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (See
42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption
for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the
procedures and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or
amended under this section be reasonably designed to produce test
results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual
operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use
cycle or period of use and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
Further, when amending a test procedure, DOE must determine the
extent to which, if any, the proposal would alter the measured energy
use of a given product as determined under the existing test procedure.
(42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that the amended test
procedure would alter the measured energy use of a covered product, DOE
must also amend the applicable energy conservation standard during the
rulemaking carried out with respect to such test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6293(e)(2)) In determining the amended energy conservation standard,
the Secretary shall measure, pursuant to the amended test procedure,
the energy efficiency, energy use, or water use of a representative
sample of covered products that minimally comply with the existing
standard. The average of such energy efficiency, energy use, or water
use levels determined under the amended test procedure shall constitute
the amended energy conservation standard for the applicable covered
products. Id.
In addition, EPCA requires that DOE amend its test procedures for
all covered products to integrate measures of standby mode and off mode
energy consumption. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) Standby mode and off
mode energy consumption must be incorporated into the overall energy
efficiency, energy consumption, or other energy descriptor
[[Page 70844]]
for each covered product unless the current test procedures already
account for and incorporate standby and off mode energy consumption or
such integration is technically infeasible. If an integrated test
procedure is technically infeasible, DOE must prescribe a separate
standby mode and off mode energy use test procedure for the covered
product, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)(ii)) Any
such amendment must consider the most current versions of the
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 62301 \4\ and
IEC Standard 62087 \5\ as applicable. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances--Measurement of
standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011-01).
\5\ IEC 62087, Methods of measurement for the power consumption
of audio, video, and related equipment (Edition 3.0, 2011-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 them. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(2)) EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE
evaluate test procedures for each type of covered product, including
consumer refrigeration products, to determine whether amended test
procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements
for the test procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be
reasonably designed to produce test results that measure energy
efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a
representative average use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)(A)) If the Secretary determines, on his own behalf or in
response to a petition by any interested person, that a test procedure
should be prescribed or amended, the Secretary shall promptly publish
in the Federal Register proposed test procedures and afford interested
persons an opportunity to present oral and written data, views, and
arguments with respect to such procedures. The comment period on a
proposed rule to amend a test procedure shall be at least 60 days and
may not exceed 270 days. In prescribing or amending a test procedure,
the Secretary shall take into account such information as the Secretary
determines relevant to such procedure, including technological
developments relating to energy use or energy efficiency of the type
(or class) of covered products involved. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) If DOE
determines that test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE must
publish its determination not to amend the test procedures. DOE is
publishing this NOPR in satisfaction of the 7-year review requirement
specified in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
B. Background
As described, DOE's existing test procedure for consumer
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and MREFs appears at Appendix A
(``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of
Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Miscellaneous Refrigeration
Products''). DOE's existing test procedure for freezers appears at
Appendix B (``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption
of Freezers'').
These test procedures are the result of numerous evaluations and
updates that have occurred since DOE initially established its test
procedures for these products in a final rule published in the Federal
Register on September 14, 1977. 42 FR 46140. The original test
procedures were generally viewed as too complex, and industry
stakeholders developed alternative test procedures in conjunction with
the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (``AHAM'') that were
incorporated into the 1979 version of AHAM Standard HRF-1, ``Household
Refrigerators, Combination Refrigerator-Freezers, and Household
Freezers'' (``HRF-1-1979''). Using this industry-created test
procedure, DOE revised its test procedures on August 10, 1982, which
were codified as a new Appendix A1 for refrigerators and refrigerator-
freezers and a new Appendix B1 for freezers. 47 FR 34517.
On August 31, 1989, DOE amended the Appendix A1 and Appendix B1
test procedures further when it published a final rule establishing
test procedures for variable-defrost control refrigeration products,
dual-compressor refrigerator-freezers, and freezers equipped with
``quick-freeze.'' 54 FR 36238.
DOE amended the Appendix A1 test procedure again on March 7, 2003,
by modifying the test period used for products equipped with long-time
automatic defrost or variable defrost. 68 FR 10957.
On December 16, 2010, DOE published a final and interim final rule
(the ``December 2010 Final Rule and Interim Final Rule'') that amended
the test procedures in Appendix A1 and Appendix B1 and established new
test procedures in Appendix A and Appendix B. 75 FR 78810. The December
2010 Final Rule and Interim Final Rule established a number of
comprehensive changes to improve the measurement of energy consumption
of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. These changes
included, among other things: (1) Adjusting the standardized
compartment temperatures and volume-adjustment factors, (2) adding new
methods for measuring compartment volumes, (3) modifying the long-time
automatic defrost test procedure to measure all energy use associated
with the defrost function, (4) adding test procedures for products with
a single compressor and multiple evaporators with separate active
defrost cycles, and (5) updating the industry standard reference to the
2008 version of HRF-1, ``Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating
Appliances'' (``HRF-1-2008''). Lastly, the December 2010 Final Rule and
Interim Final Rule addressed icemaking energy use by including a fixed
energy use adder for those products equipped with an automatic
icemaker. Using available data submitted by stakeholders, this value
was set at 84 kilowatt-hours (``kWh'') per year. Id. On January 25,
2012, DOE finalized the test procedures established in the December
2010 Final Rule and Interim Final Rule and required use of the new test
procedures at Appendix A and Appendix B for certifying basic models as
compliant with the energy conservation standards starting on September
15, 2014. 77 FR 3559.
On July 10, 2013, DOE proposed further amending the consumer
refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer test procedure to address
products with multiple compressors and to allow an alternative method
for measuring and calculating energy consumption for refrigerator-
freezers and refrigerators with freezer compartments. 78 FR 41610 (the
``July 2013 NOPR''). DOE also proposed to amend certain aspects of the
consumer refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer test
procedures to ensure better accuracy and repeatability. Additionally,
DOE solicited comment on a proposed automatic icemaker test procedure
and on whether built-in products should be tested in a built-in
configuration. Id. In response to the July 2013 NOPR, interested
parties requested that DOE grant more time to respond to the proposal
for measuring energy use associated with icemaking and to DOE's request
for comment regarding testing of built-in products in a built-in
configuration. DOE granted the comment period extension request for
these two topics. 78 FR 53374 (Aug. 29, 2013).
On April 21, 2014, DOE published a final rule for the refrigerator,
refrigerator-freezer, and freezer test procedures (the ``April 2014
Final Rule''). 79 FR 22320. The amendments enacted by the April 2014
Final Rule addressed products with multiple compressors and established
an
[[Page 70845]]
alternative method for measuring and calculating energy consumption for
refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators with freezer compartments. The
April 2014 Final Rule also amended certain aspects of the test
procedures to improve test accuracy and repeatability. To allow
additional time to review comments and data received during the comment
period extension, DOE did not address automatic icemaking energy use or
built-in testing configuration in the April 2014 Final Rule. Id.
On July 18, 2016, DOE published a final rule (the ``July 2016 Final
Rule'') that established coverage and test procedures for MREFs.\6\ 81
FR 46768. Included within this category are refrigeration products that
include one or more compartments that maintain higher temperatures than
typical refrigerator compartments, such as wine chillers and beverage
coolers. Additionally, the July 2016 Final Rule amended Appendix A and
Appendix B to include provisions for testing MREFs and to improve the
clarity of certain existing test requirements. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ As part of the rulemaking process to establish the scope of
coverage, definitions, test procedures, and corresponding energy
conservation standards for MREFs, DOE established an Appliance
Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee negotiated
rulemaking working group (the ``MREF Working Group''). See, 80 FR
17355 (April 1, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 30, 2017, DOE published a request for information (the
``June 2017 RFI'') to initiate a data collection process to inform
DOE's decision on whether to amend its test procedures in Appendix A
and Appendix B. 82 FR 29780. DOE received seven comments in response to
the June 2017 RFI from the interested parties listed in Table I-I.
Table I-I--June 2017 RFI Written Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this
Organization(s) NOPR Organization type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Standards Awareness Joint Commenters.. Efficiency
Project, American Council for Organizations
an Energy-Efficient Economy,
Northeast Energy Efficiency
Partnerships, Alliance to Save
Energy, Natural Resources
Defense Council, Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance.
Association of Home Appliance AHAM.............. Trade Association
Manufacturers.
BSH Home Appliances Corporation. BSH............... Manufacturer
Felix Storch, Inc............... FSI............... Manufacturer
Samsung Electronics America..... Samsung........... Manufacturer
Sub Zero Group, Inc............. Sub Zero.......... Manufacturer
Whirlpool Corporation........... Whirlpool......... Manufacturer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has considered the comments and information submitted by these
interested parties in determining the proposals included in this NOPR.
Summaries of the comments related to the proposals included in this
NOPR submitted by interested parties and DOE's responses are included
in the relevant sections of this proposed rule.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Comments received not related to the proposals in this NOPR
will be considered and addressed as appropriate should DOE undertake
additional rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In this NOPR, DOE proposes a number of changes to the current test
procedures for consumer refrigeration products. DOE has tentatively
determined that two of the proposed amendments would alter the measured
efficiency of certain consumer refrigeration products.
The proposal to amend the energy adder for products with automatic
icemakers would alter the energy use of certain consumer refrigeration
products as determined under the test procedure and would provide more
representative energy use measurements for those products with
automatic icemakers. As a result, in accordance with 42 U.S.C.
6293(e)(2), DOE proposes to amend the energy conservation standards for
these products. Manufacturers would be required to comply with these
amended standards one year after publication of a final rule
incorporating these amendments. Correspondingly, use of the test
procedure provisions that incorporate the updated icemaker energy adder
would be required one year after publication of any final rule
incorporating these amendments. During the one-year compliance lead-
time period, manufacturers would be required to use the test procedure
provisions that incorporate the current icemaker adder. DOE is
proposing to provide separate sections within Appendix A and Appendix B
to include both the current icemaker energy adder and the updated
value.
Additionally, the proposal to test demand-response capable products
\8\ with the communication module off may reduce the measured energy
consumption for certain products. However, DOE is not proposing to
amend the energy conservation standards for these products based on
this proposed test procedure change as discussed in section III.H.2 of
this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Demand response'' capability refers to product
functionality that can be controlled, via signals from the
electrical distribution grid, to improve the overall operation of
the electrical grid; for example, by reducing energy consumption
during peak periods and/or shifting power consumption to off-peak
periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has also tentatively determined that the proposed test
procedure would not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
Specifically, as discussed in this document, DOE is proposing to:
Establish a compartment definition that is consistent with
the industry term;
Update references to the relevant industry standard (HRF-
1) to the sections of the current version;
Update the fixed value used to represent the energy use of
automatic icemakers;
Amend the energy conservation standards for consumer
refrigeration products with automatic ice makers in accordance with 42
U.S.C. 6293(e)(2);
Provide additional detail on the test set-up regarding
thermocouple placement, vented test chamber floors, and units with
external controls;
Provide additional detail on test conditions regarding
maintenance and measurement of the vertical ambient temperature
gradient, the use of data during the stabilization period, and the
stabilization of units with multiple compressors;
Require testing demand-response capable units with the
communication module off; and
Reinsert an inadvertently omitted method for calculating
the average per-cycle energy consumption of refrigerators and
refrigerator-freezers, and other corrections.
[[Page 70846]]
DOE's proposed actions are summarized in Table II-I and addressed
in detail in section III of this proposed rule.
Table II-I--Summary of Changes in Proposed Test Procedure Relative to
Current Test Procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed test
Current DOE test procedure procedure Attribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No definition for term Defines Adopt industry
``compartment''. ``compartment'' standard.
consistent with AS/
NZS 4474.1:2007.
Incorporates by reference Updates IBR to AHAM Harmonize with
(IBR) AHAM HRF-1-2008. HRF-1-2016. industry
standard
update.
Energy use adder for automatic Updates energy use Provide more
icemakers of 84 kWh/year. adder for automatic representative
icemakers to 28 kWh/ measure of
year. average use
cycle.
Does not explicitly specify Provides consistent Improves
the setup for test chamber specifications for representativen
floors that have vents for test platform and ess,
airflow. floor requirements. repeatability,
and
reproducibility
.
Does not specify test setup Specifies test setup Address current
for products with controls for products with waiver
external to the cabinet. controls external to
the cabinet.
Does not explicitly specify Provides additional Improves
timing of required timing and repeatability
temperature range conditions thermocouple and
and thermocouple placement in placement reproducibility
certain product specifications. .
configurations.
Specified time and temperature Allows measuring Address current
conditions may not apply to average temperatures waiver.
certain products with over multiple
irregular compressor cycling compressor cycles or
or multiple compressors. for a given time
period to determine
stable operation.
Requires a separate Allows test period to Reduce test
stabilization and test period serve as burden while
when conducting all energy stabilization period maintaining
tests. when conducting representative
certain energy tests. results.
Requires testing demand- Requires testing Address
response function demand-response representative
communication modules in the function average use.
as-shipped configuration. communication modules
in the off
configuration.
Inadvertently omits optional Reinstates method and Correction.
method for calculating makes other non-
average per-cycle energy substantive
consumption of refrigerators corrections.
and refrigerator-freezers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this NOPR, DOE also requests feedback on additional topics for
which it is not proposing test procedure amendments at this time,
including: Built-in product test configuration, door-in-door features,
display screens, and connected functions (other than for demand-
response capable products). Additionally, DOE requests feedback on any
topics not specifically addressed in this NOPR.
III. Discussion
A. Scope of Applicability
The proposed amendments in this document apply to products that
meet the definition for ``consumer refrigeration product,'' as codified
in 10 CFR 430.2. Consumer refrigeration products generally refer to
cabinets used with one or more doors that are capable of maintaining
temperatures colder than the ambient temperature. While these products
are typically used for the storage and freezing of food or beverages,
the definitions do not require that the products be designed or
marketed for that purpose. The definitions only require that the
product be capable of maintaining compartment temperatures within
certain ranges, regardless of use. 10 CFR 430.2.
Consumer refrigeration products include consumer refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, freezers, and MREFs. Because of the similarities
between consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and MREFs, the
test procedures for these products are all included in Appendix A. As a
result, any amendments to Appendix A would be applicable to testing for
each of these product categories. Section III.K of this document
discusses the extent to which the proposed amendments, if finalized,
would alter the measured energy consumption of consumer refrigeration
products as compared to the existing Federal test procedures.
The amendments proposed in this NOPR would not change the scope of
applicability of the test procedure.
B. Compartment Definitions
Although the term ``compartment'' is used throughout the DOE test
procedures in Appendix A and Appendix B, it is not defined. The DOE
test procedures use the term to refer to both individual enclosed
spaces within a product (e.g., referring to a specific freezer
compartment), as well as all enclosed spaces within a product that meet
the same temperature criteria (e.g., referring to the freezer
compartment temperature--a volume-weighted average temperature for all
individual freezer compartments within a product).
The MREF Working Group \9\ considered the issue of a compartment
definition in its discussions. Working Group members indicated that the
term ``compartment,'' as included in the existing test procedures, was
well-understood by industry and test laboratories, and that a
definition intended to cover the multiple uses in the test procedure
would potentially
[[Page 70847]]
introduce confusion. Accordingly, the MREF Working Group recommendation
did not include a ``compartment'' definition and suggested that DOE
address this issue in a future rulemaking for refrigerator,
refrigerator-freezer, and freezer test procedures.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ After reviewing the comments received in response to the
NOPR published ahead of the July 2016 Final Rule, and in response to
the preliminary analysis conducted for potential MREF energy
conservation standards, DOE determined that its efforts would
benefit from the direct and comprehensive input provided through the
negotiated rulemaking process. On April 1, 2015, DOE published a
notice of intent to establish a Working Group under the Appliance
Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (``ASRAC'') that
would use the negotiated rulemaking process to discuss and, if
possible, reach consensus recommendations on the scope of coverage,
definitions, test procedures, and energy conservation standards for
MREFs. 80 FR 17355. Subsequently, DOE formed a Miscellaneous
Refrigeration Products Working Group (``MREF Working Group'' or, in
context, ``the Working Group'') to address these issues. The Working
Group consisted of 15 members, including two members from ASRAC and
one DOE representative. The MREF Working Group met in-person during
six sets of meetings held in 2015 on May 4-5, June 11-12, July 15-
16, August 11-12, September 16-17, and October 20. On August 11,
2015, the MREF Working Group reached consensus on a term sheet (Term
Sheet #1) that recommended the relevant scope of coverage,
definitions, and test procedures for MREFs. See public docket EERE-
2011-BT-STD-0043-0113.
\10\ See Term Sheet #1, which recommended the relevant scope of
coverage, definitions, and test procedures for MREFs, available in
public docket EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043-0113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the July 2016 Final Rule, consistent with the MREF Working Group
recommendation, DOE did not amend Appendix A or Appendix B to include a
definition for the term ``compartment.'' 81 FR 46768, 46779 (July 18,
2016).
In the June 2017 RFI, DOE requested comment on the issue of
defining the term ``compartment'' in Appendix A and Appendix B. 82 FR
29784.
AHAM commented that it has previously suggested that DOE define the
term ``compartment' consistent with Australian/New Zealand Standard
4474.1:2007, ``Performance of household electrical appliances--
Refrigerating appliances, Part 1: Energy consumption and performance''
(AS/NZS 4474.1:2007) \11\ and use the term consistently throughout the
test procedures, but that this undertaking is a complex one and
requires a review of the entire test procedure. In addition, AHAM noted
that the definition could reclassify certain compartments and would
likely impact measured energy use. AHAM stated that this is one of the
items it will review as part of its HRF-1 task force; accordingly,
there is no need for DOE to duplicate those efforts. AHAM requested
that DOE review the completed HRF-1 update as a reference for the
``compartment'' definition. (AHAM, No. 5 at pp. 9-10) Sub Zero also
commented that the ``compartment'' definition should be addressed in
the HRF-1 update to avoid DOE and industry duplicating efforts. (Sub
Zero, No. 4 at pp. 2-3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Available online at https://infostore.saiglobal.com/en-us/Standards/AS-NZS-44741-2007-383878/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As recommended by the MREF Working Group, and as previously
supported by AHAM, DOE is proposing to include a definition for
``compartment'' consistent with AS/NZS 4474.1:2007, but adapted to use
the appropriate DOE terminology for certain terms within the
definition. AS/NZS 4474.1:2007 defines compartment as ``an enclosed
space within a refrigerating appliance, which is directly accessible
through one or more external doors. A compartment may contain one or
more sub-compartments and one or more convenience features.'' DOE is
proposing to define compartment as ``an enclosed space within a
consumer refrigeration product that is directly accessible through one
or more external doors and may be divided into sub-compartments.''
Based on this proposal, compartments would be treated in the same way
as under the current test procedure. Accordingly, DOE does not expect
that any compartments would be reclassified and the proposed definition
would not impact measured energy consumption.
Additionally, to provide further understanding of the proposed
definition for ``compartment,'' DOE is proposing to define ``sub-
compartment'' as an enclosed space within a compartment that may have a
different operating temperature from the compartment within which it is
located. This definition, coupled with the new definition for
``compartment,'' would remove the need to separately define ``separate
auxiliary compartment'' and ``special compartment'' because these terms
are redundant with the proposed compartment definitions. Use of the
proposed terms ``compartment'' and ``sub-compartment'' would not change
how compartments currently defined as ``separate auxiliary
compartment'' and ``special compartment'' would be treated under the
existing test procedure instructions. Therefore, DOE is proposing to
remove the terms ``separate auxiliary compartment'' and ``special
compartment'' from Appendix A and Appendix B and replace them with
compartment or sub-compartment as appropriate.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to establish definitions for
``compartment'' and ``sub-compartment'' in Appendix A and Appendix B.
C. AHAM HRF-1 Standard
As discussed in section I.B of this document, Appendix A and
Appendix B incorporate by reference the AHAM industry standard HRF-1-
2008. DOE references HRF-1-2008 for definitions, installation and
operating conditions, temperature measurements, and volume
measurements. In August 2016, AHAM released an updated version of the
HRF-1 standard, HRF-1-2016.
In the June 2017 RFI, DOE stated that based on review of HRF-1-
2016, the majority of the updates from the 2008 standard were
clarifications or other revisions to harmonize with DOE's test
procedures. DOE requested comment on whether Appendix A and Appendix B
should incorporate by reference the newer version of HRF-1 and whether
the revisions between the two versions of HRF-1 would substantively
affect any of the test requirements in Appendix A and Appendix B. 82 FR
29785.
AHAM, BSH, and Sub Zero commented in support of DOE incorporating
HRF-1-2016 by reference because the 2016 version is intended to
harmonize with the current DOE test procedure, and therefore would not
change the DOE test procedure. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 11; BSH, No. 2 at p.
2; Sub Zero, No. 4 at p. 3) AHAM also stated that it is currently
revising AHAM HRF-1-2016, and DOE should not duplicate those efforts.
AHAM recommended that DOE instead participate in the HRF-1 task force
to discuss potential changes to the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 5 at p.
2)
As noted in comments from interested parties, the updates included
in HRF-1-2016 harmonize with the current DOE test procedure. This
includes updates to definitions, test requirements, formatting, and
organization that are consistent with DOE's requirements. Therefore,
DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference HRF-1-2016 in Appendix A
and Appendix B. As indicated in the comments from interested parties,
DOE does not expect that updating its references to HRF-1-2016 would
substantively affect the existing test procedures in Appendix A and
Appendix B. DOE is not proposing to require the use of HRF-1-2016 in
its entirety. Certain of the updates made in HRF-1-2016 to harmonize
with DOE are now out of date; for example, the product definitions
included in HRF-1-2016 are harmonized with the DOE definitions included
in 10 CFR 430.2 at the time HRF-1-2016 was published, but do not
reflect the recent amendments made in the July 2016 Final Rule (e.g.,
those related to MREFs). Furthermore, HRF-1-2016 covers only
compressor-driven products, whereas the DOE test procedure applies to
all consumer refrigeration products, including those with non-
compressor refrigeration systems.
As stated in the AHAM comment, the AHAM task force is working to
revise HRF-1-2016. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 2) AHAM has recently released a
draft of an updated HRF-1-2019 for public review.\12\ Based on a review
of the draft for public review, the in-progress updates to HRF-1 are
generally consistent with the proposals included in this NOPR. However,
because the current version available from AHAM is a draft for public
review and not available for distribution, DOE is not
[[Page 70848]]
proposing to incorporate by reference this initial draft version of the
standard. DOE would consider incorporating by reference the updated
HRF-1 standard in its entirety when it is available for public
distribution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The draft revision for review is available at http://www.aham.org/AHAM/Standard_Chart_Page.aspx (accessed June 5, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests feedback on its proposal to incorporate by reference
the most current version of HRF-1, HRF-1-2016, rather than HRF-1-2008.
DOE also requests feedback on a potential updated reference to HRF-1-
2019 based on the public draft currently available for review. DOE also
requests feedback on whether any of the differences between HRF-1-2008
and HRF-1-2016 (or HRF-1-2019) would substantively affect the
requirements currently incorporated by reference in Appendix A and
Appendix B--and if so, how.
