[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 12, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56790-56825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21663]



[[Page 56789]]

Vol. 86

Tuesday,

No. 194

October 12, 2021

Part III





Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Parts 429 and 430





Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Refrigeration 
Products; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 86 , No. 194 / Tuesday, October 12, 2021 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 56790]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

[EERE-2017-BT-TP-0004]
RIN 1904-AD84


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Refrigeration 
Products

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On December 23, 2019, the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') 
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') to amend the test 
procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, and 
miscellaneous refrigeration products (collectively ``refrigeration 
products''). That proposed rulemaking serves as the basis for this 
final rule. Specifically, the test procedure amendments adopted in this 
final rule incorporates by reference the most recent version of the 
referenced industry standard, provide additional specifications 
regarding test setup and test conduct, and make additional corrections 
to the test procedures. The amendments also adjust the energy 
conservation standards for these products to ensure that the change in 
test methodology does not: Require manufacturers to increase the 
efficiency of already compliant products in order to meet the current 
energy conservation standard; or enable products that would not be 
compliant with the current energy conservation standards to meet the 
adjusted energy conservation standards.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is November 12, 2021. The final 
rule changes will be mandatory for product testing starting April 11, 
2022. The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in this 
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on November 
12, 2021. The incorporation by reference of other material listed in 
this rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register on May 
21, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public 
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at https://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
https://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.
    A link to the docket web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0004. The docket web page 
contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public 
comments, in the docket.
    For further information on how to review the docket contact the 
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by 
email: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Dr. Stephanie Johnson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-2J, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-1943. Email: [email protected].
    Ms. Linda Field, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20585-0121. 
Telephone: (202) 586-3440. Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE maintains a previously approved 
incorporation by reference and incorporates by reference the following 
industry standard into 10 CFR part 430:
    AHAM HRF-1-2019, (``HRF-1-2019''), Energy and Internal Volume of 
Consumer Refrigeration Products, Copyright (copyright) 2019.
    Copies of HRF-1-2019 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 https://www.AHAM.org.
    AS/NZS 4474.1:2007, (``AS/NZS 4474.1:2007''), Performance of 
Household Electrical Appliances--Refrigerating Appliances; Part 1: 
Energy Consumption and Performance, Second Edition, published August 
15, 2007.
    Copies of AS/NZS 4474.1:2007 can be obtained from the GPO Box 476, 
Sydney NSW 2001, (02) 9237-6000 or (12) 0065-4646, or go to 
www.standards.org.au/Standards New Zealand, Level 10 Radio New Zealand 
House 144 The Terrace Wellington 6001 (Private Bag 2439 Wellington 
6020), (04) 498-5990 or (04) 498-5991, or go to www.standards.co.nz.
    For a further discussion of this standard, see section IV.N.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
    A. Authority
    B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
    A. Scope of Applicability
    B. Relevant Industry Test Standards
    1. Ambient Test Conditions
    2. Updates to AHAM HRF-1-2019
    C. Compartment Definitions and Clarifications
    D. Test Setup
    1. Built-In Test Configuration
    2. Thermocouple Configuration for Freezer Drawers
    3. Test Platform Requirements
    4. Separate External Temperature Controls
    5. Ambient Temperature Measurement Locations
    E. Test Conditions
    1. Ambient Temperature and Vertical Ambient Gradient
    2. Stabilization
    F. Defrost Energy Consumption
    G. Icemaking Energy Consumption
    1. Icemaking Energy Use Adder
    2. Icemaking Energy Test Method Impacts
    3. Amended Energy Conservation Standards
    H. Features Not Directly Addressed in Appendix A or Appendix B
    1. Door-in-Door Designs
    2. Display Screens, Connected Functions, and Demand Response
    I. Corrections
    J. Effective Date, Compliance Date, and Waivers
    K. Test Procedure Costs
    1. Amendment Regarding the Stabilization and Test Periods
    2. Amendment Regarding Energy Use Associated With Automatic 
Icemaking
    3. Impact of the Other Amendments
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
    M. Congressional Notification
    N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

    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)) Additionally, under 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20), DOE 
may extend coverage over a particular type of consumer product provided 
that DOE determines

[[Page 56791]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A miscellaneous refrigeration product 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's energy conservation standards and test procedures for 
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers, and MREFs are currently 
prescribed at 10 CFR 430.23(a) and part 430, subpart B, appendix A 
(``Appendix A'') for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers; 10 CFR 
430.23(b) and 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix B (``Appendix B'') 
for freezers; and 10 CFR 430.23(ff) and appendix A for MREFs.
    The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish test 
procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers, and 
MREFs (collectively, ``refrigeration products''), and relevant 
background information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures 
for these products.

A. Authority

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\2\ 
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 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 the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 
27, 2020).
    \3\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The energy conservation program under EPCA 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), 
test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), 
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to 
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
    The testing requirements consist of test procedures that 
manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for (1) 
certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy 
conservation standards adopted under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) 
making representations about the efficiency of those products (42 
U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to 
determine whether the products comply with any 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. (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 shall be reasonably designed to produce test 
results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual 
operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use 
cycle (as determined by the Secretary) or period of use and shall 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 into the overall energy efficiency, energy 
consumption, or other energy descriptor, unless the current test 
procedure already incorporates the standby mode and off mode energy 
consumption, or if such integration is technically infeasible. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) If an integrated test procedure is technically 
infeasible, DOE must prescribe separate standby mode and off mode 
energy use test procedures for the covered product, if a separate test 
is technically feasible. (Id.) 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 a proposed test procedure and offer the public an 
opportunity to present oral and written comments on it. (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 
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 reflect 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 their 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

[[Page 56792]]

determines that test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE must 
publish its determination not to amend the test procedures. DOE is 
publishing this final rule 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 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).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A more detailed history of the test procedures is provided 
at 84 FR 70842, 70844-70845 (December 23, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE most recently amended the test procedures for refrigerators, 
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers in a final rule published on April 
21, 2014 (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 alternative method for measuring and 
calculating energy consumption for refrigerator-freezers and 
refrigerators with freezer compartments. Id. The April 2014 Final Rule 
also amended certain aspects of the test procedures to improve test 
accuracy and repeatability. Id. 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.\7\ 81 
FR 46768. Included within this product 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 appendices A and B to include provisions for testing MREFs and 
to improve the clarity of certain existing test requirements, which 
would apply to all refrigeration products. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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. (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 Appendices A 
and B. 82 FR 29780. After reviewing comments received in response to 
the June 2017 RFI, DOE published a NOPR on December 23, 2019 (the 
``December 2019 NOPR''), in which DOE proposed amendments to its test 
procedures and corresponding amendments to the energy conservation 
standards for refrigeration products to account for the proposed test 
procedure amendments. 84 FR 70842. DOE held a public meeting related to 
this NOPR on January 9, 2020 (the ``December 2019 NOPR public 
meeting'').
    DOE received written comments in response to the December 2019 NOPR 
and oral comments at the December 2019 NOPR public meeting from the 
interested parties listed in Table I.1.

     Table I.1--Comments Received in Response to December 2019 NOPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Reference in this
          Commenter(s)                   NOPR           Commenter type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Energy Commission....  CEC...............  Regulatory Agency.
Appliance Standards Awareness     Joint Commenters..  Efficiency
 Project, American Council for                         Organizations &
 an Energy-Efficient Economy,                          Consumer
 Consumer Federation of America,                       Advocates.
 National Consumer Law Center,
 National Resources Defense
 Council.
Northwest Energy Efficiency       NEEA..............  Efficiency
 Alliance.                                             Organization.
California Investor-Owned         CA IOUs...........  Utilities.
 Utilities (Pacific Gas and
 Electric Company,\8\ San Diego
 Gas and Electric, Southern
 California Edison).
Association of Home Appliance     AHAM..............  Trade Association.
 Manufacturers.
Felix Storch, Inc...............  FSI...............  Manufacturer.
GE Appliances, a Haier Company..  GEA...............  Manufacturer.
Liebherr Canada, Ltd............  Liebherr..........  Manufacturer.
Samsung Electronics America.....  Samsung...........  Manufacturer.
Sub Zero Group, Inc.............  Sub Zero..........  Manufacturer.
Whirlpool Corporation...........  Whirlpool.........  Manufacturer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Comments received not related to the proposals in the December
  2019 NOPR will be considered and addressed as appropriate should DOE
  undertake additional rulemakings.