D. Icemaking Energy Consumption
In 2010, DOE initiated a test procedure rulemaking to address a
variety of test procedure-related issues, including energy use
associated with automatic icemaking. On May 27, 2010, DOE published a
NOPR (the ``May 2010 NOPR'') proposing to use a fixed value of 84 kWh
per year to represent the energy use associated with automatic
icemaking. 75 FR 29824. The May 2010 NOPR also indicated that DOE would
consider adopting an approach based on testing to determine icemaking
energy use if a suitable test procedure could be developed. Id. at
29846-29847. A broad group of interested parties submitted a consensus
recommendation comment supporting DOE's proposal to use a fixed value
to represent the energy use of automatic icemakers, and requesting that
DOE subsequently initiate a rulemaking to amend the test procedures to
incorporate a laboratory-based measurement of icemaking energy use.
(Test Procedure for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers,
Docket Number EERE-2009-BT-TP-0003; Consensus Recommendation,\13\ No.
20 at pp. 5-6) As noted, DOE adopted a fixed energy use adder for those
products equipped with an automatic icemaker. 75 FR 78810.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The ``Consensus Recommendation'' was submitted by AHAM and
the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, on behalf of:
Whirlpool, General Electric, Electrolux, LG Electronics, BSH,
Alliance Laundry, Viking Range, Sub-Zero Wolf, Friedrich A/C, U-
Line, Samsung, Sharp Electronics, Miele, Heat Controller, AGA
Marvel, Brown Stove, Haier, Fagor America, Airwell Group, Arcelik,
Fisher & Paykel, Scotsman Ice, Indesit, Kuppersbusch, Kelon,
DeLonghi, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Natural Resources
Defense Council, Alliance to Save Energy, Alliance for Water
Efficiency, Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Northeast
Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Consumer Federation of America, and
the National Consumer Law Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2012, AHAM provided DOE with a draft test procedure for
measuring automatic icemaker energy usage. (AHAM Refrigerator,
Refrigerator-Freezer and Freezer Ice Making Energy Test Procedure,
Revision 1.0--12/14/11, No. 4) \14\ AHAM then submitted a revised
automatic icemaker test procedure on July 18, 2012. (AHAM Refrigerator,
Refrigerator-Freezer and Freezer Ice Making Energy Test Procedure,
Revision 2.0--7/10/12, No. 5) \15\ In the subsequent July 2013 NOPR, as
mentioned in section I.B of this document, DOE proposed a method for
measuring the energy usage associated with automatic icemaking based on
the revised approach submitted by AHAM. 78 FR 41610, 41618-41629. In
response to the July 2013 NOPR, AHAM submitted comments to DOE
requesting that DOE grant its members more time to respond to the
automatic icemaker testing proposal, which DOE granted. 78 FR 53374
(Aug. 29, 2013). In the April 2014 Final Rule, DOE maintained the fixed
adder approach and stated that it would review comments received during
the comment period extension to address the icemaking test procedure
issue in a future notice. See 79 FR 22320, 22341-22342.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Document No. 4 in Docket No. EERE-2012- BT-TP-0016,
available for review at https://www.regulations.gov.
\15\ Document No. 5 in Docket No. EERE-2012- BT-TP-0016,
available for review at https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple interested parties supported the development and adoption
of a test procedure that measures the energy use of automatic
icemakers. These commenters presented a number of reasons that they
stated justified a laboratory-based icemaker energy test procedure,
including: (1) A direct laboratory test would be more accurate and
representative of actual icemaking energy use, and (2) the fixed adder
approach would not reward improvements in icemaking efficiency or
provide incentives to reduce icemaker energy consumption. (BSH, 2012 TP
Rulemaking No. 21 at p. 1; \16\ Joint Commenters,\17\ 2012 TP
Rulemaking No. 42 at pp. 1-5; Samsung, 2012 TP Rulemaking No. 39 at p.
2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ A notation in the form ``BSH, 2012 TP Rulemaking No. 21 at
p. 1'' identifies a written comment: (1) Made by BSH Home Appliances
Corporation; (2) recorded in document number 21 that is filed in the
docket of the test procedure rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-TP-
0016) and available for review at https://www.regulations.gov; and
(3) which appears on page 1 of document number 21.
\17\ ``Joint Commenters'' refers to the Appliance Standards
Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,
Consumer Federation of America, National Consumer Law Center, and
Natural Resources Defense Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other interested parties supported the existing fixed adder
approach, stating that the proposed icemaking test procedure would
create a significant test burden and that there are limited
opportunities to reduce icemaking energy consumption. (AHAM, 2012 TP
Rulemaking No. 37 at p. 2-5; GE Appliances (``GE''), 2012 TP Rulemaking
No. 40 at p. 5; Sub Zero, 2012 TP Rulemaking No. 36 at p. 2)
Further, DOE received data indicating that consumers likely use
less ice than assumed in calculating the 84 kWh per year adder. The
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (``NEEA'') and Northwest Power &
Conservation Council (``NPCC'') conducted field research to assess the
existing icemaking adder of 84 kWh per year. Their results showed
average daily ice consumption of 0.83 pounds per day (``lbs/day'') for
through-the-door service models and 0.61 lbs/day for in-freezer models.
NEEA and NPCC stated that this field research shows that the earlier
estimate of 1.8 lbs/day (the basis for the 84 kWh per year adder) is
significantly overestimated. NEEA and NPCC also stated that the
distribution of annual icemaking cycles is skewed toward the lower end
of the range, with the average being impacted by a relatively small
number of frequent ice users; accordingly, NEEA and NPCC commented that
median usage values of 0.63 lbs/day and 0.49 lbs/day for through-the-
door and in-freezer models, respectively, would be more representative
of typical use. (NEEA and NPCC, 2012 TP Rulemaking No. 41 at p. 2)
Similarly, a GE study on approximately 4,900 units found average
ice consumption of 0.83 lbs/day, with a median consumption of 0.59 lbs/
day. GE and AHAM both supported a revised fixed icemaking energy
consumption adder of 28 kWh per year, based on the median usage rate of
0.59 lbs/day. (AHAM, 2012 TP Rulemaking No. 37 at p. 6; GE, 2012 TP
Rulemaking No. 40 at pp. 3-4) AHAM further commented that it would
oppose any adder greater than 36 kWh per year, corresponding to the
average daily ice use of 0.76 lbs/day from the NEEA and NPCC studies.
(AHAM, 2012 TP Rulemaking No. 37 at p. 6)
In the June 2017 RFI, DOE again requested comment on how its test
procedures should account for automatic icemaking energy consumption
and on the availability of any additional consumer use data. 82 FR
29782-29783.
[[Page 70849]]
AHAM recommended that DOE adopt a permanent adder of 28 kWh per
year for icemaker energy use. AHAM reiterated its 2014 comments, which
indicated that the current understanding of consumer ice consumption
rates supports a lower ice consumption than previously estimated.
(AHAM, No. 5 at pp. 2-3) AHAM also noted that 28 kWh per year may even
be an overestimate because it accounts for converting 90 [deg]F water
into ice. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 3) Samsung noted that it had previously
commented in support of measuring automatic icemaker energy
consumption, but that was based on the fixed adder of 84 kWh per year.
With more current ice usage data corresponding to a fixed adder of 28
kWh per year, the Samsung stated that the potential for energy savings
is only around 2 percent and measuring icemaker energy use would not be
appropriate, and instead supported a revised fixed adder of 28 kWh per
year. (Samsung, No. 8 at p. 2) BSH also commented that more recent
consumer use data indicates lower rates of ice consumption than assumed
to develop the current 84 kWh per year adder. BSH stated that the lower
ice consumption rate corresponds to 28 kWh per year, over half of which
is the latent energy required for the phase change to make ice, so less
than half of the energy use is the result of the automatic icemaker,
and does not warrant any testing. Therefore, BSH supported revising the
adder from 84 kWh per year to 28 kWh per year. (BSH, No. 2 at pp. 1-2)
AHAM also commented that an icemaker energy test would
significantly increase burden without a corresponding benefit to the
representativeness or accuracy of the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 5 at
p. 2) AHAM stated that an icemaker energy test would increase burden by
50 percent to account for only 2.5 to 4.5 percent of a product's energy
use. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 4) BSH commented that an icemaker test is very
burdensome and would more than double the amount of time required to
test the appliance, and therefore opposed an energy test for icemaking.
(BSH, No. 2 at p. 2) FSI strongly supports the use of, or option to
use, a placeholder value for icemaker installation because it stated
that a test for automatic icemaking would be beyond the capabilities of
smaller laboratories (meeting supply water conditions) and would
significantly increase the costs for outside test laboratories. (FSI,
No. 6 at pp. 1-2) Samsung also stated that because of the additional
test burden and uncertainty in an icemaking measurement, it no longer
believes that a measurement is appropriate and supports a revised fixed
adder of 28 kWh per year. (Samsung, No. 8 at p. 2) Sub Zero referred to
AHAM's estimate that half of icemaker energy use is the thermodynamic
energy needed to freeze water, and therefore only 14 kWh per year is
attributed to the automatic icemaker. Sub Zero commented that any
feasible improvements to the icemaker would save a homeowner well less
than a dollar per year, which is not worth the burden and cost of
icemaker testing. (Sub Zero, No. 4 at p. 2)
The Joint Commenters commented that a test to measure actual
icemaker energy use is the most appropriate approach to account for
icemaker energy use. They stated that measured energy use is superior
to the fixed adder approach currently in use not only because it
provides consumers with more accurate information on the energy use
associated with icemaking, but it provides manufacturers with an
incentive to improve icemaker energy efficiency and drive reductions in
total refrigerator energy consumption. (Joint Commenters, No. 7 at p.
3) The Joint Commenters noted that testing of 10 icemakers conducted by
DOE and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (``NIST'')
found that some icemakers use up to twice as much energy per pound of
ice produced as others and that differences in energy use were
significant even among similar refrigerator models. They continued to
urge DOE to investigate a method to measure icemaker energy use without
adding undue additional test burden. (Joint Commenters, No. 7 at p. 3)
The Joint Commenters further commented that if the fixed adder approach
is retained for icemaker energy use, DOE should evaluate available data
to determine a more appropriate value for the adder. They referred to
field data from NEEA and one manufacturer suggesting that average ice
production is closer to 0.8 lbs/day rather than 1.8 lbs/day, and to
testing by DOE and NIST that found icemaker energy use ranging from
0.092 to 0.192 kWh per pound, or 27 to 56 kWh per year assuming an ice
production rate of 0.8 lbs/day. The Joint Commenters stated that, given
the small number of products tested, the range of energy use could be
much larger and demonstrates the difficulty in establishing a single
fixed adder value. (Joint Commenters, No. 7 at p. 4)
DOE agrees that the more recent consumer use data suggest that
typical daily ice consumption is lower than previously estimated.
Consistent with the recommendations from interested parties during the
previous test procedure rulemaking and in response to the June 2017
RFI, DOE has initially determined that the median ice consumption value
of 0.59 lbs/day is representative of typical consumer use.
DOE initially considered a test procedure for icemaking energy
consumption to better represent the energy consumption of units in the
field and to incentivize manufacturers to improve efficiencies of
automatic icemakers. However, based on a lower value of daily ice
consumption as identified through data submitted by commenters, the
overall energy consumption associated with icemaking in actual
operation appears much lower than estimated for the current fixed
adder. As a result, icemaker efficiency would have a much lower impact
on a unit's overall energy consumption, and DOE expects that
manufacturers would have even less incentive to pursue efficiency
improvements through icemaker performance.
A laboratory-based icemaker test may allow for a more
representative estimate of icemaking energy consumption for a given
model, which could in some instances provide incentives for
manufacturers to improve icemaking efficiency. However, DOE agrees with
the comments from interested parties estimating that incorporation of
an icemaking energy test procedure would increase testing time by 50
percent. Based on testing cost estimates provided in response to the
June 2017 RFI, this would equate to a cost increase of $2,500 per test
as compared to the current test procedure.\18\ At ice consumption
levels reported by NEEA and NPCC and GE, the benefits of a laboratory-
based test procedure would likely not outweigh the burdens associated
with this testing. Therefore, DOE is proposing to continue using the
fixed adder approach, rather than a laboratory-based test method, to
account for automatic icemaker energy consumption, with a revised value
of 28 kWh per year (through an adder of 0.0767 kW in the per-day energy
use calculations). DOE continues to request comment on whether the
proposed fixed adder of 28 kWh per year is appropriate and on any
additional consumer use data regarding automatic icemakers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The total cost per test is based on FSI's comment stating
between $4,500 and $5,000 per refrigerator test conducted at outside
laboratories. (FSI, No. 6 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is aware of products available on the market with two automatic
icemakers. Typically, these products are certified as product class 5A
(automatic defrost refrigerator-freezers with bottom-
[[Page 70850]]
mounted freezers and through-the-door ice service) with an icemaker in
the freezer compartment and another contained in the through-the-door
ice service in the fresh food compartment. The refrigerator-based
icemaker provides access for frequent through-the-door ice service,
while the freezer-based icemaker provides an in-freezer storage
container for infrequent bulk ice use. In the June 2017 RFI, DOE
requested comment on how its test procedures should address products
with multiple automatic icemakers. 82 FR 29783.
AHAM commented that consumer ice consumption rates likely do not
change based on the number of automatic icemakers their product has
because the second icemaker is typically used on occasions such as a
party or to fill a cooler, which would likely be true for a consumer
with one icemaker on those occasions. AHAM stated that the second
icemaker is a matter of convenience rather than increased production,
and therefore proposed applying the same fixed adder of 28 kWh per year
for these products. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 5)
Upon further consideration, including AHAM's comment, DOE
understands that consumers with dual-icemaker products are not likely
to use more ice than consumers with single-icemaker products. DOE is
proposing that the same fixed adder would apply for any products with
automatic icemaking, regardless of the number of icemakers in the
product. DOE requests comment on this proposal and feedback regarding
any available consumer use data for products with multiple automatic
icemakers.
In response to the June 2017 RFI, AHAM also commented that DOE
should not immediately require manufacturers to use the revised fixed
adder. Instead, AHAM stated that DOE should wait until the compliance
date of the next potentially amended standards, otherwise,
manufacturers would have to re-certify and re-label their products.
(AHAM, No. 5 at pp. 4-5)
DOE acknowledges AHAM's comment regarding the burden of re-
certifying and re-labeling their products. However, as DOE has
tentatively determined that the revised energy adder would more
accurately measure energy use during a representative average use
cycle, DOE is required to include the revised energy adder in the
amended test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)) Additionally, having
tentatively determined that the revised energy adder will alter the
measured energy use of consumer refrigeration products with automatic
icemakers as determined under the existing test procedure, DOE is
required to amend the energy conservation standards for these products
during this test procedure rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) In
determining the amended energy conservation standard, DOE must measure,
pursuant to the amended test procedure, the energy use of a
representative sample of these consumer refrigeration products with
automatic icemakers that minimally comply with the existing standard.
The average of such energy use under the amended test procedure then
must constitute the amended energy conservation standard for the
applicable covered products. Id. In this case, as DOE is proposing to
reduce the energy adder for automatic icemakers by 56 kWh per year (the
difference between the current value of 84 kWh per year and the
proposed value of 28 kWh per year), the measured energy use of
minimally-compliant products will also decrease by 56 kWh per year. As
such, DOE is proposing to amend the energy conservation standards for
consumer refrigeration products with automatic icemakers to reflect a
reduction of 56 kWh per year in the equation for maximum energy use.
Further, in order to reduce the burden on manufacturers of re-
certifying and re-labeling their products, DOE is proposing a one-year
lead-time period before any amended standards would go into effect.
Table III-I and Table III-II include the current and proposed amended
energy conservation standards for the product classes with automatic
icemakers.
Table III-I--Proposed Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Freezer, and
Freezer Product Classes with Automatic Icemakers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current equations for maximum Proposed equations for maximum
energy use (kWh/yr) energy use (kWh/yr)
Product class -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on AV Based on AV
(ft\3\) Based on av (L) (ft\3\) Based on av (L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3I. Refrigerator-freezers--automatic 8.07AV + 317.7 0.285av + 317.7 8.07AV + 261.7 0.285av + 261.7
defrost with top-mounted freezer with
an automatic icemaker without through-
the-door ice service...................
3I-BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezers-- 9.15AV + 348.9 0.323av + 348.9 9.15AV + 292.9 0.323av + 292.9
automatic defrost with top-mounted
freezer with an automatic icemaker
without through-the-door ice service...
4I. Refrigerator-freezers--automatic 8.51AV + 381.8 0.301av + 381.8 8.51AV + 325.8 0.301av + 325.8
defrost with side-mounted freezer with
an automatic icemaker without through-
the-door ice service...................
4I-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers-- 10.22AV + 441.4 0.361av + 441.4 10.22AV + 385.4 0.361av + 385.4
automatic defrost with side-mounted
freezer with an automatic icemaker
without through-the-door ice service...
5I. Refrigerator-freezers--automatic 8.85AV + 401.0 0.312av + 401.0 8.85AV + 345.0 0.312av + 345.0
defrost with bottom-mounted freezer
with an automatic icemaker without
through-the-door ice service...........
5I-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers-- 9.40AV + 420.9 0.332av + 420.9 9.40AV + 364.9 0.332av + 364.9
automatic defrost with bottom-mounted
freezer with an automatic icemaker
without through-the-door ice service...
5A. Refrigerator-freezer--automatic 9.25AV + 475.4 0.327av + 475.4 9.25AV + 419.4 0.327av + 419.4
defrost with bottom-mounted freezer
with through-the-door ice service......
5A-BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer-- 9.83AV + 499.9 0.347av + 499.9 9.83AV + 443.9 0.347av + 443.9
automatic defrost with bottom-mounted
freezer with through-the-door ice
service................................
6. Refrigerator-freezers--automatic 8.40AV + 385.4 0.297av + 385.4 8.40AV + 329.4 0.297av + 329.4
defrost with top-mounted freezer with
through-the-door ice service...........
[[Page 70851]]
7. Refrigerator-freezers--automatic 8.54AV + 432.8 0.302av + 432.8 8.54AV + 376.8 0.302av + 376.8
defrost with side-mounted freezer with
through-the-door ice service...........
7-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers-- 10.25AV + 502.6 0.362av + 502.6 10.25AV + 446.6 0.362av + 446.6
automatic defrost with side-mounted
freezer with through-the-door ice
service................................
9I. Upright freezers with automatic 8.62AV + 312.3 0.305av + 312.3 8.62AV + 256.3 0.305av + 256.3
defrost with an automatic icemaker.....
9I-BI. Built-in upright freezers with 9.86AV + 344.9 0.348av + 344.9 9.86AV + 288.9 0.348av + 288.9
automatic defrost with an automatic
icemaker...............................
13I. Compact refrigerator-freezers-- 11.80AV + 423.2 0.417av + 423.2 11.80AV + 376.2 0.417av + 376.2
automatic defrost with top-mounted
freezer with an automatic icemaker.....
14I. Compact refrigerator-freezers-- 6.82AV + 540.9 0.241av + 540.9 6.82AV + 484.9 0.241av + 484.9
automatic defrost with side-mounted
freezer with an automatic icemaker.....
15I. Compact refrigerator-freezers-- 11.80AV + 423.2 0.417av + 423.2 11.80AV + 367.2 0.417av + 367.2
automatic defrost with bottom-mounted
freezer with an automatic icemaker.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III-II--Proposed Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Product
Classes of Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products With Automatic Icemakers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed
Product class Current maximum maximum AEU
AEU (kWh/yr) (kWh/yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-9I. Cooler with upright freezer 5.58AV + 231.7 5.58AV + 175.7
with automatic defrost with an
automatic icemaker.................
C-9I-BI. Built-in cooler with 6.38AV + 252.8 6.38AV + 196.8
upright freezer with automatic
defrost with an automatic icemaker.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Built-In Test Configuration
Built-in consumer refrigeration products generally are products
that (1) have unfinished sides that are not intended to be viewable
after installation; (2) are designed exclusively to be installed
totally encased by cabinetry, fastened to the adjoining cabinetry,
walls, or floor; and (3) are either equipped with a factory-finished
face or accept a custom front panel. 10 CFR 430.2. In the July 2013
NOPR, DOE presented data indicating that testing in a built-in
enclosure may affect measured energy consumption for certain
configurations of built-in products. 79 FR 41610, 41649-41650.
Specifically, those products that reject condenser heat at the back of
the unit showed a potential increase in energy use when tested in an
enclosure. DOE observed no significant change in energy use associated
with the test configuration for those products that reject heat from
the front of the unit. DOE did not propose any changes to the test
requirements for built-in products at that time, but requested comment
on the appropriate test configuration for built-in refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. Id. DOE provided additional time
to comment on the built-in testing issue prior to the April 2014 Final
Rule, but did not address the issue in that rule.
In the rulemaking leading to the April 2014 Final Rule, DOE
received multiple comments on testing for built-in products. Some
commenters supported testing built-in products in an enclosure, stating
that this would represent how the products are used in the field.
(Joint Commenters, 2012 TP Rulemaking No. 42 at pp. 5-6; NEEA and NPCC,
2012 TP Rulemaking No. 41 at p. 4)
Other interested parties opposed the enclosure test setup, stating
that it would result in a significant increase in test burden with
little or no corresponding change in measured energy consumption. These
interested parties also stated that, for the products with different
measured energy use between the freestanding and enclosure test setups
(i.e., those products with heat rejection at the rear of the unit), the
enclosure configuration that DOE used (based on Underwriters
Laboratories (``UL'') Standard 250, ``Household Refrigerators and
Freezers'' (``UL 250'')) was not necessarily consistent with
manufacturer installation instructions. (AHAM, 2012 TP Rulemaking No.
37 at pp. 16-17; BSH, 2012 TP Rulemaking No. 21 at p. 1; Liebherr-
Canada, Ltd. (``Liebherr''), 2012 TP Rulemaking No. 34 at pp. 1-4; Sub-
Zero, 2012 TP Rulemaking No. 36 at p. 2) Liebherr provided additional
test data indicating that units with rear condensers do not have
significantly different measured energy consumption when tested without
an enclosure compared to that when testing in an enclosure consistent
with the manufacturer installation instructions. (Liebherr, 2012 TP
Rulemaking No. 34 at pp. 1-4)
In the June 2017 RFI, DOE requested further information on
appropriate testing for built-in products, including energy impacts of
testing in an enclosure, representativeness of test results compared to
actual consumer use, test burden, and any potential alternative test
approaches. 82 FR 29783-29784.
AHAM stated that there is no value in requiring built-in testing
for products that reject heat out the front of the unit because doing
so would not increase the representativeness of the test. (AHAM, No. 5
at p. 5) FSI stated that it strongly supports the current procedure of
testing built-in appliances in a freestanding configuration. (FSI, No.
6 at p. 2)
AHAM commented that the UL 250 enclosure is not the most
representative test for built-in products that reject heat from the
back of the unit because it would not include proper venting according
to the manufacturer
[[Page 70852]]
installation instructions. AHAM noted that, when installed according to
manufacturer instructions, these units would consume little or no
additional energy when compared to the freestanding test. Therefore,
AHAM opposed any revisions to the test procedure that would require
testing built-in models in the built-in condition. (AHAM, No. 5 at pp.
5-6) BSH stated that its products discharge condenser air out the front
of the product, and while there is some residual heat gain from an
enclosure, it is minimal. BSH stated that the potential variation from
misinterpretation of installation instructions is not worth the small
amount of energy captured through an enclosure test procedure. (BSH,
No. 2 at p. 2) Sub Zero commented that, based on decades of testing, it
sees no need to test built-in products in enclosures. Sub Zero stated
that it has more experience with built-in products than any other
manufacturers, and for its products that exhaust air through the front
of the product, there is no technical reason to expect a difference
when testing with or without an enclosure. (Sub Zero, No. 4 at p. 2)
BSH further commented that an enclosure for built-in products can
lead to different interpretations and variations in the test because
products can be installed in many different ways (e.g., side-by-side,
with cabinets between the refrigerator and freezer, etc.), so
installation instructions differ for the various applications. (BSH,
No. 2 at p. 2) FSI stated that, unless instructions were followed
precisely, reproducible results would be impossible because many units
have specific installation instructions for ventilation. Additionally,
FSI commented that if manufacturers must submit installation
instructions to DOE, it would impose another reporting burden, and that
preparing proper installation instructions may also be costly and
difficult to reproduce for verification. (FSI, No. 6 at p. 2)
AHAM commented that requiring enclosures for built-in testing would
significantly increase burden without a corresponding benefit to the
representativeness or accuracy of the test procedure. AHAM commented
that the built-in test would make the test procedure unduly burdensome
to conduct because there are so many different sizes of built-in units
and so many customizable configurations that would require an excessive
number enclosures. According to data AHAM collected from its members,
it is possible that manufacturers could be required to have from three
to 12 different size enclosures in order to test built-in units. AHAM
noted that manufacturers would need more than one of each of those
sizes, for example, up to four, which means that manufacturers could be
required to build and house 12 to 48 enclosures. AHAM stated that
number would increase even further were the enclosure to be built
according to the manufacturer's installation instructions (as it would
need to be for a representative measurement). Additionally, AHAM
commented that third-party test laboratories would potentially need to
have all of the possible enclosures available as well. AHAM noted that
not only would there be an expense to create all of those enclosures,
but neither manufacturer nor third-party laboratories have the capacity
to store them, and the enclosure would increase test time to install
units in a built-in configuration. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 2, 6)
BSH, FSI, and Sub Zero echoed AHAM's comments, stating that an
enclosure would make the test longer and more burdensome due to the
different sizes of enclosures needed for the range of different size
products available. (BSH, No. 2 at p. 2; FSI, No. 6 at p. 2; Sub Zero,
No. 4 at p. 2) FSI further stated that the labor for a custom enclosure
could add $1,000 or more to each energy test. (FSI, No. 6 at p. 2)
The Joint Commenters stated that built-in products should be tested
in an enclosure, regardless of their configuration or heat-rejection
approach. They commented that testing of built-in products in a built-
in condition, as they are installed in the field, will be more
representative of field energy consumption than testing in a free-
standing condition. They also stated that DOE should establish
guidelines for the test enclosure that are consistent with general
installation instructions for these products. (Joint Commenters, No. 7
at p. 4)
DOE acknowledges that the test enclosures based on UL 250 are not
consistent with all manufacturer instructions, which may provide for
additional spacing and airflow pathways around the test unit to ensure
adequate airflow across the condenser and heat transfer from the
condenser to the ambient air. Accordingly, the test results presented
in the July 2013 NOPR for the unit with a rear condenser when tested
with an enclosure may not represent energy use when installed according
to manufacturer instructions for all such units.
Test results from the July 2013 NOPR indicate that the test
configuration does not have a significant impact on measured energy
consumption when testing units that exhaust heat from the front of the
unit. For units with rear condensers, test configuration appears to
have no significant impact on measured energy consumption when tested
in an enclosure consistent with manufacturer recommendations (according
to additional data supplied by Liebherr in response to the July 2013
NOPR). Additionally, because of the variety of manufacturer
installation instructions, a standardized test enclosure may not
produce measurements of energy use representative of actual
installations for all units with rear condensers. As such, DOE believes
that testing with an enclosure would impose an unnecessary test burden
on manufacturers and third-party test laboratories that would outweigh
any corresponding improvement to measured energy consumption. DOE has
tentatively determined that testing built-in units in enclosures
consistent with the manufacturer installation instructions would have
no significant difference compared to testing in a freestanding
configuration. Therefore, DOE is not proposing to amend the current
requirement that all units be tested in the freestanding configuration.
However, because any test procedure that DOE adopts must be
reasonable designed to produce results that measure energy use of the
relevant product during a representative average use cycle or period of
use, and must not be unduly burdensome to conduct, DOE welcomes further
comment and additional data on this issue. Specifically, DOE requests
any information on how built-in products are installed in the field
(i.e., whether they are installed in accordance with manufacturers'
instructions) and on whether the built-in installation, as installed in
the field, has any impact on energy consumption.
F. Test Setup
1. Thermocouple Configuration for Freezer Drawers
As discussed in section III.C of this document, Appendix A and
Appendix B incorporate by reference portions of HRF-1-2008 for testing
requirements. Section 5.5.5.5 of HRF-1-2008 includes figures specifying
thermocouple placement for several example fresh food and freezer
compartment configurations. HRF-1-2008 also notes that in situations
where the interior of a cabinet does not conform to the configurations
shown in the example figures, measurements must be taken at
[[Page 70853]]
locations chosen to represent approximately the entire cabinet.
In the June 2017 RFI, DOE discussed that HRF-1-2008 and HRF-1-2016
provide a specific thermocouple location diagram for freezer
compartments in refrigerator-freezers (type 6 in Figure 5-2). However,
the diagram for this configuration is based on an upright, front-
opening freezer compartment, and does not explicitly address drawer-
type freezer compartments. Based on its experience testing these
products at third-party test laboratories, DOE noted that additional
specification may be required regarding which thermocouple layout is
appropriate for drawer-type freezer compartments in refrigerator-
freezers. DOE stated in the June 2017 RFI that sensor layout type 6 is
likely appropriate for testing drawer-type freezer compartments in
refrigerator-freezers and requested feedback on this clarification. 82
FR 29784.
AHAM commented that it had issued errata to HRF-1-2008 and HRF-1-
2016 adding a note to Figure 5-2 indicating that if the compartment
volume is less than 2 cubic feet, then a single thermocouple shall be
located at the geometric center of the compartment. AHAM noted that
this statement was previously included in HRF-1-2008 Section 5.8.1, but
AHAM issued the errata because it believed placement of the sentence
was causing confusion regarding thermocouple placement in freezer
drawers (i.e., freezers with compartment volume less than 2 cubic
feet). AHAM stated that this change should resolve DOE's concern and
urged DOE to acknowledge the errata as part of its incorporation by
reference of Figure 5-2, and there would be no need for DOE to change
the test procedure. AHAM commented that DOE could, perhaps, issue
guidance acknowledging that the errata are included in DOE's
incorporation by reference of Figure 5-2; alternatively, AHAM stated
that DOE could incorporate by reference HRF-1-2016, for which AHAM has
also issued the same errata. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 9)
As stated in section III.C of this proposed rule, DOE is proposing
to incorporate by reference HRF-1-2016 for both Appendix A and Appendix
B. This incorporation by reference would also include any relevant
errata to HRF-1-2016, including the clarification to Figure 5-2. DOE is
also proposing to amend Appendix A and Appendix B to explicitly specify
that for freezer drawers, the thermocouple setup for drawer-type
freezer compartments shall follow sensor layout type 6 specified in
HRF-1-2016. DOE expects that all drawer-type freezer compartments are
already tested using sensor layout type 6, and therefore, this proposed
amendment would likely not affect how any units are currently tested.
DOE requests feedback on whether this sensor layout or any other
thermocouple configurations set forth in HRF-1-2016 require any
additional detail.
2. Test Platform Requirements
Section 2.1.3 in both Appendix A and Appendix B requires that a
test platform be used if the test chamber floor temperature is not
within 3 [deg]F of the measured ambient temperature. If a platform is
used, it must have a solid top with all sides open for air circulation
underneath, and its top shall extend at least 1 foot beyond each side
and front of the unit under test and extend to the wall in the rear.
DOE included this requirement to limit the variability of airflow near
the unit during testing. Airflow directly at the base of the unit may
increase heat transfer from the condenser and compressor compartment,
resulting in better measured energy performance compared to a unit with
no airflow at the base of the unit.
The text of section 2.1.3 in Appendix A and Appendix B does not
explicitly address the setup for a test chamber floor that has vents
for airflow. Such a test chamber floor is analogous to a ``platform''
because the floor is elevated above an airflow pathway. Therefore,
testing should follow the same procedure required for a test platform.
To limit potential confusion regarding appropriate test setup and
corresponding variability in airflow at the base of a unit under test,
DOE is proposing that a floor with holes or vents for airflow at the
base of a test unit would need to meet the same requirements as a
platform. Therefore, DOE is proposing to specify that for a test
chamber floor that allows for airflow (e.g., through a vent or holes),
any airflow pathways through the floor must be located at least 1 foot
away from all sides of the unit. DOE requests comment on this proposed
amendment, including information on any associated testing burden and
whether additional instructions regarding airflow around the test unit
may be necessary to limit test variability. Based on DOE's experience
with third party laboratories, DOE believes that this proposal is
consistent with current industry practice, and therefore DOE expects
that this proposal would not impact measured energy use.
3. Separate External Temperature Controls
Certain refrigerators do not include integrated temperature
controls within the cabinet assembly. Rather, the refrigerator is
intended to be connected to a separate freezer that houses the controls
for both the refrigerator and freezer cabinets. DOE granted a waiver to
Liebherr Canada, Ltd. (Liebherr) to allow for testing such a product.
79 FR 19886 (April 10, 2014). Under the waiver approach, Liebherr must
test the refrigerator according to Appendix A with the additional
requirement that the freezer cabinet (with controls for both the
refrigerator and freezer) be close enough to allow for the electrical
connection to the refrigerator, but far enough away to avoid
interfering with ambient airflow or other test conditions. The freezer
must be set to the ``off'' position for testing. Id. at 79 FR 19887-
19888.
DOE is not aware of any other products for which the cabinet
controls are housed in a separate product; however, DOE is proposing to
amend Appendix A and Appendix B to address such cases to eliminate the
potential need for additional test procedure waivers. DOE is proposing
to follow the approach specified in the Liebherr waiver, but with
revisions to be applicable to different cabinet configurations. The
proposed test procedure specifies that if a product's controls are
external to the cabinet, the product shall be connected to the controls
as needed for normal operation, but any additional equipment needed for
testing shall not interfere with ambient airflow or other test
conditions, and the controls for any other cabinets shall be set to the
``off'' position during testing. DOE is proposing to include these
requirements in new sections 2.10 and 2.9 in Appendix A and Appendix B,
respectively.
DOE requests comment on its proposed approach and on whether any
further instructions would be needed to address products with
temperature controls separate from the product cabinet.
G. Test Conditions
1. Vertical Gradient
Section 2.1.2 of both Appendix A and Appendix B requires that a
test room vertical ambient temperature gradient of no more than 0.5
[deg]F per foot (0.9 [deg]C per meter) must be maintained during
testing. To demonstrate that this requirement has been met, test data
must include measurements taken using temperature sensors at locations
10 inches from the center of the two sides
[[Page 70854]]
of the unit under test at heights of 2 inches and 36 inches above the
floor or supporting platform and at a height of 1 foot above the unit
under test.
Section 2.1.2 does not, however, specify when the vertical ambient
temperature gradient must be maintained. Section 2.1.1 of both
appendices specifies that the ambient temperature shall be maintained
during both the stabilization period and test period. DOE believes that
the vertical ambient temperature gradient should also be maintained
during both the stabilization period and test period to ensure
consistent ambient conditions throughout both periods. Thus, DOE is
proposing that the vertical ambient temperature gradient be maintained
during both the stabilization period and test period. DOE expects that
this proposal would reduce the potential for testing variability, but
does not believe that this proposal would impact measured energy use.
Additionally, the requirement to measure temperature 1 foot above
the unit under test does not explicitly address products with
components that extend above the top of the refrigerated storage
cabinet (e.g., beer dispensers or ``keg refrigerators'' with taps on
top of the cabinet). The test procedure does not specify whether the
temperature measurement should be made 1 foot above the main storage
cabinet or 1 foot above the highest point of the unit under test. DOE
is proposing that when measuring the vertical gradient from 1 foot
above the unit, the top of the unit should be determined by the
refrigerated cabinet height, excluding any accessories or protruding
components on the top of the unit (e.g., taps/dispensers). DOE expects
that this proposal would reduce the potential for testing variability
and does not expect it to impact measured energy use, should it be
adopted.
2. Stabilization
Section 2.9 in Appendix A and section 2.7 in Appendix B each
provide two options for determining whether steady-state conditions
exist, based on a maximum rate of change of average compartment
temperatures, for a unit under test. The first option specifies
determining the rate of change of compartment temperatures by comparing
temperature measurements recorded during a period of at least 2 hours
to the measurements recorded over an equivalent time period, with 3
hours elapsing between the two measurement periods.
For test units with cycling compressors, it may not be possible to
measure temperatures over complete compressor cycles while allowing
exactly 3 hours to elapse between the measurement periods. However, as
DOE stated in the July 2013 NOPR discussion of this topic, DOE
considers the 3-hour period to represent a minimum elapsed time between
temperature checkpoint periods. 78 FR 41610, 41651. Accordingly, DOE is
proposing that for the stability check, the time elapsed between
measurement periods must be at least 3 hours. This proposed amendment
is consistent with the steady-state condition requirements included in
section 3.28 of HRF-1-2008 and section 3.32 of HRF-1-2016.
Additionally, DOE is proposing to amend the Appendix B stabilization
criteria to match the wording and formatting of Appendix A for
consistency.
Additionally, in response to the June 2017 RFI, multiple interested
parties commented regarding the use of the same data for the
stabilization period and the test period when testing certain products.
AHAM commented to reiterate its proposal that DOE include the
stabilization period as part of the test period. Specifically, AHAM
proposed that, in cases where part A stability (as stated in Appendix
A, section 2.9) data can be used, the full stability data be used for
the first part of the test instead of requiring a separate part one of
the test. AHAM noted that this approach would shorten test time and
allow testers to use data established over a long period of time (e.g.,
54 hours), instead of requiring that data to be essentially ignored.
AHAM stated that with electronic data acquisition systems, there is no
need to require separate data acquisition periods for stabilization and
part one of the test. AHAM commented that this proposed change would
not only reduce burden, but it would increase the accuracy of the test
because part one of the test would be based on known stability, not on
however the product behaves on a separate part one of the test. AHAM
noted that for part B stability (as stated in Appendix A, section 2.9),
the procedure should remain as currently written. AHAM included a
graphical representation of its proposal attached at Exhibit B in the
submitted comment. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 8) BSH and Sub Zero both
commented in support of AHAM's comment. (BSH, No. 2 at p. 2; Sub Zero,
No. 4 at p. 2)
DOE tentatively agrees that the stabilization period and part one
of a two-part energy test capture essentially the same unit operation.
As AHAM stated, using the stabilization period as the test period would
also ensure that the product is stable. The current requirements
establish stability prior to the test period. It could be possible,
although unlikely, that a unit under test achieves stability during the
stabilization period and reverts to unstable operation for the test
period. Accordingly, DOE is proposing to amend the test period
requirements in Appendix A and Appendix B to require that, if the part
A stabilization criteria is used, that same period shall be used for
test period data, where appropriate (i.e., for the test periods that do
not capture defrosts).
Additionally, DOE is aware that stabilization determinations may be
difficult for products with multiple compressors or irregular
compressor cycling. For these products, the average compartment
temperatures over one complete compressor cycle may not be
representative of the average compartment temperatures over a longer
period of operation with multiple compressor cycles. For example, a
product with a combination of long and short compressor on cycles
during normal operation would likely have either higher or lower
average compartment temperatures over an individual compressor on/off
cycle, when compared to the average compartment temperatures over a
longer period of operation with multiple compressor cycles.
Products with this type of operation may not be able to meet the
requirements for determining the start and end points for the defrost
portion of the test when using the two-part test as provided in section
4.2.1.1 in Appendix A and Appendix B (and 4.2.3.4.2 in Appendix A for
multiple-compressor products) because the average temperature of an
individual compressor cycle may never match the average temperature
over a longer period of operation including many compressor cycles. For
these products using the two-part test method, DOE is proposing to
include an alternate determination of when to start and end the defrost
test period. To begin the period, DOE is proposing that average
compartment temperatures be determined over one or more complete
compressor cycles before a defrost. The average temperatures over the
multiple complete compressor cycles must be within 0.5 [deg]F of the
average determined over the first part of the test, and all cycles
included in the averaging period would be included within the defrost
test period. Similarly, the test period would end with a period of
complete compressor cycles after a defrost with the average compartment
temperatures over that period within 0.5 [deg]F of the average
determined over the first part of
[[Page 70855]]
the test. All compressor cycles included in the averaging period would
be included in the defrost test period.
For products with multiple compressors, the asynchronous cycling of
the different compressors may make it even more difficult to determine
whether average compartment temperatures are within 0.5 [deg]F of the
average temperatures for the first part of the test. To address this
issue, DOE is proposing that if a multiple compressor product cannot
meet the 0.5 [deg]F criteria, the test period shall include precool,
defrost, and recovery time for the defrosted compartment, as well as
sufficient dual compressor cycles to allow the length of the test
period to be at least 24 hours, unless a second defrost occurs prior to
completion of 24 hours, in which case the second part of the test shall
include a whole number of complete primary compressor cycles comprising
at least 18 hours. The test period would start at the end of a regular
freezer compressor on-cycle after the previous defrost occurrence
(refrigerator or freezer). The test period would also include the
target defrost and following freezer compressor cycles, ending at the
end of a freezer compressor on-cycle before the next defrost occurrence
(refrigerator or freezer). This proposed approach is consistent with an
existing waiver test method for a multiple compressor product, as
described further in Section III.J.2.a of this document.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See case number RF-042.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests feedback on these proposed amendments and whether they
would result in any unexpected testing issues. Additionally, DOE seeks
comment on the proposed amendments for testing conditions, including
the vertical ambient temperature gradient and stabilization provisions.
DOE welcomes information on the testing burden and impacts on test
repeatability and reproducibility associated with these proposed test
conditions.
H. Features Not Directly Addressed in Appendix A or Appendix B
1. Door-In-Door Designs
DOE's test procedures for consumer refrigeration products represent
operation in typical room conditions with door openings by testing at
an elevated ambient temperature with no door openings. 10 CFR
430.23(a)(7). The increased thermal load from the elevated ambient
temperature represents the thermal load associated with both door
openings, as warmer ambient air mixes with the refrigerated air inside
the cabinet, and the loading of warmer items in the cabinet.
As discussed in the June 2017 RFI, DOE is aware of certain products
available on the market that incorporate a door-in-door design. This
feature allows the consumer to access items loaded in the door shelves
without opening an interior door that encloses the inner cabinet. This
feature potentially prevents much of the cool cabinet air from escaping
to the room and being replaced by warmer ambient air, as would be the
case during a typical total door opening. 82 FR 29782.
In response to the June 2017 RFI, AHAM and BSH commented that they
do not have consumer use data regarding door-in-door designs, and that
DOE should not amend the test procedure to address these features
without having consumer use data. (AHAM, No. 5 at pp. 6-7; BSH, No. 2
at p. 2) AHAM further stated that it would oppose any proposed change
that would alter the closed door test, which is representative of
consumer use because it is based on reliable data regarding ambient
conditions and door openings. AHAM commented that door openings
introduce significant variation into the test and dramatically increase
test burden because of the need to control the door openings with
precision; thus, the test should not be revised to include door
openings even for only certain types of products. AHAM suggested that
once statistically significant consumer data from field studies are
available, DOE should evaluate possible calculation or other approaches
that do not add test burden or change the representativeness,
repeatability, or reproducibility of the test to account for door-in-
door designs. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 7) Sub Zero further commented that the
benefits of a 90 [deg]F ambient closed-door test have been fully
demonstrated and no other test method provides the same accuracy,
repeatability, comparability among models and configurations, and
reasonable burden and cost for testing. Sub Zero stated that it
appreciates the need for this type of test as a smaller manufacturer
striving to remain competitive with large multi-national producers.
(Sub Zero, No. 4 at pp. 1-2)
The Joint Commenters stated that DOE's test procedures should be
designed to capture the benefits of features that can provide energy
savings in the field; therefore, additional investigation may be
warranted to evaluate whether door-in-door designs have the potential
to save a significant amount of energy, and if so, how these savings
could be captured in the test procedure. The Joint Commenters provided
the following example data regarding door-opening energy consumption: A
Trinity University study estimated that door openings and container
replacement account for about 17 to 23 percent of the overall cabinet
load; and a study by the Florida Solar Energy Center similarly found
that for a refrigerator with a rated annual energy consumption of 760
kWh per year, door openings were responsible for about 19 percent of
the total energy consumption. The Joint Commenters noted that reducing
the energy consumption associated with door openings may therefore
represent an opportunity for energy savings. (Joint Commenters, No. 7
at pp. 1-2)
Samsung commented in support of accounting for door-in-door designs
using a field use factor to be established by testing various product
configurations to establish energy-saving potential, and provided an
example of how such a factor may be determined. Samsung stated that the
door-in-door design on its products allows quick access to main door
bins without opening the main refrigerator door, which reduces energy
loss due to door openings. Limited Samsung testing indicated that the
door-in-door feature reduces energy consumption by 7.4 percent assuming
12 door openings per day; assuming 40 door openings per day and 50
percent use of the outer door only, Samsung estimated that the door-in-
door feature would save around 9.8 percent energy consumption. Samsung
also commented that it has developed a camera and display system that
shows food items inside the refrigerator without opening the door,
which similarly reduces door openings and saves energy. (Samsung, No. 8
at pp. 1-2, 4-5)
DOE agrees with the Joint Commenters and Samsung that the door-in-
door feature and camera/display systems have the potential to reduce
energy consumption associated with door openings for these products.
However, DOE does not believe that there is sufficient data regarding
consumer usage patterns of this feature to warrant revisions to the
test procedure at this time.
Additionally, DOE notes that the storage volume associated with
door shelves is typically much smaller than the main cabinet storage
volume. Accordingly, DOE expects that most door openings are intended
to provide access to the main storage cabinet, and that consumers are
unlikely to frequently use only the outer door of products with a door-
in-door feature.
For these reasons, DOE is not proposing to amend its test
procedures
[[Page 70856]]
to address door-in-door designs (or other features that potentially
reduce door openings, e.g., internal cameras) in this NOPR.
To ensure that DOE's test procedures measure energy use of a
product during a representative average use cycle or period of use, DOE
continues to request comment on whether the existing test procedures
should be amended to account for door-in-door designs or any other
features that may reduce door openings. DOE also seeks information
regarding what steps, if any, manufacturers are taking to estimate the
energy use characteristics of products that use door-in-door designs.
Further, DOE requests data, if any, on consumer use of the door-in-door
feature or internal cameras (or any available consumer use information
regarding door openings), including how often the outer door or camera
is used in comparison to a full door opening, and the corresponding
energy impacts of each type of door opening.
2. Display Screens and Connected Functions
DOE observes that consumer refrigeration products that include user
control panels or displays located on the front of the product are
being introduced into the market. Many products incorporating these
more advanced user interfaces also include internet connections to
allow for additional functions. These features, which can control the
product's function and provide additional user features, such as
television or internet access, operate with many different control
schemes, including activation by proximity sensors.