    A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or 
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Pacific Gas and Electric Company separately submitted 
comments (See docket ID number EERE-2017-BT-TP-0004-25) that are 
identical to those submitted by the CA IOUs (See docket ID number 
EERE-2017-BT-TP-0004-23). This final rule references only the CA 
IOUs comment when addressing the comments provided in both 
documents.
    \9\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for 
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop 
test procedures for consumer refrigeration products. (Docket No. 
EERE-2017-BT-TP-0004, which is maintained at https://www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged as follows: 
(Commenter name, docket ID number, page of that document). The 
December 2019 NOPR Public Meeting Transcript is referenced for 
comments provided during the December 2019 NOPR public meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Synopsis of the Final Rule

    In this final rule, DOE amends appendices A and B, and 
corresponding sections in 10 CFR part 429, and in 10 CFR 430.23 as 
follows:
     Incorporates by reference the current revision to the 
applicable industry standard, AHAM HRF-1-2019, ``Energy and Internal 
Volume of Consumer Refrigeration Products,'' which includes updates to 
methods for

[[Page 56793]]

test setup, sampling intervals, test conditions, and energy consumption 
calculations;
     Specifies how to determine the top of the unit for the 
purpose of temperature measurement location;
     Clarifies ambient temperature and gradient requirements;
     Provides additional context regarding product coverage and 
situations requiring test procedure waivers;
     Reinstates previously omitted optional test method for 
products with multiple temperature compartments; and
     Updates the references in 10 CFR part 429 and 10 CFR 
430.23 to refer to the amended appendices A and B.
    The adopted amendments are summarized in Table II.1 compared to the 
current test procedure as well as the reason for the adopted change.

      Table II.1--Summary of Changes in the Amended Test Procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Current DOE test procedure    Amended test procedure     Attribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorporates by reference       Updates IBR to AHAM     Industry test
 (``IBR'') AHAM HRF-1-2008.      HRF-1-2019.             method update.
Variation between definitions   Definitions amended     IBR of
 and corresponding test          and established         HRF[dash]1[dash
 procedure provisions in         consistent with test    ]2019.
 industry standard.              procedure provisions
                                 in
                                 HRF[dash]1[dash]2019.
Variation between testing       Requires only the       IBR of
 provisions for testing anti-    tests used for          HRF[dash]1[dash
 sweat heaters and equations     calculating annual      ]2019.
 to calculate annual energy      energy use to be
 use.                            conducted.
Specifies a temperature         Specifies that the      IBR of
 measurement interval of 4       temperature and power   HRF[dash]1[dash
 minutes or less for most        supply measurement      ]2019; improves
 products.                       intervals shall not     representativen
                                 exceed 1 minute.        ess,
                                                         repeatability,
                                                         and
                                                         reproducibility
                                                         .
Does not define the terms       Defines terms           IBR of
 ``compartment'' or ``sub-       consistent with HRF-1-  HRF[dash]1[dash
 compartment''.                  2019.                   ]2019.
Does not explicitly specify     Provides additional     IBR of
 thermocouple placement in       thermocouple            HRF[dash]1[dash
 certain product                 placement               ]2019; improves
 configurations.                 specifications.         representativen
                                                         ess,
                                                         repeatability,
                                                         and
                                                         reproducibility