The current DOE test procedures require that consumer refrigeration
products that have a communication module for demand-response functions
be tested with the communication module in the ``as shipped''
configuration. Section 2.10 of Appendix A and section 2.8 of Appendix
B. Additionally, the current DOE test procedures, by referencing HRF-1-
2008, require testing with customer-accessible features not required
for normal operation and which are electrically powered, manually
initiated, and manually terminated, set at their lowest energy usage
positions when adjustment is provided.
In the June 2017 RFI, DOE requested feedback on how consumers
typically use these product features. Specifically, DOE sought
information on typical settings, and the manner and frequency in which
consumers use the features to inform appropriate test procedures. 82 FR
29782.
AHAM strongly objected to DOE amending the test procedure to
address these features absent consumer use data. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 6)
AHAM, Samsung, and Sub Zero commented that connected products are in
the early stages of development and meaningful data on consumer use for
connected features or display screens are currently unavailable, as
there has been limited market penetration. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 7;
Samsung, No. 8 at p. 3; Sub Zero, No. 4 at p. 2) AHAM and Samsung
stated that DOE should continue to require testing with these features
in their lowest energy-use positions to avoid limiting innovation.
(AHAM, No. 5 at p. 7; Samsung, No. 8 at p. 3)
BSH commented that display screens consume energy in normal use and
that energy is not captured during the existing test procedure. BSH
supported a reasonable proposal to include some portion of the energy
consumed by these features in the energy test, if they do not add
burden to the test procedure. BSH noted that Appendix A refers to
products with demand-response capability, and recommends that the test
procedure instead refer to all connected products. BSH stated that
connected communication modules consume a small amount of energy and
can be easily captured during the energy test. BSH recommended testing
with the communication module in the on position but not connected,
consistent with the European energy test. (BSH, No. 2 at p. 2)
The Joint Commenters encouraged DOE to amend the test procedure to
capture energy consumption associated with display screens and
connected functions. They noted that approximately 4 percent of ENERGY
STAR-qualified products have connected capabilities. The Joint
Commenters stated that there are at least two general types of display
screens that are currently present in some consumer refrigeration
products: One is a more advanced option screen for refrigerator
functionality; the other, which is sometimes referred to as a ``Smart
Screen,'' is essentially a tablet embedded into the refrigerator and
offers users a view into the refrigerator as well as access to other
features (e.g., to stream music, access the weather, etc.). The Joint
Commenters recommended that DOE consider specifying that display
screens be tested at their highest energy use position to provide both
a consistent method for capturing the energy consumption associated
with display screens and an incentive for manufacturers to provide
display screen functionality with low power consumption. The Joint
Commenters noted that the test procedure already uses the ``highest
energy use'' approach for testing convertible compartments. The Joint
Commenters also encouraged DOE to ensure that any network mode power
consumption is captured in the test procedure, and referred to IEC
Standard 62301 ``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of
standby power'' (IEC Standard 62301) as a possible reference. (Joint
Commenters, No. 7 at pp. 2-3)
DOE acknowledges that the current version of IEC Standard 62301
includes specifications for a ``network mode''; however, that standard
defines network mode as a mode in which at least one network function
is activated (such as reactivation via network command or network
integrity communication), but where the primary function is not active.
DOE notes that for consumer refrigeration products, the primary
function of refrigerating the cabinet requires continuous operation,
and therefore would always be active. Accordingly, consumer
refrigeration products would never operate in network mode as defined
in IEC Standard 62301.
DOE expects that some consumers will use connected features if
offered on a product. However, as noted by AHAM, Samsung, and Sub-Zero,
connected products are in the early stages of development and
meaningful data on consumer use for connected features or display
screens are currently unavailable (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 7; Samsung, No. 8
at p. 3; Sub Zero, No. 4 at p. 2). While the Joint Commenters referred
to a ``network mode,'' DOE notes that Wi-Fi connectivity and associated
display screens are relatively new features in consumer refrigeration
products. DOE does not want to limit innovation or hinder manufacturers
from offering these functions to consumers or impede the ability to
provide potential utility that these features may offer. DOE
understands that the connected features vary by model, and that further
specifying a test to reflect the energy consumption of the various
connected features would likely introduce test variability and increase
test burden. Absent additional consumer use data, DOE is not proposing
any amendments to the current test procedure approach.
DOE also proposes to remove sections 2.10 of Appendix A and 2.8 of
Appendix B, which state that products ``that have a communication
module for demand response functions that is located within the cabinet
shall be tested with the communication module in the configuration set
at the factory
[[Page 70857]]
just before shipping.'' DOE recently published an RFI on the emerging
smart technology appliance and equipment market. 83 FR 46886 (Sept. 17,
2018). In that RFI, DOE sought information to better understand market
trends and issues in the emerging market for appliances and commercial
equipment that incorporate smart technology. DOE's intent in issuing
the RFI was to ensure that DOE did not inadvertently impede such
innovation in fulfilling its statutory obligations in setting
efficiency standards for covered products and equipment. Additionally,
as discussed in the RFI, DOE lacks data regarding consumer use of
network features, including demand response. In this NOPR, consistent
with the RFI, DOE proposes to remove the sections addressing products
with demand-response capability from Appendix A and Appendix B. Under
the proposed approach, the HRF-1-2016 requirement that customer
accessible features not required for maintaining temperature be set at
their lowest energy usage positions would apply to communication
modules in demand-response capable products (with the ``off'' position
as the lowest energy usage position). DOE seeks comment on this
proposal and on the same issues presented in the RFI as they may be
applicable to consumer refrigeration products.
As discussed, under the current regulations, demand-response
capable products are only tested with the communication module in the
on position if a manufacturer ships the product in that configuration.
A manufacturer may ship the demand-response capable product with the
communication module in the off position, in which case, the
communication module remains off for testing. Whether the energy use
associated with the communication module is measured during testing is
dependent upon the manufacturer. While the proposed change regarding
demand-response capable products would affect the measured energy use
for any demand-response capable products with the communication module
shipped in the on position, DOE is not proposing to amend the energy
conservation standards for these products in accordance with 42 U.S.C.
6293(e)(2). DOE is only aware of demand-response capable products
available on the market that are also ENERGY STAR qualified. Because
manufacturers have the option of setting the as-shipped position, if a
manufacturer were to sell a minimally-compliant demand-response capable
product, the manufacturer would likely set the as-shipped position of
the communication module to the off position. Accordingly, DOE
estimates that this proposed test procedure change would have no impact
on the measured energy use of minimally-compliant products and no
amendment to the energy conservation standards is required.
For other consumer-accessible features, such as display screens,
DOE is proposing to maintain the existing approach, by referencing HRF-
1-2016, that these features be tested in their lowest energy use
position. For displays screens, the lowest energy use position is with
the screen off. Accordingly, the existing approach does not limit
innovation or features available for use in display screens or similar
consumer-accessible features, and is consistent with the discussion
included in the September 2018 RFI.
Although the Joint Commenters referred to the ``highest energy
use'' approach for convertible compartments in supporting similar
requirements for testing display screens and connected functions, DOE
notes that the convertible compartment requirements are for testing
associated with the primary function of the unit--refrigerating the
internal storage cabinets. Display screens and connected functions are
secondary features available on consumer refrigeration products.
DOE requests information on the prevalence of models with display
screens and connected functions, so that DOE can determine whether
measurement of the energy use of these connected features would
contribute to a test procedure that is reasonably designed to measure
energy use or energy efficiency during a representative average use
cycle or period of use, as required by EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3).
DOE again requests information on how consumers typically use
exterior display screens and control panels, when available. While any
information would be welcome, because DOE is interested in information
on energy use ratings that are representative of products in the field,
DOE is particularly interested in any data that may yield insight into
the manner and frequency with which consumers use these features.
Additionally, DOE requests detailed feedback on the appropriate energy-
related settings to use for these types of features during testing.
DOE also requests information on whether and how consumers
typically use an internet connection, when available, for consumer
refrigeration products. DOE also requests information on the potential
energy impacts, if any, these available features would have on consumer
refrigeration products.
I. Corrections
The July 2016 Final Rule inadvertently omitted from Appendix A an
optional method for calculating the average per-cycle energy
consumption of refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, which had been
previously included as section 6.2.2.3 in the version of Appendix A
established by the July 2014 Final Rule. See, section 6.2.2.3 of
Appendix A to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 (2015); see also, 79 FR
22320, 22330-22332, 22354. That missing provision comprised a method
for calculating average per-cycle energy consumption for models with
two compartments and user-operable controls when using the optional
test control settings and methodology specified for such models in
section 3.3 of Appendix A. Specifically, it calculated the average per-
cycle energy consumption as the sum of: (1) The energy consumption
defined and calculated as described in appendix M, section M4(a) of AS/
NZS 4474.1:2007, and (2) ``IET'', defined as 0.23 kWh per cycle for
products with an automatic icemaker and 0 kWh per cycle for products
without an automatic icemaker. DOE proposes to reinstate the missing
section of Appendix A as established in the July 2014 Final Rule as
section 6.2.3.3 to correspond to the revised section numbering
established by the July 2016 Final Rule.
DOE is proposing to revise the order of definitions in Appendix A
to alphabetize the defined terms.
DOE is also aware that section 6.1 in Appendix B inconsistently
refers to adjusted volume using the terms ``AV'' and ``VA.'' DOE is
proposing to amend section 6.1 so that only ``AV'' is used to refer to
adjusted volume, consistent with the usage in Appendix A. DOE is also
proposing to revise section 2.2 of Appendix B to include language
consistent with Appendix A regarding exceptions and clarifications to
cited sections of HRF-1-2016.
In sections 3.2.1.1 of Appendix A and 3.2.1 of Appendix B, DOE is
also proposing to modify the instructions to specify that the
instructions regarding electronic control settings refer to the
appropriate settings for the median test. In addition, DOE proposes to
modify the formatting of Table 1 in both Appendix A and Appendix B,
which summarizes the appropriate temperature settings, to better show
how test settings and results match for each row in the table.
[[Page 70858]]
Additionally, DOE proposes to amend Table 1 in Appendix A and Appendix
B to provide instructions regarding coverage and test procedure waivers
rather than the current ``No energy use rating'' entry.
DOE understands these proposed corrections as improving the
readability of the test procedures and expects that, if adopted, these
corrections would not impact how refrigeration products are currently
tested, or impact the test results as compared to the current test
procedures.
J. Compliance Date and Waivers
1. Compliance Date
EPCA prescribes that all representations of energy efficiency and
energy use, including those made on marketing materials and product
labels, must be made in accordance with an amended test procedure,
beginning 180 days after publication of such a test procedure final
rule in the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)) As noted, should
the amendments proposed in this document be made final, the updated
test procedure provisions related to the icemaker fixed adder, and the
associated amended energy conservation standards, would be required for
use one year after publication of such a test procedure final rule in
the Federal Register.
If DOE were to publish an amended test procedure for consumer
refrigeration products, EPCA provides an allowance for individual
manufacturers to petition DOE for an extension of the 180-day period if
the manufacturer may experience undue hardship in meeting the deadline.
(42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3)) To receive such an extension, petitions must be
filed with DOE no later than 60 days before the end of the 180-day
period and must detail how the manufacturer will experience undue
hardship. Id.
2. Waivers
Upon the compliance date of an amended test procedure, should DOE
issue such an amendment, any waivers that had been previously issued
and are in effect that pertain to issues addressed by the amended test
procedure are terminated. 10 CFR 430.27(h)(2). Recipients of any such
waivers would be required to test the products subject to the waiver
according to the amended test procedure as of the effective date of the
amended test procedure.
a. Waivers Relevant to the Proposed Amendments
DOE has granted a test procedure waiver to address testing
multiple-compressor products that may not be able to meet all
requirements included in Appendix A.\20\ That waiver addressed models
with non-uniform cycling that makes direct use of the Appendix A
requirements for evaluating temperature stability problematic. In its
April 2014 final rule, DOE incorporated provisions to address the
testing of products with multiple compressors, which were intended to
obviate the need for waivers for multiple-compressor products. 79 FR
22320, 22330 (April 21, 2014). However, in its petition for waiver, GE
contended that due to certain characteristics of the basic models
listed in the petition, the Appendix A test procedure does not allow
for accurately measuring the energy consumption of these basic models.
80 FR 7851, 7852 (Feb. 12, 2015). In the notice granting the waiver,
DOE determined that the specified models would not be able to reach the
temperature stability conditions specified in Appendix A. Id. at 80 FR
7853. DOE has not received additional petitions for waiver on this
issue. As discussed in section III.G.2 of this document, DOE is
proposing amendments to Appendix A and Appendix B to address the issue
in the GE waiver to limit the potential need for waivers for similar
models that are unable to meet the current stability requirements in
the test procedures. Should the proposed test procedure in this
document be made final, GE's waiver would terminate on the compliance
date of such a final rule and GE would be required to test the product
that was the subject of its waiver according to the amended test
procedure. DOE continues to request comment on potential amendments to
Appendix A and Appendix B to address the issue of determining
temperature stability for multiple-compressor products or other
products with irregular compressor cycles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See case number RF-042.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has also granted a waiver to allow for testing an all-
refrigerator while connected to an upright freezer model that houses
the controls for both cabinets.\21\ As discussed in section III.F.3 of
this document, Liebherr offers a product which relies on a companion
upright freezer model for control. DOE granted a waiver for this model
that requires the manufacturer to test and rate the all-refrigerator
while connected to the upright freezer controls, but with the freezer
located away from the refrigerator to avoid interfering with ambient
airflow or other test conditions. 79 FR 19886 (April 10, 2014). As
discussed in section III.F.3 of this document, DOE is proposing
amendments to Appendix A and Appendix B that would eliminate the need
for waivers to test products with separate external controls. Should
the proposed test procedure in this document be made final, Liebherr's
waiver would terminate on the compliance date of such a final rule and
Liebherr would be required to test the product that was the subject of
its waiver according to the amended test procedure. DOE continues to
request comment on whether such amendments to Appendix A and Appendix B
are appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See case number RF-035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. MREF Waivers
At present, DOE has granted multiple waivers from the test
procedures for consumer refrigeration products to address testing of
products that currently are defined as refrigerators and combination
cooler refrigeration products to determine compliance with the current
consumer refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer energy
conservation standards.\22\ As explained in the July 2016 Final Rule,
prior to the compliance date of the MREF energy conservation standards,
combination cooler refrigeration products are subject to the energy
conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerators, and freezers
based on testing according to relevant test procedure waivers. Id. at
46771. As noted in the waivers,\23\ upon the compliance date of the
MREF energy conservation standards (October 28, 2019) those waivers
will terminate. The issues addressed in these waivers, specifically the
alternate correction factor used for testing to determine compliance
with existing refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer energy
conservation standards, would not be affected by the amendments
proposed in this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See case numbers RF-040, RF-041, RF-044, RF-045, and RF-
047.
\23\ See, 79 FR 55769 (Sep. 17, 2014); 82 FR 21209 (May 5,
2017); 82 FR 36386 (Aug. 4, 2017); 80 FR 7854 (Feb. 12, 2015); 82 FR
21211 (May 5, 2017); and 83 FR 11743 (March 16, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
K. Test Procedure Impacts and Other Topics
1. Test Procedure Costs and Impacts
EPCA requires that test procedures proposed by DOE not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend the existing
test procedures for consumer refrigeration products in Appendix A and
Appendix B. In general, the proposed changes would update the
referenced industry test procedure; define the term ``compartment;''
amend the fixed adder
[[Page 70859]]
that accounts for automatic icemakers to better reflect consumer use;
provide additional specificity for a number of test setup and test
procedure requirements; combine the stabilization period with the test
period for certain products; and add regulatory text inadvertently
omitted in the previous test procedure rulemaking. DOE has tentatively
determined that these proposed amendments would not be unduly
burdensome for manufacturers to conduct and would reduce test burden
for manufacturers.
DOE's analysis of this proposal indicates that, if finalized, it
would result in net cost savings to manufacturers.
Table III.1--Summary of Cost Impacts for Consumer Refrigeration Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present value Discount rate
Category (million 2016$) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One-time re-testing and re- 0.7 3
labeling costs................... 0.6 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction in future testing costs. 35.6 3
24.3 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Net Cost Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total net cost impacts............ (34.8) 3
(23.6) 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.2--Summary of Annualized Cost Impacts for Consumer
Refrigeration Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized value Discount rate
Category (thousand 2016$) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One-time re-testing and re- 22 3
labeling costs................... 44 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Cost Savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction in Future Testing Costs. 1,067 3
952 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Net Annualized Cost Impact
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Net Cost Impact............. (1,045) 3
(907) 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further discussion of the cost impacts of the proposed test
procedure amendments are presented in the following paragraphs.
a. Proposed Amendment Regarding the Stabilization and Test Periods
DOE proposes to combine the stabilization period with the test
period for certain models of consumer refrigeration products. This
proposal would decrease test burden by shortening the test duration for
any model with stabilization determined according to sections 2.9(a) of
Appendix A or 2.7(A) of Appendix B and with non-automatic defrost, or
that would be tested to using the two-part test period. This amendment
would apply to consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers,
and MREFs.
Based on review of the Compliance Certification Database in DOE's
Compliance Certification Management System (CCMS), DOE has identified
3,641 models of consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and
freezers, representing 49 manufacturers, and 439 models of MREFs,
representing 32 manufacturers, that would be impacted by this proposed
amendment.
DOE expects that this proposal would decrease test duration by at
least 6 hours for these models (reflecting the 3-hour minimum test
period duration at two temperature settings) and up to 48 hours
(reflecting 24-hour test periods at each setting). Based on an
estimated decreased test duration of at least 6 hours (i.e., a decrease
in test time of greater than ten percent), DOE assumed a cost savings
of approximately ten percent (i.e., $500 per test).\24\ Additionally,
based on data from DOE's Compliance Certification Database, DOE
anticipates that manufacturers would replace or modify existing models
every 3.5 years. Therefore, on average, consumer refrigerator,
refrigerator-freezer, and freezer manufacturers would introduce
approximately 1,040 new or modified consumer refrigerator,
refrigerator-freezer, or freezer models each year that would use these
shorter overall testing periods. While, on average, MREF manufacturers
would introduce 125 new or modified consumer MREF models each year that
would use these shorter overall testing periods. Because DOE requires
manufacturers to test at least two units per model, manufacturers would
on average conduct 2,330 tests annually
[[Page 70860]]
using these shorter overall testing periods. Using these estimates, DOE
anticipates industry cost savings of approximately $1,040,000 per year
for consumer refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer
manufacturers and approximately $125,000 per year for MREF
manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ DOE expects that costs would decrease by a smaller
percentage than the total reduction in test time due to fixed
overhead and labor requirements for testing (i.e., test set up and
data analysis would be unchanged). The total cost per test is based
on FSI's comment stating between $4,500 and $5,000 per refrigerator
test conducted at outside laboratories. (FSI, No. 6 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has initially determined that this proposed amendment to the
test procedures for consumer refrigeration products would not require
changes to the designs of these products, and that the proposed
amendments would not impact the utility or the availability of consumer
refrigeration product options. DOE expects that the proposed amendments
would not impact the representations of energy efficiency or energy use
for consumer refrigeration products currently on the market.
Manufacturers would be able to rely on data generated under the current
test procedure, should the proposed amendments regarding stabilization
and test period be finalized. As such, manufacturers would not be
required to retest consumer refrigeration products as a result of DOE's
adoption of the proposed amendment to the test procedure stabilization
period.
DOE requests comment on its understanding of the impact and
associated costs of this proposed stabilization and test period
amendment.
b. Proposed Amendment Regarding Products With Demand-Response
Capability
DOE proposes to remove the sections addressing products with
demand-response capability from Appendix A and Appendix B. Under the
proposed approach, the HRF-1-2016 requirement that customer accessible
features not required for maintaining temperature be set at their
lowest energy usage positions would apply to communication modules in
demand-response capable products (with the ``off'' position as the
lowest energy usage position). This proposal could increase test burden
by requiring some models to be re-tested with communication modules in
the off position and potentially re-labeled if the re-tested energy
consumption value changes. This would be a one-time re-testing and re-
labeling cost for manufacturers, as models introduced into the market
after the test procedure proposal is required would not incur any
additional costs.
Based on review of the ENERGY STAR Database, DOE has identified 83
models of refrigerators or refrigerator-freezers, representing 12
manufacturers, and 8 models of freezers, representing two manufacturers
that would be impacted by this proposed amendment.
DOE conservatively estimates that all 91 models would be required
to be re-tested with the communications models in the off position.
Because DOE requires manufacturers to test at least two units per
model, manufacturers would have to re-test 182 units to comply with
this proposed test procedure amendment. DOE estimates a re-testing cost
to manufacturers of $4,500 for a single unit.\25\ Using these
estimates, DOE anticipates industry could incur costs up to $819,000
re-testing products in the 180 days after this test procedure is
finalized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Based on the initial $5,000 testing cost estimate and the
$500 savings due to the stabilization criteria proposed in this
amended test procedure proposal. DOE estimates that the
stabilization period time savings would apply to all demand-response
capable products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, manufacturers would have to re-label models if the
re-tested energy consumption value changes. DOE estimates the average
wage rate plus employer provided benefits for an employee to re-label
models is $39.35 per hour.\26\ DOE estimates that it would take an
employee approximately one hour to re-label a single model. Given the
conservative estimate of 91 models that could have their measured
energy consumption changed after being re-tested with the
communications in the off position, DOE estimates industry would incur
costs of approximately $3,580 to re-label models in the 180 days after
this test procedure is finalized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The Bureau of Labor Statistics mean hourly wage rate for
``Mechanical Engineering Technicians'' is $28.00. (May 2018; https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes173027.htm).
Additionally, according to the 2016 Annual Survey of
Manufacturers for NAICS code 33522, major appliance manufacturing,
wages represent approximately 71 percent of the total cost of
employment for an employer.
(AMS 2016, NAICS code 33522; https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm.html.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment on its understanding of the impact and
associated costs of the proposed amendment regarding products with
demand-response capability.
c. Proposed Amendment Regarding Energy Use Associated With Automatic
Icemaking
DOE is proposing to amend the automatic icemaker energy use adder
in Appendix A and Appendix B and to amend the corresponding energy
conservation standards for consumer refrigeration products with
automatic icemakers (both amendments would reflect an energy use
reduction of 56 kWh per year). This proposal would increase burden on
manufacturers by requiring some models to be re-labeled with the
updated annual energy consumption values.
Based on review of the Compliance Certification Database in DOE's
Compliance Certification Management System (CCMS), DOE has identified
1,334 models with automatic icemakers, representing 28 manufacturers
that could be impacted by this proposed amendment.
As discussed in the previous section, DOE estimates approximately
one hour for an employee to re-label a consumer freezer with automatic
icemakers based on the proposed updated energy consumption values.
Using the average wage rate plus employer provided benefits for an
employee to re-label models of $39.35 per hour, calculated in the
previous section, DOE anticipates industry would incur costs of
approximately $52,500 one year after this test procedure is finalized.
DOE requests comment on its understanding of the impact and
associated costs of the proposed amendment regarding energy use
associated with automatic icemaking.
d. Impact of the Other Proposed Amendments
DOE anticipates that the remainder of the amendments proposed in
this NOPR would not impact manufacturers' test or certification costs.
Most of the proposed amendments would provide additional specificity to
the applicability and conduct of the test procedures.
DOE has initially determined that these other proposed amendments
would not require changes to the designs of consumer refrigeration
products, and that the proposed amendments would not impact the utility
or availability of these products. The other proposed amendments would
not impact the representations of energy efficiency or energy use of
consumer refrigeration products. As a result, manufacturers would be
able to rely on data generated under the current test procedure, should
the proposed amendments be finalized. Manufacturers would not be
required to retest consumer refrigeration products as a result of DOE's
adoption of the other proposed amendments to the test procedure.
DOE requests comment on its understanding of the impact and
associated potential costs of these proposed amendments.
2. Harmonization With Industry Standards
The test procedures for consumer refrigeration products at Appendix
A and Appendix B incorporate by
[[Page 70861]]
reference the AHAM industry standard HRF-1-2008. DOE references HRF-1-
2008 for definitions, installation and operating conditions,
temperature measurements, and volume measurements. In August 2016, AHAM
released an updated version of the HRF-1 standard, HRF-1-2016, which
DOE is evaluating as part of this rulemaking. As noted in comments from
interested parties, the updates included in HRF-1-2016 harmonize with
the current DOE test procedure. This includes updates to definitions,
test requirements, formatting, and organization that are consistent
with DOE's requirements.
DOE requests comments on the benefits and burdens of the proposed
updates and additions to industry standards referenced in the test
procedure for consumer refrigeration products.
DOE also requests comment on the benefits and burdens of adopting
any industry/voluntary consensus-based or other appropriate test
procedure, without modification.
DOE notes that it is also aware of other international standards
for testing consumer refrigeration products. AS/NZS 4474.1:2007 and
Standard 62552:2007 (as well as a newer 2015 version) are used as test
standards for international efficiency programs. These tests follow a
similar methodology to the DOE and AHAM HRF-1 procedures--a closed door
test in elevated ambient temperatures. However, the international
standards vary from the DOE test by specifying different standardized
compartment temperatures, ambient temperatures, and test periods. DOE
has carefully considered these requirements when developing its
existing test procedures and expects that its procedures, with HRF-1
incorporated by reference, result in energy use ratings that are the
most representative of consumer use in the United States, while
limiting test burden.
3. Other Test Procedure Topics
In addition to the issues identified earlier in this document, DOE
welcomes comment on any other aspect of the existing test procedures
for consumer refrigeration products not already addressed by the
specific areas identified in this document. DOE particularly seeks
information that would ensure that the test procedure measures energy
efficiency during a representative average use cycle or period of use,
as well as information that would help DOE create a procedure that
would limit manufacturer test burden. Comments regarding repeatability
and reproducibility are also welcome.
In particular, DOE notes that under Executive Order 13771,
``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' Executive
Branch agencies such as DOE must manage the costs associated with the
imposition of expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations.
See 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017). Consistent with that Executive Order,
DOE encourages the public to provide input on measures DOE could take
to lower the cost of its regulations applicable to consumer
refrigeration products consistent with the requirements of EPCA.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
determined that the proposed regulatory action is a significant
regulatory action under section (3)(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, this action was reviewed by OIRA in the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777
On January 30, 2017, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.)
13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.'' E.O.
13771 stated the policy of the executive branch is to be prudent and
financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public
and private sources. E.O. 13771 stated it is essential to manage the
costs associated with the governmental imposition of private
expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations.
Additionally, on February 24, 2017, the President issued E.O.
13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.'' E.O. 13777 required
the head of each agency designate an agency official as its Regulatory
Reform Officer (RRO). Each RRO oversees the implementation of
regulatory reform initiatives and policies to ensure that agencies
effectively carry out regulatory reforms, consistent with applicable
law. Further, E.O. 13777 requires the establishment of a regulatory
task force at each agency. The regulatory task force is required to
make recommendations to the agency head regarding the repeal,
replacement, or modification of existing regulations, consistent with
applicable law. At a minimum, each regulatory reform task force must
attempt to identify regulations that:
(i) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
(ii) Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
(iii) Impose costs that exceed benefits;
(iv) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with
regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
(v) Are inconsistent with the requirements of Information Quality
Act, or the guidance issued pursuant to that Act, in particular those
regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or
methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently
transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or
(vi) Derive from or implement Executive Orders or other
Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or
substantially modified.
DOE initially concludes that this rulemaking is consistent with the
directives set forth in these executive orders. This proposed rule is
estimated to result in a cost savings. The proposed rule would yield an
annualized cost savings of approximately $907,000 (2016$) using a
perpetual time horizon discounted to 2016 at a 7 percent discount rate.
Therefore, if finalized as proposed, this rule is expected to be an
E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's website: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
DOE reviewed this proposed rule to amend the test procedures for
consumer refrigeration products under the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February
19, 2003. This NOPR proposes to amend DOE's consumer refrigeration
products test procedure to include a compartment definition;
incorporate by reference AHAM HRF-1-2016; revise the energy-
[[Page 70862]]
use adder for automatic icemakers; provide further specification on
test setup, conduct, and calculations; require that the stabilization
period be used as the test period for certain products; and correct
minor issues in Appendix A and Appendix B.
DOE uses the Small Business Administration's (``SBA'') small
business size standards to determine whether manufacturers qualify as
small businesses, which are listed by the North American Industry
Classification System (``NAICS'').\27\ The SBA considers a business
entity to be a small business, if, together with its affiliates, it
employs less than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR
part 121. The 2017 NAICS code for consumer refrigeration products is
335220, major household appliance manufacturing.\28\ The threshold
number for NAICS code 335220 is 1,500 employees. This employee
threshold includes all employees in a business's parent company and any
other subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Available online at: https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards.
\28\ The NAICS Association updated its industry classification
codes in early 2017. The previous 2012 NAICS code for consumer
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers was 335222,
household refrigerator and home freezer manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the manufacturers supplying consumer refrigeration products
are large multinational corporations. DOE conducted a focused inquiry
into small business manufacturers of products covered by this
rulemaking. DOE primarily used DOE's Compliance Certification Database
\29\ for consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers to
create a list of companies that sell consumer refrigeration products
covered by this rulemaking in the United States. DOE identified a total
of 67 distinct companies that sell consumer refrigeration products in
the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data. Accessed
October 5, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE then reviewed these companies to determine whether the entities
met the SBA's definition of ``small business'' and screened out any
companies that do not offer products covered by this rulemaking, do not
meet the definition of a ``small business,'' or are foreign-owned and
operated. Based on this review, DOE has identified eight domestic
manufacturers of consumer refrigeration products that are potential
small businesses. Through this analysis, DOE has determined the
expected effects of this rulemaking on these covered small businesses
and whether an IRFA was needed (i.e., whether DOE could certify that
this rulemaking would not have a significant impact).
DOE is proposing to combine the stabilization period with the test
period for certain products. DOE expects that this proposal would
decrease test duration by at least 6 hours for these models (reflecting
the 3-hour minimum test period duration at two temperature settings)
and up to 48 hours (reflecting 24-hour test periods at each setting).
DOE estimates that this would translate to a cost savings of $500 per
test for these models (an estimated 10 percent of total testing costs).
Based on review of the Compliance Certification Database in DOE's CCMS,
DOE has identified 312 models affected by the proposed amendment of the
stabilization period, representing seven small domestic manufacturers.
Additionally, based on data from DOE's Compliance Certification
Database, DOE anticipates that small domestic manufacturers would
replace or modify existing models every 3.5 years; therefore, on
average, small domestic manufacturers would introduce approximately 89
new or modified models each year that would use these shorter overall
testing periods. Because DOE requires manufacturers to test at least
two units per model, small manufacturers would on average conduct 178
tests annually using these shorter overall testing periods. Using these
estimates, DOE anticipates the proposed stabilization amendment would
save small domestic manufacturers approximately $89,000 per year.
Therefore, DOE determined that this proposed amendment to the test
procedure would lead to cost savings for small domestic manufacturers.
FSI commented in response to the June 2017 RFI that, on average,
they pay between $4,500 and $5,000 per refrigerator test conducted at
outside laboratories. FSI further stated that test costs can be reduced
and procedures simplified by allowing the use of manufacturers' stated
volumes (from computer-aided design (``CAD'') or other accurate
drawings and calculations) instead of requiring a measurement for each
test. FSI noted that this approach is likely to be more accurate than
manual measurements, referencing a NIST study identifying as high as a
40-percent discrepancy between laboratories measuring volume in compact
refrigerators. To minimize test cost and burden, FSI recommended:
Accepting manufacturer volume calculations, accepting a wider range of
temperatures (e.g., 40 or 41 [deg]F in the fresh food compartment for
dual zone units), and allowing more simplified and flexible probe
locations. (FSI, No. 6 at pp. 1, 3)
DOE is not proposing any amendments to the test procedures for
consumer refrigeration products that would increase the cost of these
tests at third-party or manufacturer test laboratories. DOE understands
that relying on CAD to calculate volumes decreases test burden compared
to physically measuring volume on each test unit. Accordingly, DOE
already allows manufacturers to use such designs in certifying product
volumes. In 10 CFR 429.72, DOE states that total refrigerated volume of
a basic model may be determined by performing a calculation of the
volume based upon CAD models of the basic model in lieu of physical
measurements of a production unit of the basic model, according to the
applicable provisions in the test procedures for measuring volume. DOE
is not proposing amendments to allow different ranges for standardized
compartment temperatures nor to allow for multiple thermocouple
locations during testing (except for when the standardized locations
cannot be followed). These test requirements ensure that test results
are comparable between models and between test facilities. The
requirements also limit variability by ensuring that the test is
conducted consistently for a given model. Therefore, DOE is proposing
to maintain the existing standardized compartment temperatures and
thermocouple locations.
FSI further commented that DOE's test procedures impose a
significant burden on businesses. For small businesses, FSI stated that
staff time for testing is not available for innovating, designing, or
researching, and that the complexity of the test procedure makes it
unlikely that anyone with less than an engineering degree or equivalent
would be able to read, interpret, and implement the testing and
reporting. FSI commented that testing to understand uncertainty
regarding repeatability and reproducibility is worthwhile to better
understand the limitations of the test procedure, but it is unaware of
results of any such testing. FSI noted that the NIST study for volume
measurements showed significant differences between laboratories and
would argue that the test procedures are too complex. For a small
business, FSI commented that the burden is magnified by smaller
available resources and a smaller base of sales. (FSI, No. 6 at pp. 2-
3)
As stated earlier in this section, DOE is not proposing any
amendments to the test procedures for consumer refrigeration products
that would increase the cost of these tests at third-
[[Page 70863]]
party or manufacturer test laboratories. Similarly, none of the
proposed amendments would increase the test procedure complexity beyond
the current level. DOE requests feedback on how the test procedure may
be simplified to further reduce the burden associated with manufacturer
testing.
The proposed test procedure amendments could increase burden on
small businesses either due to potential re-testing of products with
demand response capabilities and/or re-labeling of products with
automatic icemakers. DOE was not able to identify any small businesses
that manufacture products with demand response capabilities.\30\ Based
on review of the Compliance Certification Database in DOE's CCMS, DOE
has identified 109 models of consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-
freezers, and freezers, representing four small businesses, that
manufacture products with automatic icemakers. Using these estimates,
DOE estimates that the four small businesses manufacturing products
with automatic icemakers would incur a one-time re-labeling cost of
approximately $4,290, or approximately $1,072 per small business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Based on DOE's search of the ENERGY STAR database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously discussed, DOE expects that the proposed merging of
the stabilization and test periods for certain models would decrease
manufacturer test burden for small businesses, by approximately $89,000
per year. Overall, DOE estimates that the proposed amendments for small
businesses would translate to a cost savings of approximately $84,700
in the year small businesses must re-label products with automatic
icemakers and then cost savings of approximately $89,000 each year
after.
Therefore, DOE concludes that the impacts of the proposed test
procedure amendments in this NOPR would not have a ``significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,'' and that
the preparation of an IRFA is not warranted. DOE will transmit 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).
DOE seeks comment on its initial finding that eight small
businesses manufacture consumer refrigeration products in the United
States with fewer than 1,500 total employees. Additionally, DOE
requests comment on its determination that the proposed amendments
would not have a significant economic impact on these small businesses.
D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of consumer refrigeration products must certify to
DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation
standards. To certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test
data for their products according to the DOE test procedures, including
any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established
regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for
all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including
consumer refrigeration products. (See generally 10 CFR part 429.) 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 35 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.
E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE is analyzing this proposed regulation in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and DOE's NEPA
implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include
a categorical exclusion for rulemakings interpreting or amending an
existing rule or regulation that does not change the environmental
effect of the rule or regulation being amended. 10 CFR part 1021,
subpart D, Appendix A5. DOE anticipates that this rulemaking qualifies
for categorical exclusion A5 because it is an interpretive rulemaking
that does not change the environmental effect of the rule and otherwise
meets the requirements for application of a categorical exclusion. See
10 CFR 1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA review before issuing the
final rule.
F. 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 has examined this proposed rule and has
determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the
products that are the subject of this proposed 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.
G. 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
[[Page 70864]]
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, the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order
12988.
H. 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 proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997,
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available
at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this
proposed 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.
I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a
Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family
well-being. This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation would not
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
K. 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 proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
L. 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 proposed 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 proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
The proposed regulatory action would not have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been
designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA.
Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE
has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
M. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA)
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed
rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission
(``FTC'') concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards
on competition.
The proposed amendments to the test procedures for consumer
refrigeration products incorporate testing methods contained in certain
sections of the following commercial standard: AHAM Standard HRF-1-
2016, ``Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances,''
including Errata to Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating
Appliances, Correction Sheet issued August 3, 2016. DOE has evaluated
this standard and is unable to conclude whether it fully complies with
the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA, (i.e., that they were
developed in a manner that fully provides for public participation,
comment, and review). DOE will consult with the Attorney General and
the Chairman of the FTC concerning the impact of this test procedure on
competition, prior to prescribing a final rule.
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test
standard published by AHAM, titled ``Energy and Internal Volume of
Refrigerating Appliances,'' HRF-1-2016, including Errata to Energy and
Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances, Correction Sheet issued
August 3, 2016. HRF-1-2016 is an industry standard used to evaluate
energy use and refrigerated volume for
[[Page 70865]]
consumer refrigeration products. Specifically, the test procedures
proposed in this NOPR would reference: (i) Section 3-Definitions; (ii)
Section 4-Method for Computing Refrigerated Volume of Refrigerators,
Refrigerator-Freezers, Wine Chillers, and Freezers; Section 4.2-Total
volume; Section 4.3-Legend for Figures 4-1 through 4-3; Figure 4-2; and
Figure 4-3; and (iii) Section 5-Method for Determining the Energy
Consumption of Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, Wine Chillers, and
Freezers; Section 5.3.2-Ambient Relative Humidity through Section
5.5.6.4-Freezer Compartment Temperature (Automatic Defrost Freezer);
Figure 5-1; and Figure 5-2.
Copies of HRF-1-2016 may be purchased from the Association of Home
Appliance Manufacturers at 1111 19th Street NW, Suite 402, Washington,
DC 20036, (202) 872-5955, or by going to http://www.aham.org/.
The incorporation by reference of AS/NZS 4474.1:2007 in appendix A
to subpart B of part 430 has already been approved by the Director of
the Federal Register and there are no proposed changes in this NOPR.
V. Public Participation
A. Attendance at Public Meeting
The time, date and location of the public meeting are listed in the
DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this document. If you
plan to attend the public meeting, please notify the Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are
subject to advance security screening procedures which require advance
notice prior to attendance at the public meeting. If a foreign national
wishes to participate in the public meeting, please inform DOE of this
fact as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Regina Washington at (202)
586-1214 or by email: [email protected] so that the
necessary procedures can be completed.
DOE requires visitors to have laptops and other devices, such as
tablets, checked upon entry into the building. Any person wishing to
bring these devices into the Forrestal Building will be required to
obtain a property pass. Visitors should avoid bringing these devices,
or allow an extra 45 minutes to check in. Please report to the
visitor's desk to have devices checked before proceeding through
security.
Due to the REAL ID Act implemented by the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), there have been recent changes regarding ID
requirements for individuals wishing to enter Federal buildings from
specific states and U.S. territories. DHS maintains an updated website
identifying the State and territory driver's licenses that currently
are acceptable for entry into DOE facilities at https://www.dhs.gov/real-id-enforcement-brief. Acceptable alternate forms of Photo-ID
include a U.S. Passport or Passport Card; an Enhanced Driver's License
or Enhanced ID-Card issued by States and territories identified on the
DHS website (Enhanced licenses issued by these states are clearly
marked Enhanced or Enhanced Driver's License); a military ID; or other
Federal government issued Photo-ID card.
In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar
registration information, participant instructions, and information
about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be
published on DOE's website: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=37&action=viewlive.
Participants are responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible
with the webinar software.
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
Any person who has plans to present a prepared general statement
may request that copies of his or her statement be made available at
the public meeting. Such persons may submit requests, along with an
advance electronic copy of their statement in PDF (preferred),
Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to
the appropriate address shown in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning
of this document. The request and advance copy of statements must be
received at least one week before the public meeting and may be
emailed, hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE prefers to receive
requests and advance copies via email. Please include a telephone
number to enable DOE staff to make a follow-up contact, if needed.
C. Conduct of Public Meeting
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting
and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The
meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but
DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and
prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of
presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of
the public meeting. After the public meeting and until the end of the
comment period, interested parties may submit further comments on the
proceedings and any aspect of the rulemaking.
The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference
style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the
public meeting, allow time for prepared general statements by
participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views
on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed
to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE),
before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time
permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general
statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit
participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on
statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer
questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE
representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other
matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the public
meeting will accept additional comments or questions from those
attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any
further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that
may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting.
A transcript of the public meeting will be included in the docket,
which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning
of this document. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the
transcript from the transcribing reporter.
D. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule no later than the date provided in the DATES section at
the beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit
comments using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at
the beginning of this proposed rule.
Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any).
[[Page 70866]]
If your comment is not processed properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your
comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to http://www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through
http://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential
Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through http://www.regulations.gov
before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of
being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being
processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to
several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that http://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or postal mail.
Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also
will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your
personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it
in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your
contact information on a cover letter. Include your first and last
names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address.
The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not
include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand
delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not
necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be
accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature
of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: one copy
of the document marked confidential including all the information
believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-
confidential'' with the information believed to be confidential
deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE
will make its own determination about the confidential status of the
information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat
submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the
items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as
confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the
information has previously been made available to others without
obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from
public disclosure, (6) when such information might lose its
confidential character due to the passage of time, and (7) why
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following issues:
1. The proposed definition for ``compartment'' and whether any
further clarifying amendments are needed for the use of the term
``compartment.'' (See section III.B.2 of this document.)
2. The proposal to update the industry standard reference to HRF-1-
2016, and whether the updated reference would substantively impact any
test requirements. (See section III.C of this document.)
3. The proposal to change the current icemaker fixed adder from 84
kWh per year to 28 kWh per year to better reflect typical residential
ice making and consumption, and whether this adder is appropriate for
products incorporating multiple icemakers. (See section III.D of this
document.)
4. The proposal to amend the energy conservation standards for
consumer refrigeration products with automatic icemakers in accordance
with 42 U.S.C. 6293(e), including the proposed one-year lead-time
period. (See section III.D of this document.)
5. The proposal to maintain the freestanding test approach for
built-in products. (See section III.E of this document.)
6. The proposed clarification to the thermocouple configuration for
drawer freezer compartments. (See section III.F.1 of this document.)
7. The proposal to clarify that floors with holes or vents for
airflow be subject to the existing platform requirements. (See section
III.F.2 of this document.)
8. The proposed instructions for testing products with separate
external temperature controls. (See section III.F.3 of this document.)
9. The proposed revisions to the vertical gradient and
stabilization test conditions, including the proposed requirement that,
in certain test situations, the stabilization period serve as the test
period. (See section III.G of this document.)
10. Whether additional test procedures amendments are necessary to
accurately reflect energy use of products with door-in-door designs,
products that incorporate display screens, or products with connected
functions. (See section III.H of this document.)
11. Whether additional test procedure amendments may be appropriate
to address issues identified in existing test procedure waivers. (See
section III.J.2 of this document.)
[[Page 70867]]
12. The testing cost impacts and manufacturer burden associated
with the test procedure amendments described in this document,
including, but not limited to, the proposed stabilization and test
period amendment, the proposed amendment regarding products with
demand-response capabilities, and the proposed amendment regarding the
automatic icemaker energy adder. (See section III.K.1 of this
document.)
13. The benefits and burdens of adopting any industry/voluntary
consensus-based or other appropriate test procedure, without
modification. (See section III.K.2 of this document.)
14. Any other aspect of the existing test procedure for consumer
refrigeration products not already addressed by the specific areas
identified in this document. DOE particularly seeks information that
would improve the representativeness of the test procedure, as well as
information that would help DOE create a procedure that would limit
manufacturer test burden. Comments regarding repeatability and
reproducibility are also welcome. (See section III.K.3 of this
document.)
15. Information that would help DOE create procedures that would
limit manufacturer test burden through streamlining or simplifying
testing requirements. Consistent with Executive Order 13771 ``Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' DOE encourages the
public to provide input on measures DOE could take to lower the cost of
its regulations applicable to consumer refrigeration products
consistent with the requirements of EPCA. (See section III.K.3 of this
document.)
16. The initial finding that there are eight small businesses
manufacturing consumer refrigeration products in the United States with
fewer than 1,500 total employees and that the proposed amendments would
not have a significant economic impact on these small businesses. (See
section IV.C of this document.)
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed
rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small
businesses.
Signed in Washington, DC, on November 18, 2019.
Alexander Fitzsimmons,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend
part 430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set
forth below:
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
2. In Sec. 430.3 revise paragraph (i)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 430.3 Materials incorporated by reference.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(4) AHAM HRF-1-2016, (``HRF-1-2016''), Energy and Internal Volume
of Refrigerating Appliances (January 1, 2016), including Errata to
Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances, Correction
Sheet (August 3, 2016), IBR approved for appendices A and B to subpart
B of this part.
* * * * *
0
3. Appendix A to subpart B of part 430 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory note and sections 1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.2,
2.6, 2.7, 2.9, 3.2.1.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.1.3, 3.2.3, 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.1.1,
4.2.3.4.2, 5.1, 5.1.3, 5.1.4, 5.1.5, 5.3, and 6.2.3.1;
0
b. Removing section 2.10; and
0
c. Adding new sections 0, 2.10, and 6.2.3.3.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and
Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products
Note: Prior to [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE], any representations of energy use of consumer
refrigeration products must be based on the results of testing
pursuant to either this appendix or the procedures in Appendix A as
it appeared at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix A, in the 10 CFR
parts 200 to 499 edition revised as of January 1, 2019. Any
representations of energy use must be in accordance with whichever
version is selected. On or after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE], any representations of energy use
must be based on the results of testing pursuant to this appendix.
For refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, manufacturers must
use the rounding requirements specified in sections 5.3.e and 6.1 of
this appendix for all representations of energy use on or after the
compliance date of any amendment of energy conservation standards
for these products published after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE]. For combination cooler refrigeration products, manufacturers
must use the test procedures in this appendix for all
representations of energy use on or after October 28, 2019.