                                                         .
Does not explicitly specify     Provides consistent     IBR of
 the setup for test chamber      specifications for      HRF[dash]1[dash
 floors that have vents for      test platform and       ]2019.
 airflow.                        floor requirements.
Does not explicitly specify     Specifies that          Improves
 timing of required              conditions must be      representativen
 temperature range conditions.   maintained for          ess,
                                 stabilization and       repeatability,
                                 test periods.           and
                                                         reproducibility
                                                         .
Requires a separate             Allows test period to   IBR of
 stabilization period and test   serve as                HRF[dash]1[dash
 period when conducting all      stabilization period    ]2019.
 energy tests.                   when conducting
                                 certain energy tests.
Stabilization requirements may  Allows measuring        IBR of
 not be achievable by certain    average temperatures    HRF[dash]1[dash
 products with irregular         over multiple           ]2019;
 compressor cycling or           compressor cycles or    addresses
 multiple compressors.           for a given time        current waiver.
                                 period to determine
                                 stable operation.
Includes energy use adder for   Updates energy use      IBR of
 automatic icemakers of 84 kWh/  adder for automatic     HRF[dash]1[dash
 yr.                             icemakers to 28 kWh/    ]2019.
                                 yr.
Tests connected features the    Tests any connected     IBR of
 same as certain other           products with the       HRF[dash]1[dash
 customer-accessible features,   communication module    ]2019.
 i.e., set at the lowest         on but not connected
 energy usage position, except   to a network.
 for demand response devices
 in the as-shipped position.
Inadvertently omits optional    Reinstates optional     Correction.
 method for calculating          method and makes
 average per-cycle energy        other non-substantive
 consumption of refrigerators    corrections.
 and refrigerator-freezers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section III of this document describes the amendments to the 
current test procedures for Refrigeration products. DOE has determined 
that the amendment to the icemaking energy use adder would alter the 
measured efficiency of Refrigeration products and require re-
certification solely as a result of DOE's adoption of the amendments to 
the test procedures. After reviewing comments received in response to 
the December 2019 NOPR, DOE is not requiring calculations in accordance 
with this test procedure amendment until the compliance dates of any 
amended energy conservation standards for these products, which would 
incorporate the amended automatic icemaker energy consumption. 
Accordingly, in this final rule DOE is not amending the energy 
conservation standards for these products based on this test procedure 
amendment. This amendment is discussed in section III.G of this 
document.
    Additionally, while the amendment to test connected products with 
the communication module on but not connected to any network could 
affect the measured energy consumption for certain products, DOE 
expects that this amendment would typically result in no change to 
measured energy use ratings. Therefore, DOE is not amending the energy 
conservation standards for these products based on this test procedure 
amendment as discussed in section III.H.2 of this document.
    Similarly, the amendment revising the ambient temperature 
measurement locations for products measuring less than 36 inches in 
height is not expected to result in a change to measured energy use 
ratings. Therefore, DOE is not amending the energy conservation 
standards for these products based on this test procedure amendment as 
discussed in section III.D.5 of this document.
    The effective date for the amended test procedures adopted in this 
final rule is 30 days after publication of this document in the Federal 
Register. Representations of energy use or energy efficiency must be 
based on testing in accordance with the amended test procedures 
beginning 180 days after the publication of this final rule.