Section 0. Incorporation by Reference
DOE incorporated by reference HRF-1-2016 in its entirety in
Sec. 430.3; however, only enumerated provisions of this document
are applicable to this appendix, as follows:
(a) AHAM HRF-1-2016, (``HRF-1-2016''), Energy and Internal
Volume of Refrigerating Appliances (January 1, 2016), including
Errata to Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances,
Correction Sheet, as follows:
(i) Section 3--Definitions, as specified in section 1 of this
appendix; and Section 3.34, as specified in section 5.3 of this
appendix;
(ii) Section 4--Method for Computing Refrigerated Volume of
Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, Wine Chillers, and Freezers;
Section 4.2--Total volume; Section 4.3--Legend for Figures 4-1
through 4-3; Figure 4-2; and Figure 4-3, as specified in section 5.3
of this appendix; and
(iii) Section 5--Method for Determining the Energy Consumption
of Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, Wine Chillers, and
Freezers; Section 5.5.1, as specified in section 2.6 of this
appendix; Section 5.3.2--Ambient Relative Humidity through Section
5.5.6.4--Freezer Compartment Temperature (Automatic Defrost
Freezer), as specified in sections 2.2, and 2.6 of this appendix;
and Figure 5-1; and Figure 5-2, as specified in section 5.1 of this
appendix.
1. Definitions
Section 3, Definitions, of HRF-1-2016 applies to this test
procedure, except that the term ``wine chiller'' means ``cooler'' as
defined in Sec. 430.2.
Anti-sweat heater means a device incorporated into the design of
a product to prevent the accumulation of moisture on the exterior or
interior surfaces of the cabinet.
Anti-sweat heater switch means a user-controllable switch or
user interface which modifies the activation or control of anti-
sweat heaters.
AS/NZS 4474.1:2007 means Australian/New Zealand Standard
4474.1:2007, Performance of household electrical appliances--
Refrigerating appliances, Part 1: Energy consumption and
performance. Only sections of AS/NZS 4474.1:2007 (incorporated by
reference; see Sec. 430.3) specifically referenced in this test
procedure are part of this test procedure. In cases where there is a
conflict, the language of the test procedure in this appendix takes
precedence over AS/NZS 4474.1:2007.
Automatic defrost means a system in which the defrost cycle is
automatically initiated and terminated, with resumption of normal
refrigeration at the conclusion of the
[[Page 70868]]
defrost operation. The system automatically prevents the permanent
formation of frost on all refrigerated surfaces.
Automatic icemaker means a device that can be supplied with
water without user intervention, either from a pressurized water
supply system or by transfer from a water reservoir located inside
the cabinet, that automatically produces, harvests, and stores ice
in a storage bin, with means to automatically interrupt the
harvesting operation when the ice storage bin is filled to a pre-
determined level.
Compartment means an enclosed space within a consumer
refrigeration product that is directly accessible through one or
more external doors and may be divided into sub-compartments.
Complete temperature cycle means a time period defined based
upon the cycling of compartment temperature that starts when the
compartment temperature is at a maximum and ends when the
compartment temperature returns to an equivalent maximum (within 0.5
[deg]F of the starting temperature), having in the interim fallen to
a minimum and subsequently risen again to reach the second maximum.
Alternatively, a complete temperature cycle can be defined to start
when the compartment temperature is at a minimum and ends when the
compartment temperature returns to an equivalent minimum (within 0.5
[deg]F of the starting temperature), having in the interim risen to
a maximum and subsequently fallen again to reach the second minimum.
Cooler compartment means a refrigerated compartment designed
exclusively for wine or other beverages within a consumer
refrigeration product that is capable of maintaining compartment
temperatures either (a) no lower than 39 [deg]F (3.9 [deg]C), or (b)
in a range that extends no lower than 37 [deg]F (2.8 [deg]C) but at
least as high as 60 [deg]F (15.6 [deg]C) as determined according to
Sec. 429.14(d)(2) or Sec. 429.61(d)(2) of this chapter.
Cycle means a 24-hour period for which the energy use of a
product is calculated based on the consumer-activated compartment
temperature controls being set to maintain the standardized
temperatures (see section 3.2 of this appendix).
Cycle type means the set of test conditions having the
calculated effect of operating a product for a period of 24 hours,
with the consumer-activated controls, other than those that control
compartment temperatures, set to establish various operating
characteristics.
Defrost cycle type means a distinct sequence of control whose
function is to remove frost and/or ice from a refrigerated surface.
There may be variations in the defrost control sequence, such as the
number of defrost heaters energized. Each such variation establishes
a separate, distinct defrost cycle type. However, defrost achieved
regularly during the compressor off-cycles by warming of the
evaporator without active heat addition, although a form of
automatic defrost, does not constitute a unique defrost cycle type
for the purposes of identifying the test period in accordance with
section 4 of this appendix.
HRF-1-2016 means AHAM Standard HRF-1-2016, Association of Home
Appliance Manufacturers, Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating
Appliances (2016), including Errata to Energy and Internal Volume of
Refrigerating Appliances, Correction Sheet issued August 3, 2016.
Only sections of HRF-1-2016 specifically referenced in this test
procedure are part of this test procedure. In cases where there is a
conflict, the language of the test procedure in this appendix takes
precedence over HRF-1-2016.
Ice storage bin means a container in which ice can be stored.
Long-time automatic defrost means an automatic defrost system
whose successive defrost cycles are separated by 14 hours or more of
compressor operating time.
Multiple-compressor product means a consumer refrigeration
product with more than one compressor.
Multiple refrigeration system product means a multiple-
compressor product or a miscellaneous refrigeration product with
more than one refrigeration system for which the operation of the
systems is not coordinated. For non-compressor multiple
refrigeration system products, ``multiple-compressor product'' as
used in this appendix shall be interpreted to mean ``multiple
refrigeration system product.''
Precooling means operating a refrigeration system before
initiation of a defrost cycle to reduce one or more compartment
temperatures significantly (more than 0.5 [deg]F) below its minimum
during stable operation between defrosts.
Recovery means operating a refrigeration system after the
conclusion of a defrost cycle to reduce the temperature of one or
more compartments to the temperature range that the compartment(s)
exhibited during stable operation between defrosts.
Stable operation means operation after steady-state conditions
have been achieved but excluding any events associated with defrost
cycles. During stable operation the rate of change of compartment
temperatures must not exceed 0.042 [deg]F (0.023 [deg]C) per hour
for all compartment temperatures. Such a calculation performed for
compartment temperatures at any two times, or for any two periods of
time comprising complete cycles, during stable operation must meet
this requirement.
(a) If compartment temperatures do not cycle, the relevant
calculation shall be the difference between the temperatures at two
points in time divided by the difference, in hours, between those
points in time.
(b) If compartment temperatures cycle as a result of compressor
cycling or other cycling operation of any system component (e.g., a
damper, fan, heater, etc.), the relevant calculation shall be the
difference between compartment temperature averages evaluated for
the whole compressor cycles or complete temperature cycles divided
by the difference, in hours, between either the starts, ends, or
mid-times of the two cycles.
Stabilization period means the total period of time during which
steady-state conditions are being attained or evaluated.
Standard cycle means the cycle type in which the anti-sweat
heater control, when provided, is set in the highest energy-
consuming position.
Sub-compartment means an enclosed space within a compartment
that may have a different operating temperature from the compartment
within which it is located.
Through-the-door ice/water dispenser means a device incorporated
within the cabinet, but outside the boundary of the refrigerated
space, that delivers to the user on demand ice and may also deliver
water from within the refrigerated space without opening an exterior
door. This definition includes dispensers that are capable of
dispensing ice and water or ice only.
Variable anti-sweat heater control means an anti-sweat heater
control that varies the average power input of the anti-sweat
heater(s) based on operating condition variable(s) and/or ambient
condition variable(s).
Variable defrost control means an automatic defrost system in
which successive defrost cycles are determined by an operating
condition variable (or variables) other than solely compressor
operating time. This includes any electrical or mechanical device
performing this function. A control scheme that changes the defrost
interval from a fixed length to an extended length (without any
intermediate steps) is not considered a variable defrost control. A
variable defrost control feature predicts the accumulation of frost
on the evaporator and reacts accordingly. Therefore, the times
between defrost must vary with different usage patterns and include
a continuum of periods between defrosts as inputs vary.
2. Test Conditions
* * * * *
2.1.2 Ambient Temperature Gradient. The test room vertical
ambient temperature gradient in any foot of vertical distance from 2
inches (5.1 cm) above the floor or supporting platform to a height
of 1 foot (30.5 cm) above the top of the unit under test is not to
exceed 0.5 [deg]F per foot (0.9 [deg]C per meter) during the
stabilization period and the test period. The vertical ambient
temperature gradient at locations 10 inches (25.4 cm) out from the
centers of the two sides of the unit being tested is to be
maintained during the test. To demonstrate that this requirement has
been met, test data must include measurements taken using
temperature sensors at locations 10 inches (25.4 cm) from the center
of the two sides of the unit under test at heights of 2 inches (5.1
cm) and 36 inches (91.4 cm) above the floor or supporting platform
and at a height of 1 foot (30.5 cm) above the unit under test. The
top of the unit under test shall be determined by the refrigerated
cabinet height, excluding any special or protruding components on
the top of the unit.
2.1.3 Platform. A platform must be used if the floor temperature
is not within 3 [deg]F (1.7 [deg]C) of the measured ambient
temperature. If a platform is used, it is to have a solid top with
all sides open for air circulation underneath, and its top shall
extend at least 1 foot (30.5 cm) beyond each side and the front of
the unit under test and extend to the wall in the rear. For a test
chamber floor that allows for airflow through the floor (e.g.,
through a vent or holes), any airflow pathways through the floor
must be located at least 1 foot away from all sides of the unit.
2.2 Operational Conditions. The unit under test shall be
installed and its operating
[[Page 70869]]
conditions maintained in accordance with sections 5.3.2 through
5.5.6.4 of HRF-1-2016. Exceptions and clarifications to the cited
sections of HRF-1-2016 are noted in sections 2.3 through 2.8, 2.10,
and 5.1 of this appendix.
* * * * *
2.6 The cabinet and its refrigerating mechanism shall be
assembled and set up in accordance with the printed consumer
instructions supplied with the cabinet. Set-up of the test unit
shall not deviate from these instructions, unless explicitly
required or allowed by this test procedure. Specific required or
allowed deviations from such set-up include the following:
(a) Connection of water lines and installation of water filters
are not required;
(b) Clearance requirements from surfaces of the product shall be
as described in section 2.8 of this appendix;
(c) The electric power supply shall be as described in section
5.5.1 of HRF-1-2016;
(d) Temperature control settings for testing shall be as
described in section 3 of this appendix. Settings for temperature-
controllable sub-compartments shall be as described in section 2.7
of this appendix;
(e) The product does not need to be anchored or otherwise
secured to prevent tipping during energy testing;
(f) All the product's chutes and throats required for the
delivery of ice shall be free of packing, covers, or other blockages
that may be fitted for shipping or when the icemaker is not in use;
and
(g) Ice storage bins shall be emptied of ice.
For cases in which set-up is not clearly defined by this test
procedure, manufacturers must submit a petition for a waiver (see
section 7 of this appendix).
2.7 Compartments that are convertible (e.g., from fresh food to
freezer or cooler) shall be operated in the highest energy use
position. A compartment may be considered to be convertible to a
cooler compartment if it is capable of maintaining compartment
temperatures at least as high as 55 [deg]F (12.8 [deg]C) and also
capable of operating at storage temperatures less than 37 [deg]F.
Sub-compartments with a temperature control shall be tested with
controls set to provide the coldest temperature. However, for sub-
compartments in which temperature control is achieved using the
addition of heat (including resistive electric heating,
refrigeration system waste heat, or heat from any other source, but
excluding the transfer of air from another part of the interior of
the product) for any part of the controllable temperature range of
that compartment, the product energy use shall be determined by
averaging two sets of tests. The first set of tests shall be
conducted with such sub-compartments at their coldest settings, and
the second set of tests shall be conducted with such sub-
compartments at their warmest settings. The requirements for the
warmest or coldest temperature settings of this section do not apply
to features or functions associated with temperature controls (such
as fast chill compartments) that are initiated manually and
terminated automatically within 168 hours. Movable subdividing
barriers that separate compartments shall be placed in the median
position. If such a subdividing barrier has an even number of
positions, the near-median position representing the smallest volume
of the warmer compartment(s) shall be used.
* * * * *
2.9 Steady-State Condition. Steady-state conditions exist if the
temperature measurements in all measured compartments taken at 4-
minute intervals or less during a stabilization period are not
changing at a rate greater than 0.042 [deg]F (0.023 [deg]C) per hour
as determined by the applicable condition of paragraph (a) or (b) of
this section.
(a) The average temperature of the measurements during a 2-hour
period if no cycling occurs or during a number of complete
repetitive compressor cycles occurring through a period of no less
than 2 hours is compared to the average over an equivalent time
period with at least 3 hours elapsing between the two measurement
periods.
(b) If paragraph (a) of this section cannot be used, the average
of the measurements during a number of complete repetitive
compressor cycles occurring through a period of no less than 2 hours
and including the last complete cycle before a defrost period (or if
no cycling occurs, the average of the measurements during the last 2
hours before a defrost period) are compared to the same averaging
period before the following defrost period.
2.10 Products with External Temperature Controls. If a product's
controls are external to the cabinet assembly, the product shall be
connected to the controls as needed for normal operation. Any
additional equipment needed to ensure that the controls function
properly shall not interfere with ambient airflow around the product
or any other test conditions. If the controls provide temperature
settings for additional separate products, the controls for those
products shall be set to the ``off'' position during testing.
3. Test Control Settings
* * * * *
3.2.1.1 Setting Temperature Controls. For mechanical control
systems, knob detents shall be mechanically defeated if necessary to
attain a median setting, and the warmest and coldest settings shall
correspond to the positions in which the indicator is aligned with
control symbols indicating the warmest and coldest settings. For
electronic control systems, the median setting test shall be
performed with all compartment temperature controls set at the
average of the coldest and warmest settings; if there is no setting
equal to this average, the setting closest to the average shall be
used. If there are two such settings equally close to the average,
the higher of these temperature control settings shall be used.
3.2.1.2 Test Sequence. A first test shall be performed with all
compartment temperature controls set at their median position midway
between their warmest and coldest settings. A second test shall be
performed with all controls set at their warmest setting or all
controls set at their coldest setting (not electrically or
mechanically bypassed). For units with a single standardized
temperature (e.g., all-refrigerator or cooler), this setting shall
be the appropriate setting that attempts to achieve compartment
temperatures measured during the two tests that bound (i.e., one is
above and one is below) the standardized temperature. For other
units, the second test shall be conducted with all controls at their
coldest setting, unless all compartment temperatures measured during
the first test are lower than the standardized temperatures, in
which case the second test shall be conducted with all controls at
their warmest setting.
3.2.1.3 Temperature Setting Table. See Table 1 of this section
for a general description of which settings to use and which test
results to use in the energy consumption calculation for products
with one, two, or three standardized temperatures.
Table 1--Temperature Settings: General Chart for All Products
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First test Second test
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Energy calculation
Setting Results Setting Results based on:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid for all compartments....... All compartments Warm for all All compartments Second Test Only.
low. compartments. low.
One or more First and Second Test.
compartments
high.
One or more Cold for all All compartments First and Second Test.
compartments compartments. low.
high.
One or more Model may not be
compartments certified as
high. compliant with energy
conservation
standards based on
testing of this unit.
Confirm that unit
meets product
definition. If so,
see section 7 of this
appendix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 70870]]
* * * * *
3.2.3 Temperature Settings for Convertible Compartments. For
convertible compartments tested as freezer compartments, the median
setting shall be within 2 [deg]F (1.1 [deg]C) of the standardized
freezer compartment temperature, and the warmest setting shall be at
least 5 [deg]F (2.8 [deg]C) warmer than the standardized
temperature. For convertible compartments tested as fresh food
compartments, the median setting shall be within 2 [deg]F (1.1
[deg]C) of 39 [deg]F (3.9 [deg]C), the coldest setting shall be
below 34 [deg]F (1.1 [deg]C), and the warmest setting shall be above
43 [deg]F (6.1 [deg]C). For convertible compartments tested as
cooler compartments, the median setting shall be within 2 [deg]F
(1.1 [deg]C) of 55 [deg]F (12.8 [deg]C), and the coldest setting
shall be below 50 [deg]F (10.0 [deg]C). For compartments where
control settings are not expressed as particular temperatures, the
measured temperature of the convertible compartment rather than the
settings shall meet the specified criteria.
* * * * *
4. Test Period
* * * * *
4.1 Non-automatic Defrost. If the model being tested has no
automatic defrost system, the test period shall be the stabilization
period specified in section 2.9(a) of this appendix.
* * * * *
4.2.1 Long-time Automatic Defrost. If the model being tested has
a long-time automatic defrost system, the two-part test described in
this section may be used. If steady-state conditions are determined
according to section 2.9(a) of this appendix, the first part is a
stable period of compressor operation that includes no portions of
the defrost cycle, such as precooling or recovery, that is otherwise
the same as the test for a unit having no defrost provisions
(section 4.1 of this appendix). If steady-state conditions are
determined according to section 2.9(b) of this appendix, the first
part of the test shall start after steady-state conditions have been
achieved and be no less than three hours in duration. During the
test period, the compressor motor shall complete two or more whole
compressor cycles. (A compressor cycle is a complete ``on'' and a
complete ``off'' period of the motor.) If no ``off'' cycling occurs,
the test period shall be three hours. If fewer than two compressor
cycles occur during a 24-hour period, then a single complete
compressor cycle may be used. The second part is designed to capture
the energy consumed during all of the events occurring with the
defrost control sequence that are outside of stable operation.
4.2.1.1 Cycling Compressor System. For a system with a cycling
compressor, the second part of the test starts at the termination of
the last regular compressor ``on'' cycle. The average compartment
temperatures measured from the termination of the previous
compressor ``on'' cycle to the termination of the last regular
compressor ``on'' cycle must be within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C) of
their average temperatures measured for the first part of the test.
If any compressor cycles occur prior to the defrost heater being
energized that cause the average temperature in any compartment to
deviate from its average temperature for the first part of the test
by more than 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C), these compressor cycles are
not considered regular compressor cycles and must be included in the
second part of the test. As an example, a ``precooling'' cycle,
which is an extended compressor cycle that lowers the temperature(s)
of one or more compartments prior to energizing the defrost heater,
must be included in the second part of the test. The test period for
the second part of the test ends at the termination of the first
regular compressor ``on'' cycle after compartment temperatures have
fully recovered to their stable conditions. The average temperatures
of the compartments measured from this termination of the first
regular compressor ``on'' cycle until the termination of the next
regular compressor ``on'' cycle must be within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3
[deg]C) of the average temperatures measured for the first part of
the test. See Figure 1 of this section. Note that Figure 1
illustrates the concepts of precooling and recovery but does not
represent all possible defrost cycles. If average compartment
temperatures measured over individual compressor cycles are never
within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C) of the average temperatures measured
for the first part of the test (for example, in products with
irregular compressor cycling), the start of the second part of the
test shall be at the beginning of a period of multiple complete
compressor cycles prior to the defrost over which average
temperatures are within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C) of the average
temperatures measured for the first part of the test. Similarly, the
end of the second part of the test shall be at the end of a period
of multiple complete compressor cycles after the defrost over which
average compartment temperatures are within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C)
of the average measured for the first part of the test.
[[Page 70871]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23DE19.008
* * * * *
4.2.3.4.2 Second Part of Test. (a) If at least one compressor
cycles, the test period for the second part of the test starts
during stable operation before all portions of the defrost cycle, at
the beginning of a complete primary compressor cycle. The test
period for the second part of the test ends during stable operation
after all portions of the defrost cycle, including recovery, at the
termination of a complete primary compressor cycle. The start and
stop for the test period shall both occur either when the primary
compressor starts or when the primary compressor stops. For each
compressor system, the compartment temperature averages for the
first and last complete compressor cycles that lie completely within
the second part of the test must be within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C)
of the average compartment temperature measured for the first part
of the test. If any one of the compressor systems is non-cycling,
its compartment temperature averages during the first and last
complete primary compressor cycles of the second part of the test
must be within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C) of the average compartment
temperature measured for the first part of the test.
(1) If average compartment temperatures measured over individual
compressor cycles are never within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C) of the
average temperatures measured for the first part of the test (for
example, in products with irregular compressor cycling), the start
of the second part of the test shall be at the beginning of a period
of multiple complete compressor cycles prior to the defrost over
which average temperatures are within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C) of the
average temperatures measured for the first part of the test.
Similarly, the end of the second part of the test shall be at the
end of a period of multiple complete compressor cycles after the
defrost over which average temperatures are within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3
[deg]C) of the average temperatures measured for the first part of
the test.
(2) If these criteria cannot be met, the test period shall
comprise at least 24 hours, unless a second defrost occurs prior to
completion of 24 hours, in which case the test shall comprise at
least 18 hours. The test period shall start at the end of a regular
freezer compressor on-cycle after the previous defrost occurrence
(refrigerator or freezer). The test period also includes the target
defrost and following freezer compressor cycles, ending at the end
of a freezer compressor on-cycle before the next defrost occurrence
(refrigerator or freezer).
(b) If no compressor cycles, the test period for the second part
of the test starts during stable operation before all portions of
the defrost cycle, when the compartment temperatures of all
compressor systems are within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C) of their
average temperatures measured for the first part of the test. The
test period for the second part ends during stable operation after
all portions of the defrost cycle, including recovery, when the
compartment temperatures of all compressor systems are within 0.5
[deg]F (0.3 [deg]C) of their average temperatures measured for the
first part of the test.
* * * * *
5. Test Measurements
5.1 Temperature Measurements. (a) Temperature measurements shall
be made at the locations prescribed in HRF-1-2016 Figure 5-1 for
cooler and fresh food compartments and Figure 5-2 for freezer
compartments and shall be accurate to within 0.5 [deg]F
(0.3 [deg]C). No freezer temperature measurements need be taken in
an all-refrigerator or cooler-all-refrigerator.
(b) If the interior arrangements of the unit under test do not
conform with those shown in Figure 5-1 or Figure 5-2 of HRF-1-2016,
as appropriate, the unit must be tested by relocating the
temperature sensors from the locations specified in the figures to
avoid interference with hardware or components within the unit, in
which case the specific locations used for the temperature sensors
shall be noted in the test data records maintained by the
manufacturer in accordance with 10 CFR 429.71, and the certification
report shall indicate that non-standard sensor locations were used.
If any temperature sensor is relocated by any amount from the
location prescribed in Figure 5-1 or Figure 5-2 of HRF-1- 2016 in
order to maintain a minimum 1-inch air space from adjustable shelves
or other components that could be relocated by the consumer, except
in cases in which the
[[Page 70872]]
Figures prescribe a temperature sensor location within 1 inch of a
shelf or similar feature (e.g., sensor T3 in Figure 5-1), this
constitutes a relocation of temperature sensors that must be
recorded in the test data and reported in the certification report
as described in this paragraph (b).
(c) Freezer compartments that are accessed via a drawer shall be
tested according to the Type 6 thermocouple configuration in Figure
5-2 of HRF-1-2016.
* * * * *
5.1.3 Fresh Food Compartment Temperature. The fresh food
compartment temperature shall be calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23DE19.009
Where:
R is the total number of applicable fresh food compartments;
TRi is the compartment temperature of fresh food
compartment ``i'' determined in accordance with section 5.1.2 of
this appendix; and
VRi is the volume of fresh food compartment ``i.''
5.1.4 Freezer Compartment Temperature. The freezer compartment
temperature shall be calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23DE19.010
Where:
F is the total number of applicable freezer compartments;
TFi is the compartment temperature of freezer compartment
``i'' determined in accordance with section 5.1.2 of this appendix;
and
VFi is the volume of freezer compartment ``i''.
5.1.5 Cooler Compartment Temperature. The cooler compartment
temperature shall be calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23DE19.011
Where:
C is the total number of applicable cooler compartments;
TCi is the compartment temperature of cooler compartment
``i'' determined in accordance with section 5.1.2 of this appendix;
and
VCi is the volume of cooler compartment ``i.''
* * * * *
5.3 Volume Measurements. (a) The unit's total refrigerated
volume, VT, shall be measured in accordance with sections 3.34, 4.2
through 4.3 of HRF-1-2016. The measured volume shall include all
spaces within the insulated volume of each compartment except for
the volumes that must be deducted in accordance with section 4.2.2
of HRF-1-2016, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, and be
calculated equivalent to:
VT = VF + VFF + VC
Where:
VT = total refrigerated volume in cubic feet,
VF = freezer compartment volume in cubic feet,
VFF = fresh food compartment volume in cubic feet, and
VC = cooler compartment volume in cubic feet.
(b) The following component volumes shall not be included in the
compartment volume measurements: Icemaker compartment insulation
(e.g., insulation isolating the icemaker compartment from the fresh
food compartment of a product with a bottom-mounted freezer with
through-the-door ice service), fountain recess, dispenser
insulation, and ice chute (if there is a plug, cover, or cap over
the chute per Figure 4-2 of HRF-1-2016). The following component
volumes shall be included in the compartment volume measurements:
Icemaker auger motor (if housed inside the insulated space of the
cabinet), icemaker kit, ice storage bin, and ice chute (up to the
dispenser flap, if there is no plug, cover, or cap over the ice
chute per Figure 4-3 of HRF-1-2016).
(c) Total refrigerated volume is determined by physical
measurement of the test unit. Measurements and calculations used to
determine the total refrigerated volume shall be retained as part of
the test records underlying the certification of the basic model in
accordance with 10 CFR 429.71.
(d) Compartment classification shall be based on subdivision of
the refrigerated volume into zones separated from each other by
subdividing barriers: No evaluated compartment shall be a zone of a
larger compartment unless the zone is separated from the remainder
of the larger compartment by subdividing barriers; if there are no
such subdividing barriers within the larger compartment, the larger
compartment must be evaluated as a single compartment rather than as
multiple compartments. If the cabinet contains a movable subdividing
barrier, it must be placed as described in section 2.7 of this
appendix.
(e) Freezer, fresh food, and cooler compartment volumes shall be
calculated and recorded to the nearest 0.01 cubic foot. Total
refrigerated volume shall be calculated and recorded to the nearest
0.1 cubic foot.
* * * * *
6. Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements
* * * * *
6.2.3.1 If the fresh food compartment temperature is always
below 39 [deg]F (3.9 [deg]C) and the freezer compartment temperature
is always below 15 [deg]F (-9.4 [deg]C) in both tests of a
refrigerator or always below 0 [deg]F (-17.8 [deg]C) in both tests
of a refrigerator-freezer, the average per-cycle energy consumption
shall be:
E = ET1 + IET
Where:
ET is defined in section 5.2.1 of this appendix;
For representations of energy use before [DATE ONE YEAR AFTER
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE], IET, expressed in kilowatt-
hours per cycle, equals 0.23 for a product with one or more
automatic icemakers and otherwise equals 0 (zero);
For representations of energy use on or after [DATE ONE YEAR
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE], IET, expressed in
kilowatt-hours per cycle, equals 0.0767 for a product with one or
more automatic icemakers and otherwise equals 0 (zero); and
The number 1 indicates the test during which the highest freezer
compartment temperature was measured.
* * * * *
6.2.3.3 Optional Test for Models with Two Compartments and User-
Operable Controls. If the procedure of section 3.3 of this appendix
is used for setting temperature controls, the average per-cycle
energy consumption shall be defined as follows:
E = Ex + IET
Where:
E is defined in 6.2.1.1 of this appendix;
IET is defined in 6.2.3.1 of this appendix; and
Ex is defined and calculated as described in appendix M,
section M4(a) of AS/NZS 4474.1:2007 (incorporated by reference; see
Sec. 430.3). The target temperatures txA and
txB defined in section M4(a)(i) of AS/NZS 4474.1:2007
shall be the standardized temperatures defined in section 3.2 of
this appendix.
* * * * *
0
4. Appendix B to subpart B of part 430 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory note and sections 1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.2,
2.4, 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, 3.1, 3.2, 3.2.1, 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.1.1, 5.1, 5.1.3,
5.3, 6.1, and 6.2.1;
0
b. Removing section 2.8;
0
c. Redesignating section 2.9 as 2.8; and
0
d. Adding new sections 0 and 2.9.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Freezers
Note: Prior to [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE], any representations of energy use of freezers must be
based on the results of testing pursuant to either this appendix or
the procedures in Appendix B as it appeared at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, Appendix B, in the 10 CFR parts 200 to 499 edition
revised as of January 1, 2019. Any representations of energy use
must be in accordance with whichever version is selected. On or
after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE],
any representations of energy use must be based on the results of
testing pursuant to this appendix.
For freezers, manufacturers must use the rounding requirements
specified in sections 5.3.e and 6.1 of this appendix for all
representations of energy use on or after the compliance date of any
amendment of energy conservation standards for these products
published after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE].
0. Incorporation by Reference
DOE incorporated by reference HRF-1-2016 in its entirety in
Sec. 430.3; however, only
[[Page 70873]]
enumerated provisions of this document are applicable to this
appendix, as follows:
(a) AHAM HRF-1-2016, (``HRF-1-2016''), Energy and Internal
Volume of Refrigerating Appliances (January 1, 2016), including
Errata to Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances,
Correction Sheet, as follows:
(i) Section 3--Definitions, as specified in section 1 of this
appendix; and Section 3.34, as specified in section 5.3 of this
appendix;
(ii) Section 4--Method for Computing Refrigerated Volume of
Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, Wine Chillers, and Freezers;
Section 4.2--Total volume; Section 4.3--Legend for Figures 4-1
through 4-3; Figure 4-2; and Figure 4-3, as specified in section 5.3
of this appendix; and
(iii) Section 5--Method for Determining the Energy Consumption
of Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, Wine Chillers, and
Freezers; Section 5.3.2-Ambient Relative Humidity through Section
5.5.6.4-Freezer Compartment Temperature (Automatic Defrost Freezer),
as specified in sections 2.2, 2.4, and 2.8 of this appendix; and
Figure 5-2, as specified in section 5.1 of this appendix.
1. Definitions
Section 3, Definitions, of HRF-1-2016 applies to this test
procedure.
Adjusted total volume means the product of the freezer volume as
defined in HRF-1-2016 in cubic feet multiplied by an adjustment
factor.
Anti-sweat heater means a device incorporated into the design of
a freezer to prevent the accumulation of moisture on exterior or
interior surfaces of the cabinet.
Anti-sweat heater switch means a user-controllable switch or
user interface which modifies the activation or control of anti-
sweat heaters.
Automatic defrost means a system in which the defrost cycle is
automatically initiated and terminated, with resumption of normal
refrigeration at the conclusion of defrost operation. The system
automatically prevents the permanent formation of frost on all
refrigerated surfaces. Nominal refrigerated food temperatures are
maintained during the operation of the automatic defrost system.
Automatic icemaker means a device that can be supplied with
water without user intervention, either from a pressurized water
supply system or by transfer from a water reservoir that
automatically produces, harvests, and stores ice in a storage bin,
with means to automatically interrupt the harvesting operation when
the ice storage bin is filled to a pre-determined level.
Compartment means an enclosed space within a consumer
refrigeration product that is directly accessible through one or
more external doors and may be divided into sub-compartments.
Complete temperature cycle means a time period defined based
upon the cycling of compartment temperature that starts when the
compartment temperature is at a maximum and ends when the
compartment temperature returns to an equivalent maximum (within 0.5
[deg]F of the starting temperature), having in the interim fallen to
a minimum and subsequently risen again to reach the second maximum.
Alternatively, a complete temperature cycle can be defined to start
when the compartment temperature is at a minimum and end when the
compartment temperature returns to an equivalent minimum (within 0.5
[deg]F of the starting temperature), having in the interim risen to
a maximum and subsequently fallen again to reach the second minimum.
Cycle means the period of 24 hours for which the energy use of a
freezer is calculated as though the consumer-activated compartment
temperature controls were set to maintain the standardized
temperature (see section 3.2 of this appendix).
Cycle type means the set of test conditions having the
calculated effect of operating a freezer for a period of 24 hours
with the consumer-activated controls other than the compartment
temperature control set to establish various operating
characteristics.
HRF-1-2016 means AHAM Standard HRF-1-2016, Association of Home
Appliance Manufacturers, Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating
Appliances (2016), including Errata to Energy and Internal Volume of
Refrigerating Appliances, Correction Sheet issued August 3, 2016.
Only sections of HRF-1-2016 specifically referenced in this test
procedure are part of this test procedure. In cases where there is a
conflict, the language of the test procedure in this appendix takes
precedence over HRF-1-2016.
Ice storage bin means a container in which ice can be stored.
Long-time automatic defrost means an automatic defrost system
where successive defrost cycles are separated by 14 hours or more of
compressor operating time.
Precooling means operating a refrigeration system before
initiation of a defrost cycle to reduce one or more compartment
temperatures significantly (more than 0.5 [deg]F) below its minimum
during stable operation between defrosts.
Quick freeze means an optional feature on freezers that is
initiated manually. It bypasses the thermostat control and operates
continually until the feature is terminated either manually or
automatically.
Recovery means operating a refrigeration system after the
conclusion of a defrost cycle to reduce the temperature of one or
more compartments to the temperature range that the compartment(s)
exhibited during stable operation between defrosts.
Stabilization period means the total period of time during which
steady-state conditions are being attained or evaluated.
Stable operation means operation after steady-state conditions
have been achieved but excluding any events associated with defrost
cycles. During stable operation the rate of change of compartment
temperatures must not exceed 0.042 [deg]F (0.023 [deg]C) per hour.
Such a calculation performed for compartment temperatures at any two
times, or for any two periods of time comprising complete cycles,
during stable operation must meet this requirement.
(a) If compartment temperatures do not cycle, the relevant
calculation shall be the difference between the temperatures at two
points in time divided by the difference, in hours, between those
points in time.
(b) If compartment temperatures cycle as a result of compressor
cycling or other cycling operation of any system component (e.g., a
damper, fan, or heater), the relevant calculation shall be the
difference between compartment temperature averages evaluated for
whole compressor cycles or complete temperature cycles divided by
the difference, in hours, between either the starts, ends, or mid-
times of the two cycles.
Standard cycle means the cycle type in which the anti-sweat
heater switch, when provided, is set in the highest energy-consuming
position.
Sub-compartment means an enclosed space within a compartment
that may have a different operating temperature from the compartment
within which it is located.
Through-the-door ice/water dispenser means a device incorporated
within the cabinet, but outside the boundary of the refrigerated
space, that delivers to the user on demand ice and may also deliver
water from within the refrigerated space without opening an exterior
door. This definition includes dispensers that are capable of
dispensing ice and water or ice only.
Variable defrost control means an automatic defrost system in
which successive defrost cycles are determined by an operating
condition variable (or variables) other than solely compressor
operating time. This includes any electrical or mechanical device
performing this function. A control scheme that changes the defrost
interval from a fixed length to an extended length (without any
intermediate steps) is not considered a variable defrost control. A
variable defrost control feature should predict the accumulation of
frost on the evaporator and react accordingly. Therefore, the times
between defrost must vary with different usage patterns and include
a continuum of lengths of time between defrosts as inputs vary.
2. Test Conditions
* * * * *
2.1.2 Ambient Temperature Gradient. The test room vertical
ambient temperature gradient in any foot of vertical distance from 2
inches (5.1 cm) above the floor or supporting platform to a height
of 1 foot (30.5 cm) above the top of the unit under test is not to
exceed 0.5 [deg]F per foot (0.9 [deg]C per meter) during the
stabilization period and the test period. The vertical ambient
temperature gradient at locations 10 inches (25.4 cm) out from the
centers of the two sides of the unit being tested is to be
maintained during the test. To demonstrate that this requirement has
been met, test data must include measurements taken using
temperature sensors at locations 10 inches (25.4 cm) from the center
of the two sides of the unit under test at heights of 2 inches (5.1
cm) and 36 inches (91.4 cm) above the floor or supporting platform
and at a height of 1 foot (30.5 cm) above the unit under test. The
top of the unit under test shall be determined by the refrigerated
cabinet height, excluding any special or protruding components on
the top of the unit.
2.1.3 Platform. A platform must be used if the floor temperature
is not within 3 [deg]F (1.7 [deg]C) of the measured ambient
temperature. If a platform is used, it is to have a solid top with
all sides open for air circulation
[[Page 70874]]
underneath, and its top shall extend at least 1 foot (30.5 cm)
beyond each side and front of the unit under test and extend to the
wall in the rear. For a test chamber floor that allows for airflow
through the floor (e.g., through a vent or holes), any airflow
pathways through the floor must be located at least 1 foot away from
all sides of the unit.
2.2 Operational Conditions. The freezer shall be installed and
its operating conditions maintained in accordance with sections
5.3.2 through 5.5.6.4 of HRF-1-2016. The quick freeze option shall
be switched off except as specified in section 3.1 of this appendix.
Exceptions and clarifications to the cited sections of HRF-1-2016
are noted in sections 2.3 through 2.9 and 5.1 of this appendix.
* * * * *
2.4 The cabinet and its refrigerating mechanism shall be
assembled and set up in accordance with the printed consumer
instructions supplied with the cabinet. Set-up of the freezer shall
not deviate from these instructions, unless explicitly required or
allowed by this test procedure. Specific required or allowed
deviations from such set-up include the following:
(a) Connection of water lines and installation of water filters
are not required;
(b) Clearance requirements from surfaces of the product shall be
as described in section 2.6;
(c) The electric power supply shall be as described in section
5.5.1 of HRF-1-2016;
(d) Temperature control settings for testing shall be as
described in section 3 of this appendix. Settings for sub-
compartments shall be as described in section 2.5 of this appendix;
(e) The product does not need to be anchored or otherwise
secured to prevent tipping during energy testing;
(f) All the product's chutes and throats required for the
delivery of ice shall be free of packing, covers, or other blockages
that may be fitted for shipping or when the icemaker is not in use;
and
(g) Ice storage bins shall be emptied of ice.
For cases in which set-up is not clearly defined by this test
procedure, manufacturers must submit a petition for a waiver (see
section 7 of this appendix).
2.5 Sub-compartments with a temperature control shall be tested
with controls set to provide the coldest temperature. However, for
sub-compartments in which temperature control is achieved using the
addition of heat (including resistive electric heating,
refrigeration system waste heat, or heat from any other source, but
excluding the transfer of air from another part of the interior of
the product) for any part of the controllable temperature range of
that compartment, the product energy use shall be determined by
averaging two sets of tests. The first set of tests shall be
conducted with such compartments at their coldest settings, and the
second set of tests shall be conducted with such compartments at
their warmest settings. The requirements for the warmest or coldest
temperature settings of this section do not apply to features or
functions associated with temperature control (such as quick freeze)
that are initiated manually and terminated automatically within 168
hours. Movable subdividing barriers that separate compartments shall
be placed in the median position. If such a subdividing barrier has
an even number of positions, the near-median position representing
the smallest volume of the warmer compartment(s) shall be used.
* * * * *
2.7 Steady State Condition. Steady-state conditions exist if the
temperature measurements in all measured compartments taken at 4-
minute intervals or less during a stabilization period are not
changing at a rate greater than 0.042 [deg]F (0.023 [deg]C) per hour
as determined by the applicable condition of paragraph (a) or (b) of
this section.
(a) The average temperature of the measurements during a 2-hour
period if no cycling occurs or during a number of complete
repetitive compressor cycles occurring through a period of no less
than 2 hours is compared to the average over an equivalent time
period with at least 3 hours elapsing between the two measurement
periods.
(b) If paragraph (a) of this section cannot be used, the average
of the measurements during a number of complete repetitive
compressor cycles occurring through a period of no less than 2 hours
and including the last complete cycle before a defrost period (or if
no cycling occurs, the average of the measurements during the last 2
hours before a defrost period) are compared to the same averaging
period before the following defrost period.
2.8 For products that require the freezer compartment to be
loaded with packages in accordance with section 5.5.6.2 of HRF-1-
2016, the number of packages comprising the 75% load shall be
determined by filling the compartment completely with the packages
that are to be used for the test, such that the packages fill as
much of the usable refrigerated space within the compartment as is
physically possible, and then removing from the compartment a number
of packages so that the compartment contains 75% of the packages
that were placed in the compartment to completely fill it. If
multiplying the total number of packages by 0.75 results in a
fraction, the number of packages used shall be rounded to the
nearest whole number, rounding up if the result ends in 0.5. For
multi-shelf units, this method shall be applied to each shelf. For
both single- and multi-shelf units, the remaining packages shall be
arranged as necessary to provide the required air gap and
thermocouple placement. The number of packages comprising the 100%
and 75% loading conditions shall be recorded in the test data
maintained in accordance with 10 CFR 429.71.
2.9 Products with External Temperature Controls. If a product's
controls are external to the cabinet assembly, the product shall be
connected to the controls as needed for normal operation. Any
additional equipment needed to ensure that the controls function
properly shall not interfere with ambient airflow around the product
or any other test conditions. If the controls provide temperature
settings for additional separate products, the controls for those
products shall be set to the ``off'' position during testing.
3. Test Control Settings
3.1 Model with No User-Operable Temperature Control. A test
shall be performed during which the compartment temperature and
energy use shall be measured. A second test shall be performed with
the temperature control electrically short circuited to cause the
compressor to run continuously. If the model has the quick freeze
option, this option must be used to bypass the temperature control.
3.2 Model with User-Operable Temperature Control. Testing shall
be performed in accordance with one of the following sections using
the standardized temperature of 0.0 [deg]F (-17.8 [deg]C). For the
purposes of comparing compartment temperatures with standardized
temperatures, as described in sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of this
appendix, the freezer compartment temperature shall be as specified
in section 5.1.3 of this appendix.
3.2.1 A first test shall be performed with all temperature
controls set at their median position midway between their warmest
and coldest settings. For mechanical control systems, knob detents
shall be mechanically defeated if necessary to attain a median
setting, and the warmest and coldest settings shall correspond to
the positions in which the indicator is aligned with control symbols
indicating the warmest and coldest settings. For electronic control
systems, the median setting test shall be performed with all
compartment temperature controls set at the average of the coldest
and warmest settings; if there is no setting equal to this average,
the setting closest to the average shall be used. If there are two
such settings equally close to the average, the higher of these
temperature control settings shall be used. A second test shall be
performed with all controls set at either their warmest or their
coldest setting (not electrically or mechanically bypassed),
whichever is appropriate, to attempt to achieve compartment
temperatures measured during the two tests that bound (i.e., one is
above and one is below) the standardized temperature. If the
compartment temperatures measured during these two tests bound the
standardized temperature, then these test results shall be used to
determine energy consumption. If the compartment temperature
measured with all controls set at their warmest setting is below the
standardized temperature, then the result of this test alone will be
used to determine energy consumption. Also see Table 1 of this
appendix, which summarizes these requirements.
[[Page 70875]]
Table 1--Temperature Settings for Freezers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First test Second test
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Energy calculation
Settings Results Settings Results based on:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid............................ Low.............. Warm............. Low.............. Second Test Only.
High First and Second
Tests.
High............. Cold............. Low.............. First and Second
Tests.
High............. Model may not be
certified as
compliant with energy
conservation
standards based on
testing of this unit.
Confirm that unit
meets product
definition. If so,
see section 7 of this
appendix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
4. Test Period
* * * * *
4.1 Non-automatic Defrost. If the model being tested has no
automatic defrost system, the test period shall be the same as the
stabilization period specified in section 2.7(a) of this appendix.
* * * * *
4.2.1 Long-time Automatic Defrost. If the model being tested has
a long-time automatic defrost system, the two-part test described in
this section may be used. If steady-state conditions are determined
according to section 2.7(a) of this appendix, the first part is a
stable period of compressor operation that includes no portions of
the defrost cycle, such as precooling or recovery, that is otherwise
the same as the test for a unit having no defrost provisions
(section 4.1 of this appendix). If steady-state conditions are
determined according to section 2.7(b) of this appendix, the first
part of the test shall start after steady-state conditions have been
achieved and be no less than three hours in duration. During the
test period, the compressor motor shall complete two or more whole
compressor cycles. (A compressor cycle is a complete ``on'' and a
complete ``off'' period of the motor.) If no ``off'' cycling occurs,
the test period shall be three hours. If fewer than two compressor
cycles occur during a 24-hour period, then a single complete
compressor cycle may be used. The second part is designed to capture
the energy consumed during all of the events occurring with the
defrost control sequence that are outside of stable operation.
4.2.1.1 Cycling Compressor System. For a system with a cycling
compressor, the second part of the test starts at the termination of
the last regular compressor ``on'' cycle. The average temperature of
the compartment measured from the termination of the previous
compressor ``on'' cycle to the termination of the last regular
compressor ``on'' cycle must be within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C) of
the average temperature of the compartment measured for the first
part of the test. If any compressor cycles occur prior to the
defrost heater being energized that cause the average temperature in
the compartment to deviate from the average temperature for the
first part of the test by more than 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C), these
compressor cycles are not considered regular compressor cycles and
must be included in the second part of the test. As an example, a
``precooling'' cycle, which is an extended compressor cycle that
lowers the compartment temperature prior to energizing the defrost
heater, must be included in the second part of the test. The test
period for the second part of the test ends at the termination of
the first regular compressor ``on'' cycle after the compartment
temperatures have fully recovered to their stable conditions. The
average temperature of the compartment measured from this
termination of the first regular compressor ``on'' cycle until the
termination of the next regular compressor ``on'' cycle must be
within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C) of the average temperature of the
compartment measured for the first part of the test. See Figure 1.
Note that Figure 1 illustrates the concepts of precooling and
recovery but does not represent all possible defrost cycles. If
average compartment temperatures measured over individual compressor
cycles are never within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C) of the average
temperature of the compartment measured for the first part of the
test (for example, in products with irregular compressor cycling),
the start of the second part of the test shall be at the beginning
of a period of multiple complete compressor cycles prior to the
defrost over which average temperatures are within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3
[deg]C) of the average temperature of the compartment measured for
the first part of the test. Similarly, the end of the second part of
the test shall be at the end of a period of multiple complete
compressor cycles after the defrost over which average compartment
temperatures are within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C) of the average
measured for the first part of the test.