III. Discussion

A. Scope of Applicability

    The amendments in this final rule apply to products that meet the 
definition for ``refrigeration product,'' as codified in 10 CFR 430.2. 
Refrigeration products include refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 
freezers, and MREFs. Refrigeration products generally refer to cabinets 
used with one or more doors that are capable of maintaining

[[Page 56794]]

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 require only that the 
product be capable of maintaining compartment temperatures within 
certain ranges, regardless of use. (10 CFR 430.2)
    As stated, the test procedure for refrigerators, refrigerator-
freezers, and MREFs is included in appendix A. The test procedure for 
consumer freezers is included in appendix B. The amendments in this 
final rule do not change the scope of applicability of the test 
procedures for refrigeration products.

B. Relevant Industry Test Standards

    DOE's test procedures for refrigeration products in Appendices A 
and B currently incorporate by reference the Association of Home 
Appliance Manufacturers (``AHAM'') industry standard HRF-1, ``Energy 
and Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances'' (``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. 82 FR 29780, 29785. In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE proposed 
to incorporate by reference HRF-1-2016 into 10 CFR part 430, subpart A, 
and reference certain sections of the 2016 standard in appendix A and 
appendix B. DOE noted that updating the references to HRF-1-2016 would 
not substantively affect the existing test procedures in appendix A and 
appendix B. 84 FR 70842, 70847-70848. DOE also noted that AHAM had 
released a draft of an updated HRF-1 for public review and provided a 
link to the draft revision. 84 FR 70842, 70847. DOE requested feedback 
on its proposal and on whether DOE should incorporate an updated 
version of HRF-1 instead, should one become publicly available. 84 FR 
70842, 70848.
    In response to the December 2019 NOPR, AHAM supported incorporation 
by reference in its entirety of the new version of HRF-1, HRF-1-2019, 
stating that DOE had participated in the development of the standard 
and that the standard was also available for public review, allowing 
other stakeholders to provide feedback as well. (AHAM, No. 18, p. 2)
    Whirlpool and Liebherr also recommended the incorporation of HRF-1-
2019. (Whirlpool, No. 19, p. 1; Liebherr, No. 16, p. 1) Sub Zero 
commented that HRF-1-2019 is the most up-to-date and effective energy 
test procedure for household refrigeration equipment and recommended 
that it be adopted by reference by DOE. (Sub Zero, No. 17, p. 1-2)
    DOE is also aware of another international test standard: 
International Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'') Standard 62552, 
``Household refrigerating appliances--Characteristics and test 
methods'' (``IEC 62552''). The latest publication of this test standard 
is IEC 62552:2015, which was published in three parts (IEC 62552-
1:2015, IEC 62552-2:2015, and IEC 62552-3:2015) on February 13, 
2015.\10\ On November 30, 2020 IEC issued an amendment to this test 
standard, IEC 62552:2015/AMD1:2020.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Available online from IEC at https://webstore.iec.ch/.
    \11\ Available online from IEC at https://webstore.iec.ch/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CEC encouraged DOE to incorporate by reference the three parts of 
IEC 62552, stating that the standard addresses all types of 
refrigerators, including those not driven by compressors, and that 
harmonizing with the international test procedure would reduce net test 
burden. (CEC, No. 20, p. 4)
    Samsung recommended that DOE generally consider adopting global IEC 
test procedures in residential appliance test procedures in order to 
reduce regulatory burdens. Samsung referenced what it described as 
significant progress toward international modernization and 
harmonization of standards and test procedures in many industries, 
leading to improvements in efficiency. According to Samsung, DOE's 
adoption of IEC test procedures would allow companies to design 
international platforms and configurations for global markets, which 
Samsung asserted would reduce cost for manufacturers in design and 
testing and would result in improved efficiencies and broader consumer 
choices. (Samsung, No. 24, p. 3) The Joint Commenters referenced 
similar comments that Samsung provided in the December 2019 NOPR Public 
Meeting and also recommended that DOE evaluate the relevant IEC test 
procedures. (Joint Commenters, No. 22, p. 2) NEEA also recommended that 
DOE adopt a version of the IEC test procedure to harmonize refrigerator 
test procedures worldwide, which NEEA stated would reduce overall test 
burden on manufacturers. NEEA added that such harmonization would 
eliminate the need for manufacturers to optimize refrigerator 
performance to multiple test procedures. (NEEA, No. 26, p. 5)
    In response to CEC's comment regarding applicability of IEC 62552 
to non-compressor products, DOE's existing test procedure for MREFs in 
10 CFR 430.23(ff) and appendix A already accounts for testing non-
compressor products. (See 10 CFR 430.23(ff)(8)) Additionally, while 
HRF-1-2016 specifically limited scope to compressor-driven 
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, wine chillers, and freezers (See 
section 2 of HRF-1-2016), HRF-1-2019 does not limit scope to compressor 
products.
    DOE recognizes that there may be a potential benefit to harmonizing 
among international test standards and regulations, including the 
potential for reduced burden on manufacturers. In the present case, the 
existing DOE test procedure, which uses an approach consistent with 
that in HRF-1-2019, has a long history of use in the United States 
market, is generally understood by industry, and the results are 
generally understood by consumers. The existing test procedure is also 
used as the basis for the Environmental Protection Agency's ENERGY STAR 
eligibility criteria for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 
freezers \12\ and the Federal Trade Commission's (``FTC'') EnergyGuide 
labels \13\ for these products. DOE also notes that the current 
approach to the test procedure was generally supported for use by 
commenters representing manufacturers. (AHAM, No. 18, p. 2; Liebherr, 
No. 16, p. 1; Sub Zero, No. 17, pp. 1-2; Whirlpool, No. 19, p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See ENERGY STAR's Eligibility Criteria Version 5.0, 
available at https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/product_specs/program_reqs/Refrigerators_and_Freezers_Program_Requirements_V5.0.pdf.
    \13\ See 16 CFR 305.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, DOE is generally maintaining the existing test 
approach in this final rule. As discussed in the following sections of 
this final rule, the test procedure amendments established in this 
final rule do not represent a significant change from the current test 
approach and, therefore, result in little or no additional burden on 
manufacturers. Additionally, DOE has determined that the existing test 
approach, including the amendments as discussed in this final rule, 
results in representative measures of energy use and is not unduly 
burdensome to conduct, as required under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))

[[Page 56795]]