[[Page 70876]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23DE19.012
* * * * *
5. Test Measurements
5.1 Temperature Measurements. (a) Temperature measurements shall
be made at the locations prescribed in Figure 5-2 of HRF-1-2016 and
shall be accurate to within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C).
(b) If the interior arrangements of the unit under test do not
conform with those shown in Figure 5-2 of HRF-1-2016, the unit must
be tested by relocating the temperature sensors from the locations
specified in the figures to avoid interference with hardware or
components within the unit, in which case the specific locations
used for the temperature sensors shall be noted in the test data
records maintained by the manufacturer in accordance with 10 CFR
429.71, and the certification report shall indicate that non-
standard sensor locations were used. If any temperature sensor is
relocated by any amount from the location prescribed in Figure 5-2
of HRF-1-2016 in order to maintain a minimum 1-inch air space from
adjustable shelves or other components that could be relocated by
the consumer, except in cases in which the Figure prescribe a
temperature sensor location within 1 inch of a shelf or similar
feature, this constitutes a relocation of temperature sensors that
must be recorded in the test data and reported in the certification
report as described above.
(c) Freezer compartments that are accessed via a drawer shall be
tested according to the Type 6 thermocouple configuration in Figure
5-2 of HRF-1-2016.
* * * * *
5.1.3 Freezer Compartment Temperature. The freezer compartment
temperature shall be calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23DE19.013
Where:
F is the total number of applicable freezer compartments;
TFi is the compartment temperature of freezer compartment
``i'' determined in accordance with section 5.1.2 of this appendix;
and
VFi is the volume of freezer compartment ``i''.
* * * * *
5.3 Volume Measurements. (a) The unit's total refrigerated
volume, VT, shall be measured in accordance with sections 3.34, 4.2
through 4.3 of HRF-1-2016. The measured volume shall include all
spaces within the insulated volume of each compartment except for
the volumes that must be deducted in accordance with section 4.2.2
of HRF-1-2016, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) The following component volumes shall not be included in the
compartment volume measurements: Icemaker compartment insulation,
fountain recess, dispenser insulation, and ice chute (if there is a
plug, cover, or cap over the chute per Figure 4-2 of HRF-1-2016).
The following component volumes shall be included in the compartment
volume measurements: Icemaker auger motor (if housed inside the
insulated space of the cabinet), icemaker kit, ice storage bin, and
ice chute (up to the dispenser flap, if there is no plug, cover, or
cap over the ice chute per Figure 4-3 of HRF-1-2016).
(c) Total refrigerated volume is determined by physical
measurement of the test unit. Measurements and calculations used to
determine the total refrigerated volume shall be retained as part of
the test records underlying the certification of the basic model in
accordance with 10 CFR 429.71.
(d) Compartment classification shall be based on subdivision of
the refrigerated volume into zones separated from each other by
subdividing barriers: No evaluated compartment shall be a zone of a
larger compartment unless the zone is separated from the remainder
of the larger compartment by subdividing barriers; if there are no
such subdividing barriers within the larger compartment, the larger
compartment must be evaluated as a single compartment rather than as
multiple compartments. If the cabinet contains a movable subdividing
barrier, it must be placed as described in section 2.5 of this
appendix.
(e) Freezer compartment volumes shall be calculated and recorded
to the nearest 0.01 cubic feet. Total refrigerated volume shall be
calculated and recorded to the nearest 0.1 cubic feet.
6. Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements
6.1 Adjusted Total Volume. The adjusted total volume of each
tested unit must be determined based upon the volume measured in
section 5.3 of this appendix using the following calculations. Where
volume measurements for the freezer are recorded in liters, the
measured volume must be converted to cubic feet and rounded to the
[[Page 70877]]
nearest 0.01 cubic foot prior to calculating the adjusted volume.
Adjusted total volume shall be calculated and recorded to the
nearest 0.1 cubic foot. The adjusted total volume, AV, for freezers
under test shall be defined as:
AV = VT x CF
Where:
AV = adjusted total volume in cubic feet;
VT = total refrigerated volume in cubic feet; and
CF = dimensionless correction factor of 1.76.
* * * * *
6.2.1 If the compartment temperature is always below 0.0 [deg]F
(-17.8 [deg]C), the average per-cycle energy consumption shall be
equivalent to:
E = ET1 + IET
Where:
E = total per-cycle energy consumption in kilowatt-hours per
day;
ET is defined in section 5.2.1 of this appendix;
The number 1 indicates the test during which the highest
compartment temperature is measured; and
For representations of energy use before [DATE ONE YEAR AFTER
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE], IET, expressed in kilowatt-
hours per cycle, equals 0.23 for a product with one or more
automatic icemakers and otherwise equals 0 (zero);
For representations of energy use on or after [DATE ONE YEAR
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE], IET, expressed in
kilowatt-hours per cycle, equals 0.0767 for a product with one or
more automatic icemakers and otherwise equals 0 (zero).
* * * * *
0
5. In Sec. 430.32 revise paragraphs (a) and (aa)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 430.32 Energy and water conservation standards and their
compliance dates.
* * * * *
(a) Refrigerators/refrigerator-freezers/freezers. These standards
do not apply to refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with total
refrigerated volume exceeding 39 cubic feet (1,104 liters) or freezers
with total refrigerated volume exceeding 30 cubic feet (850 liters).
The energy standards as determined by the equations of the following
table(s) shall be rounded off to the nearest kWh per year. If the
equation calculation is halfway between the nearest two kWh per year
values, the standard shall be rounded up to the higher of these values.
The following standards remain in effect from July 1, 2001 until
September 15, 2014:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product class Energy standard equations for maximum energy use (kWh/yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers 8.82AV + 248.4, 0.31av + 248.4.
with manual defrost.
2. Refrigerator-freezers--partial automatic 8.82AV + 248.4, 0.31av + 248.4.
defrost.
3. Refrigerator-freezers--automatic defrost 9.80AV + 276.0, 0.35av + 276.0.
with top-mounted freezer without through-the-
door ice service and all-refrigerator--
automatic defrost.
4. Refrigerator-freezers--automatic defrost 4.91AV + 507.5, 0.17av + 507.5.
with side-mounted freezer without through-
the-door ice service.
5. Refrigerator-freezers--automatic defrost 4.60AV + 459.0, 0.16av + 459.0.
with bottom-mounted freezer without through-
the-door ice service.
6. Refrigerator-freezers--automatic defrost 10.20AV + 356.0, 0.36av + 356.0.
with top-mounted freezer with through-the-
door ice service.
7. Refrigerator-freezers--automatic defrost 10.10AV + 406.0, 0.36av + 406.0.
with side-mounted freezer with through-the-
door ice service.
8. Upright freezers with manual defrost...... 7.55AV + 258.3, 0.27av + 258.3.
9. Upright freezers with automatic defrost... 12.43AV + 326.1, 0.44av + 326.1.
10. Chest freezers and all other freezers 9.88AV + 143.7, 0.35av + 143.7.
except compact freezers.
11. Compact refrigerators and refrigerator- 10.70AV + 299.0, 0.38av + 299.0.
freezers with manual defrost.
12. Compact refrigerator-freezer--partial 7.00AV + 398.0, 0.25av + 398.0.
automatic defrost.
13. Compact refrigerator-freezers--automatic 12.70AV + 355.0, 0.45av + 355.0.
defrost with top-mounted freezer and compact
all-refrigerator--automatic defrost.
14. Compact refrigerator-freezers--automatic 7.60AV + 501.0, 0.27av + 501.0.
defrost with side-mounted freezer.
15. Compact refrigerator-freezers--automatic 13.10AV + 367.0, 0.46av + 367.0.
defrost with bottom-mounted freezer.
16. Compact upright freezers with manual 9.78AV + 250.8, 0.35av + 250.8.
defrost.
17. Compact upright freezers with automatic 11.40AV + 391.0, 0.40av + 391.0.
defrost.
18. Compact chest freezers................... 10.45AV + 152.0, 0.37av + 152.0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AV: Adjusted Volume in ft\3\; av: Adjusted Volume in liters (L).
The following standards apply to products manufactured starting on
September 15, 2014 until [DATE ONE YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF A FINAL
RULE]:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equations for maximum energy use (kWh/yr)
Product class ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on AV (ft\3\) Based on av (L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Refrigerator-freezers and 7.99AV + 225.0..................... 0.282av + 225.0.
refrigerators other than all-
refrigerators with manual defrost.
1A. All-refrigerators--manual defrost.. 6.79AV + 193.6..................... 0.240av + 193.6.
2. Refrigerator-freezers--partial 7.99AV + 225.0..................... 0.282av + 225.0.
automatic defrost.
3. Refrigerator-freezers--automatic 8.07AV + 233.7..................... 0.285av + 233.7.
defrost with top-mounted freezer
without an automatic icemaker.
3-BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer-- 9.15AV + 264.9..................... 0.323av + 264.9.
automatic defrost with top-mounted
freezer without an automatic icemaker.
3I. Refrigerator-freezers--automatic 8.07AV + 317.7..................... 0.285av + 317.7.
defrost with top-mounted freezer with
an automatic icemaker without through-
the-door ice service.
3I-BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezers-- 9.15AV + 348.9..................... 0.323av + 348.9.
automatic defrost with top-mounted
freezer with an automatic icemaker
without through-the-door ice service.
3A. All-refrigerators--automatic 7.07AV + 201.6..................... 0.250av + 201.6.
defrost.
[[Page 70878]]
3A-BI. Built-in All-refrigerators-- 8.02AV + 228.5..................... 0.283av + 228.5.
automatic defrost.
4. Refrigerator-freezers--automatic 8.51AV + 297.8..................... 0.301av + 297.8.
defrost with side-mounted freezer
without an automatic icemaker.
4-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers-- 10.22AV + 357.4.................... 0.361av + 357.4.
automatic defrost with side-mounted
freezer without an automatic icemaker.
4I. Refrigerator-freezers--automatic 8.51AV + 381.8..................... 0.301av + 381.8.
defrost with side-mounted freezer with
an automatic icemaker without through-
the-door ice service.
4I-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers-- 10.22AV + 441.4.................... 0.361av + 441.4.
automatic defrost with side-mounted
freezer with an automatic icemaker
without through-the-door ice service.
5. Refrigerator-freezers--automatic 8.85AV + 317.0..................... 0.312av + 317.0.
defrost with bottom-mounted freezer
without an automatic icemaker.
5-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers-- 9.40AV + 336.9..................... 0.332av + 336.9.
automatic defrost with bottom-mounted
freezer without an automatic icemaker.
5I. Refrigerator-freezers--automatic 8.85AV + 401.0..................... 0.312av + 401.0.
defrost with bottom-mounted freezer
with an automatic icemaker without
through-the-door ice service.
5I-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers-- 9.40AV + 420.9..................... 0.332av + 420.9.
automatic defrost with bottom-mounted
freezer with an automatic icemaker
without through-the-door ice service.
5A. Refrigerator-freezer--automatic 9.25AV + 475.4..................... 0.327av + 475.4.
defrost with bottom-mounted freezer
with through-the-door ice service.
5A-BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer-- 9.83AV + 499.9..................... 0.347av + 499.9.
automatic defrost with bottom-mounted
freezer with through-the-door ice
service.
6. Refrigerator-freezers--automatic 8.40AV + 385.4..................... 0.297av + 385.4.
defrost with top-mounted freezer with
through-the-door ice service.
7. Refrigerator-freezers--automatic 8.54AV + 432.8..................... 0.302av + 432.8.
defrost with side-mounted freezer with
through-the-door ice service.
7-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers-- 10.25AV + 502.6.................... 0.362av + 502.6.
automatic defrost with side-mounted
freezer with through-the-door ice
service.
8. Upright freezers with manual defrost 5.57AV + 193.7..................... 0.197av + 193.7.
9. Upright freezers with automatic 8.62AV + 228.3..................... 0.305av + 228.3.
defrost without an automatic icemaker.
9I. Upright freezers with automatic 8.62AV + 312.3..................... 0.305av + 312.3.
defrost with an automatic icemaker.
9-BI. Built-In Upright freezers with 9.86AV + 260.9..................... 0.348av + 260.9.
automatic defrost without an automatic
icemaker.
9I-BI. Built-in upright freezers with 9.86AV + 344.9..................... 0.348av + 344.9.
automatic defrost with an automatic
icemaker.
10. Chest freezers and all other 7.29AV + 107.8..................... 0.257av + 107.8.
freezers except compact freezers.
10A. Chest freezers with automatic 10.24AV + 148.1.................... 0.362av + 148.1.
defrost.
11. Compact refrigerator-freezers and 9.03AV + 252.3..................... 0.319av + 252.3.
refrigerators other than all-
refrigerators with manual defrost.
11A. Compact all-refrigerators--manual 7.84AV + 219.1..................... 0.277av + 219.1.
defrost.
12. Compact refrigerator-freezers-- 5.91AV + 335.8..................... 0.209av + 335.8.
partial automatic defrost.
13. Compact refrigerator-freezers-- 11.80AV + 339.2.................... 0.417av + 339.2.
automatic defrost with top-mounted
freezer.
13I. Compact refrigerator-freezers-- 11.80AV + 423.2.................... 0.417av + 423.2.
automatic defrost with top-mounted
freezer with an automatic icemaker.
13A. Compact all-refrigerators-- 9.17AV + 259.3..................... 0.324av + 259.3.
automatic defrost.
14. Compact refrigerator-freezers-- 6.82AV + 456.9..................... 0.241av + 456.9.
automatic defrost with side-mounted
freezer.
14I. Compact refrigerator-freezers-- 6.82AV + 540.9..................... 0.241av + 540.9.
automatic defrost with side-mounted
freezer with an automatic icemaker.
15. Compact refrigerator-freezers-- 11.80AV + 339.2.................... 0.417av + 339.2.
automatic defrost with bottom-mounted
freezer.
15I. Compact refrigerator-freezers-- 11.80AV + 423.2.................... 0.417av + 423.2.
automatic defrost with bottom-mounted
freezer with an automatic icemaker.
16. Compact upright freezers with 8.65AV + 225.7..................... 0.306av + 225.7.
manual defrost.
17. Compact upright freezers with 10.17AV + 351.9.................... 0.359av + 351.9.
automatic defrost.
18. Compact chest freezers............. 9.25AV + 136.8..................... 0.327av + 136.8.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AV = Total adjusted volume, expressed in ft\3\, as determined in appendices A and B of subpart B of this part.
av = Total adjusted volume, expressed in Liters.
The following standards apply to products manufactured starting on
[DATE ONE YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF A FINAL RULE]:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equations for maximum energy use (kWh/yr)
Product class ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on AV (ft\3\) Based on av (L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Refrigerator-freezers and 7.99AV + 225.0..................... 0.282av + 225.0.
refrigerators other than all-
refrigerators with manual defrost.
1A. All-refrigerators--manual defrost.. 6.79AV + 193.6..................... 0.240av + 193.6.
2. Refrigerator-freezers--partial 7.99AV + 225.0..................... 0.282av + 225.0.
automatic defrost.
3. Refrigerator-freezers--automatic 8.07AV + 233.7..................... 0.285av + 233.7.
defrost with top-mounted freezer
without an automatic icemaker.
3-BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer-- 9.15AV + 208.9..................... 0.323av + 208.9.
automatic defrost with top-mounted
freezer without an automatic icemaker.
[[Page 70879]]
3I. Refrigerator-freezers--automatic 8.07AV + 261.7..................... 0.285av + 261.7.
defrost with top-mounted freezer with
an automatic icemaker without through-
the-door ice service.
3I-BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezers-- 9.15AV + 292.9..................... 0.323av + 292.9.
automatic defrost with top-mounted
freezer with an automatic icemaker
without through-the-door ice service.
3A. All-refrigerators--automatic 7.07AV + 201.6..................... 0.250av + 201.6.
defrost.
3A-BI. Built-in All-refrigerators-- 8.02AV + 228.5..................... 0.283av + 228.5.
automatic defrost.
4. Refrigerator-freezers--automatic 8.51AV + 297.8..................... 0.301av + 297.8.
defrost with side-mounted freezer
without an automatic icemaker.
4-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers-- 10.22AV + 357.4.................... 0.361av + 357.4.
automatic defrost with side-mounted
freezer without an automatic icemaker.
4I. Refrigerator-freezers--automatic 8.51AV + 325.8..................... 0.301av + 325.8.
defrost with side-mounted freezer with
an automatic icemaker without through-
the-door ice service.
4I-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers-- 10.22AV + 385.4.................... 0.361av + 385.4.
automatic defrost with side-mounted
freezer with an automatic icemaker
without through-the-door ice service.
5. Refrigerator-freezers--automatic 8.85AV + 317.0..................... 0.312av + 317.0.
defrost with bottom-mounted freezer
without an automatic icemaker.
5-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers-- 9.40AV + 336.9..................... 0.332av + 336.9.
automatic defrost with bottom-mounted
freezer without an automatic icemaker.
5I. Refrigerator-freezers--automatic 8.85AV + 345.0..................... 0.312av + 345.0.
defrost with bottom-mounted freezer
with an automatic icemaker without
through-the-door ice service.
5I-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers-- 9.40AV + 364.9..................... 0.332av + 364.9.
automatic defrost with bottom-mounted
freezer with an automatic icemaker
without through-the-door ice service.
5A. Refrigerator-freezer--automatic 9.25AV + 419.4..................... 0.327av + 419.4.
defrost with bottom-mounted freezer
with through-the-door ice service.
5A-BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer-- 9.83AV + 443.9..................... 0.347av + 443.9.
automatic defrost with bottom-mounted
freezer with through-the-door ice
service.
6. Refrigerator-freezers--automatic 8.40AV + 329.4..................... 0.297av + 329.4.
defrost with top-mounted freezer with
through-the-door ice service.
7. Refrigerator-freezers--automatic 8.54AV + 376.8..................... 0.302av + 376.8.
defrost with side-mounted freezer with
through-the-door ice service.
7-BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers-- 10.25AV + 446.6.................... 0.362av + 446.6.
automatic defrost with side-mounted
freezer with through-the-door ice
service.
8. Upright freezers with manual defrost 5.57AV + 193.7..................... 0.197av + 193.7.
9. Upright freezers with automatic 8.62AV + 228.3..................... 0.305av + 228.3.
defrost without an automatic icemaker.
9I. Upright freezers with automatic 8.62AV + 256.3..................... 0.305av + 256.3.
defrost with an automatic icemaker.
9-BI. Built-In Upright freezers with 9.86AV + 260.9..................... 0.348av + 260.9.
automatic defrost without an automatic
icemaker.
9I-BI. Built-in upright freezers with 9.86AV + 288.9..................... 0.348av + 288.9.
automatic defrost with an automatic
icemaker.
10. Chest freezers and all other 7.29AV + 107.8..................... 0.257av + 107.8.
freezers except compact freezers.
10A. Chest freezers with automatic 10.24AV + 148.1.................... 0.362av + 148.1.
defrost.
11. Compact refrigerator-freezers and 9.03AV + 252.3..................... 0.319av + 252.3.
refrigerators other than all-
refrigerators with manual defrost.
11A. Compact all-refrigerators--manual 7.84AV + 219.1..................... 0.277av + 219.1.
defrost.
12. Compact refrigerator-freezers-- 5.91AV + 335.8..................... 0.209av + 335.8.
partial automatic defrost.
13. Compact refrigerator-freezers-- 11.80AV + 339.2.................... 0.417av + 339.2.
automatic defrost with top-mounted
freezer.
13I. Compact refrigerator-freezers-- 11.80AV + 376.2.................... 0.417av + 376.2.
automatic defrost with top-mounted
freezer with an automatic icemaker.
13A. Compact all-refrigerators-- 9.17AV + 259.3..................... 0.324av + 259.3.
automatic defrost.
14. Compact refrigerator-freezers-- 6.82AV + 456.9..................... 0.241av + 456.9.
automatic defrost with side-mounted
freezer.
14I. Compact refrigerator-freezers-- 6.82AV + 484.9..................... 0.241av + 484.9.
automatic defrost with side-mounted
freezer with an automatic icemaker.
15. Compact refrigerator-freezers-- 11.80AV + 339.2.................... 0.417av + 339.2.
automatic defrost with bottom-mounted
freezer.
15I. Compact refrigerator-freezers-- 11.80AV + 367.2.................... 0.417av + 367.2.
automatic defrost with bottom-mounted
freezer with an automatic icemaker.
16. Compact upright freezers with 8.65AV + 225.7..................... 0.306av + 225.7.
manual defrost.
17. Compact upright freezers with 10.17AV + 351.9.................... 0.359av + 351.9.
automatic defrost.
18. Compact chest freezers............. 9.25AV + 136.8..................... 0.327av + 136.8.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AV = Total adjusted volume, expressed in ft\3\, as determined in appendices A and B of subpart B of this part.
av = Total adjusted volume, expressed in Liters.
* * * * *
(aa) * * *
(2) Combination cooler refrigeration products manufactured starting
on October 28, 2019 until [DATE ONE YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF A FINAL
RULE] shall have Annual Energy Use (AEU) no more than:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product class AEU (kWh/yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-3A. Cooler with all-refrigerator--automatic 4.57AV + 130.4.
defrost.
C-3A-BI. Built-in cooler with all-refrigerator-- 5.19AV + 147.8.
automatic defrost.
C-9. Cooler with upright freezers with automatic 5.58AV + 147.7.
defrost without an automatic icemaker.
[[Page 70880]]
C-9-BI. Built-in cooler with upright freezer with 6.38AV + 168.8.
automatic defrost without an automatic icemaker.
C-9I. Cooler with upright freezer with automatic 5.58AV + 231.7.
defrost with an automatic icemaker.
C-9I-BI. Built-in cooler with upright freezer with 6.38AV + 252.8.
automatic defrost with an automatic icemaker.
C-13A. Compact cooler with all-refrigerator-- 5.93AV + 193.7.
automatic defrost.
C-13A-BI. Built-in compact cooler with all- 6.52AV + 213.1.
refrigerator--automatic defrost.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AV = Total adjusted volume, expressed in ft\3\, as calculated according to appendix A of subpart B of this part.
(3) Combination cooler refrigeration products manufactured starting
on [DATE ONE YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF A FINAL RULE] shall have Annual
Energy Use (AEU) no more than:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product class AEU (kWh/yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-3A. Cooler with all-refrigerator--automatic 4.57AV + 130.4.
defrost.
C-3A-BI. Built-in cooler with all-refrigerator-- 5.19AV + 147.8.
automatic defrost.
C-9. Cooler with upright freezers with automatic 5.58AV + 147.7.
defrost without an automatic icemaker.
C-9-BI. Built-in cooler with upright freezer with 6.38AV + 168.8.
automatic defrost without an automatic icemaker.
C-9I. Cooler with upright freezer with automatic 5.58AV + 175.7.
defrost with an automatic icemaker.
C-9I-BI. Built-in cooler with upright freezer with 6.38AV + 196.8.
automatic defrost with an automatic icemaker.
C-13A. Compact cooler with all-refrigerator-- 5.93AV + 193.7.
automatic defrost.
C-13A-BI. Built-in compact cooler with all- 6.52AV + 213.1.
refrigerator--automatic defrost.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AV = Total adjusted volume, expressed in ft\3\, as calculated according to appendix A of subpart B of this part.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-26903 Filed 12-20-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P