    In addition to the comments described earlier in this section, many 
of the commenters supporting use of the IEC 62552 test method referred 
to the ambient conditions required in that test standard, including the 
requirement for testing at two ambient temperatures. As discussed in 
section III.B.1 of this document, DOE considered harmonizing with IEC 
62552's ambient test conditions, including as part of an optional 
second ambient test condition; however, DOE concluded that the current 
single-ambient test approach is appropriate for determining 
representative energy consumption for refrigeration products.
    DOE also reviewed the updates included in the latest HRF-1-2019 
standard, as discussed in section III.B.2 of this document. Compared to 
the draft available for public review and referenced in the December 
2019 NOPR, the published version of HRF-1-2019 includes only one 
substantive update, as discussed in section III.F of this final rule. 
After considering these updates, DOE is incorporating by reference HRF-
1-2019 with additional changes as discussed further in this final rule.
1. Ambient Test Conditions
    The DOE test procedures in appendices A and B simulate typical room 
conditions (72 [deg]F (22.2 [deg]C)) with door openings, by testing at 
90 [deg]F (32.2 [deg]C) without door openings. 10 CFR 430.23(a)(7), 10 
CFR 430.23(b)(7), and 10 CFR 430.23(ff)(7). The test procedures 
directly measure the energy consumed during steady-state operation and 
defrosts, if applicable. The additional thermal load and additional 
energy consumption of the refrigeration system at the elevated ambient 
temperature, compared to typical operating ambient conditions, 
represents the increase in energy consumption caused by thermal loads 
introduced during normal consumer use--e.g., from door openings and the 
loading of warm items into the refrigerated space. Additionally, the 
current test procedures incorporate usage adjustment factors to account 
for differences in these user-related thermal loads for different types 
of refrigeration products (i.e., chest freezers and MREFs are typically 
used less frequently than a primary refrigerator-freezer in a 
household).
    DOE has provided principles of interpretation for its test 
procedures in 10 CFR 430.23(a)(7), 10 CFR 430.23(b)(7), and 10 CFR 
430.23(ff)(7) to describe the intent of the test procedures and the 
requirements regarding component operation in the test condition versus 
typical room temperature operation. For example, energy consuming 
components that operate in typical room conditions (including as a 
result of door openings, or a function of humidity), and that are not 
excluded by the test procedure, must operate in an equivalent manner 
during energy testing under the test procedure, or be accounted for by 
all calculations as provided for in the test procedure. (See, for 
example, 10 CFR 430.23(a)(7)(i))
    DOE first adopted the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition in 1977 
after conducting a public notice and comment proceeding to discuss the 
merits of a proposed test procedure that included the possibility of 
adopting the 90 [deg]F ambient temperature condition or a higher one at 
104 [deg]F. (See 42 FR 46140, 46142 (September 14, 1977) (rejecting 
adoption of the 104 [deg]F ambient test condition in favor of 90 
[deg]F)) DOE explained the basis for selecting this temperature 
condition in its proposal leading to that final rule by noting in part 
that the selected temperature is designed to compensate for door 
openings when they occur and a correction factor can be applied ``when 
appropriate.'' 42 FR 21584, 21586 (April 27, 1977). Further, industry's 
more recent efforts at revising and updating the test procedures for 
refrigeration have continued to consistently apply the 90 [deg]F 
ambient condition. The currently incorporated by reference HRF-1-2008, 
the more recent HRF-1-2016, and most recent HRF-1-2019 all maintain the 
approach of a 90 [deg]F ambient temperature.
    In response to the December 2019 NOPR, DOE received a variety of 
comments regarding the test method set forth in IEC 62552, in 
particular with regard to the specification of two ambient test 
conditions (at approximately 90 [deg]F and 60 [deg]F) \14\ by IEC 
62552. The IEC 62552 method requires testing at these two ambient 
conditions with optional additional load processing efficiency tests 
(to account for a door opening and warm item insertion) and other 
auxiliary component efficiency tests.\15\ The total energy consumption 
of a product is determined by a regional interpolation function of the 
90 [deg]F and 60 [deg]F test results, load processing efficiency 
results, and auxiliary component efficiency results. The regional 
interpolation functions are not defined by IEC 62552--individual 
jurisdictions may adapt these interpolation weighting factors to result 
in representative household conditions for the specific jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ IEC 62552 specifically requires testing at 16 [deg]C and 32 
[deg]C, which correspond to 60.8 [deg]F and 89.6 [deg]F.
    \15\ IEC 62552-3:2015 specifies closed-door testing at 16 [deg]C 
and 32 [deg]C and a load processing efficiency test in Annex G to 
account for door openings and warm item loading, which is also 
conducted at two ambient conditions. The load processing efficiency 
test quantifies the additional energy consumed by the product to 
remove a known amount of energy which is contained in warm water, 
which is placed into refrigerated compartments in a defined way 
(with one door opening). Test methods for accounting for the energy 
use of other auxiliary components (ambient-controlled anti-sweat 
heaters and tank-type automatic icemakers) are found in Annex F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the December 2019 NOPR, AHAM opposed adopting the 
test method of IEC 62552 in the current DOE test procedure rulemaking. 
AHAM cited a study conducted in 1991 by Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory that found agreement between the 90 [deg]F test method 
required by the DOE test procedure and field use energy 
consumption.\16\ AHAM stated that any effort to consider or adopt IEC 
62552, specifically, the two ambient test conditions, would require 
extensive testing and take time to evaluate, which would be 
inappropriate at this time given DOE's statutory obligations to publish 
an amended test procedure. AHAM stated that it continues its efforts to 
harmonize HRF-1 with IEC 62552 and the DOE test procedures and 
commented that its task force will consider if any of the elements of 
the IEC 62552 test method should eventually be incorporated into HRF-1. 
AHAM supported an incorporation by reference of HRF-1-2019, which AHAM 
asserted balances representativeness with test burden, while also 
retaining high repeatability and reproducibility with the single 90 
[deg]F closed-door test point. (AHAM, No. 18, pp. 3-4) Sub Zero 
supported AHAM's comments and added that IEC 62552 over time has 
adopted more and more of the methods prescribed in HRF-1, and in the 
future, these test standards may become even more similar. (Sub Zero, 
No. 17, p. 2) Sub Zero additionally stated that the elevated-ambient, 
closed-door energy test prescribed in HRF-1-2019 has been shown to be 
an excellent proxy for determining actual field energy use while 
providing repeatability and reproducibility without imposing an 
unreasonable burden to conduct. (Sub Zero, No. 17, p. 1-2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Alan Meier and Richard Jansky, Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory, Field Performance of Residential Refrigerators: A 
Comparison with the Laboratory Test (May 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the December 2019 NOPR Public Meeting, GEA stated that the 60 
[deg]F ambient test point used in IEC 62552 was developed specifically 
for products which, in low-temperature climates, would activate a 
heater in order to maintain refrigeration capacity, and that

[[Page 56796]]

the 60 [deg]F test is not needed to measure the average energy usage at 
72 [deg]F with door openings. GEA stated that applying an additional 
test point at 60 [deg]F would not only double the testing time, but 
also would not be as repeatable or reproducible as the single ambient 
method in HRF-1. GEA further commented that single speed compressors 
and variable speed compressors alike would benefit from the lower 
ambient temperature. (GEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 11, pp. 54-
57)
    Several commenters recommended that DOE consider alignment with IEC 
62552, stating that there are potential benefits associated with 
multiple ambient condition tests. The CA IOUs, CEC, NEEA, and the Joint 
Commenters commented that testing at a single ambient test point cannot 
differentiate energy-saving design options (e.g., variable speed 
compressors) present in refrigeration products currently on the market. 
(CA IOUs, No. 23, p. 1; CEC, No. 20, p. 3; NEEA, No. 26, p. 2; Joint 
Commenters, No. 22, p. 1) The CA IOUs and CEC also stated that the 
single condition leads to a focus on insulation rather than 
refrigeration efficiency. (CA IOUs, No. 23, p. 2; CEC, No. 20, p. 4) 
The CA IOUs, CEC, NEEA, and the Joint Commenters argued that the 
elevated ambient temperature does not represent normal use conditions. 
(CA IOUs, No. 23, p. 2; CEC, No. 20, p. 3; NEEA, No. 26, p. 2; Joint 
Commenters, No. 22, p. 1) The CA IOUs and CEC raised concerns regarding 
susceptibility to circumvention, stating that multiple test points 
discourage test circumvention strategies. (CA IOUs, No. 23, p. 2; CEC, 
No. 20, p. 4) The CA IOUs and CEC also argued that there is a high 
testing burden for manufacturers who supply products to international 
markets if individual jurisdictions each have different single-ambient 
test points. (CA IOUs, No. 23, p. 2; CEC, No. 20, p. 3) Specifically, 
the CA IOUs, NEEA, and the Joint Commenters commented that IEC 62552 
allows jurisdictions to use the two ambient test points to interpolate 
to the appropriate regional ambient temperature, thus reducing overall 
test burden across jurisdictions with different climates. (CA IOUs, No. 
23, p. 2; NEEA, No. 26, p. 2; Joint Commenters, No. 22, p. 2)
    The Joint Commenters further commented and referred to previous 
comments on a request for information DOE published regarding the 
representativeness of DOE's test procedures and average use cycles of 
covered products.\17\ The Joint Commenters stated that some variation 
in efficiency performance among models would be expected at more 
representative test conditions. The Joint Commenters stated that 
because most refrigerators and freezers are not placed in 90 [deg]F 
rooms, the single elevated ambient test point may not be providing an 
accurate relative ranking of model efficiencies. Specifically, the 
Joint Commenters were concerned that two models that have the same 
energy consumption as measured by the current test procedure could 
potentially perform significantly differently at more representative 
conditions, and furthermore, that the current test procedure does not 
adequately reflect the benefits of variable speed compressors. The 
Joint Commenters commented that a refrigerator's compressor would cycle 
more often at an ambient temperature of 72 [deg]F than at 90 [deg]F and 
therefore, the benefits of variable speed compressors, which can reduce 
speed to cycle less frequently, would be greater at 72 [deg]F. The 
Joint Commenters stated that a test procedure that relied on an ambient 
condition more representative of field conditions would provide more 
incentive for optimizing designs at these conditions and would supply 
better information to consumers. The Joint Commenters also mentioned 
that the load processing efficiency test in IEC 62552, which measures a 
unit's response to a single door opening and insertion of warm water 
bottles, can increase representativeness. (Joint Commenters, No. 22, 
pp. 1-2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ On March 18, 2019 DOE issued a notice of request for 
information on the measurement of average use cycles or periods of 
use in DOE test procedures. 84 FR 9721 (March 18, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEEA stated that test data of 100 refrigerators evaluated as part 
of the IEC 62552 development demonstrates that the ambient temperature 
has the greatest impact on refrigerator energy consumption, and 
technologies such as variable speed compressors have an energy savings 
potential of 10-30% for refrigerator-freezers due to reduced cycling 
losses from load-matching (i.e., responding to door openings and warm 
item insertion). NEEA commented that without the addition of a second 
ambient temperature test in DOE's test procedure, the reduced energy 
use associated with such energy saving technologies will not be 
recognized. NEEA stated that the current test procedure may even 
penalize the rated performance of energy efficient refrigerators in 
some cases due to rating equipment at near full compressor speed. NEEA 
also stated that testing at a single elevated ambient temperature with 
no user interaction does not reflect normal use and does not encourage 
manufacturers to optimize the performance of their products for a 
normal use condition. (NEEA, No. 26, p. 2)
    NEEA presented data from testing six refrigerators using both the 
DOE (i.e., high ambient temperature) and IEC 62552 low-temperature 
ambient conditions. NEEA asserted that the data shows that 
refrigerators with variable speed compressors showed a relatively 
smaller increase in energy consumption from the low-temperature test to 
the high-temperature test. This data is reproduced in Table III.1. 
Based on this data, NEEA stated that DOE's single ambient test 
temperature obscures the energy saving benefit of variable speed 
technologies that would be of most benefit during normal use. (NEEA, 
No. 26, pp. 1-3)
    NEEA referred to the Australian/New Zealand regulatory requirements 
for refrigerators and freezers (AS/NZS 4474:2018), which incorporate 
IEC 62552 without modifications but adapt the weighting factors for the 
90 [deg]F test result and the 60 [deg]F test result for the purpose of 
providing a representative local energy use. NEEA stated that the IEC 
test method is specifically constructed in a manner to allow different 
countries and regions to add the different components together in a 
manner and weighting that best reflects local conditions while using 
only a single suite of test elements that remain harmonized throughout 
the world, and that weighting factors can be adapted for the typical 
conditions in the United States. (NEEA, No. 26, pp. 1-4)
    Samsung commented in support of a test method with multiple ambient 
test conditions, specifically IEC 62552, stating that such a method 
would be more representative in capturing the energy savings benefits 
of innovative technologies such as variable speed compressors. Samsung 
stated that the current test procedure, with a single 90 [deg]F ambient 
test point, was adequate at a time when most of the refrigerators in 
the market used single speed compressors, but that in the last ten 
years, variable speed compressors and adaptive control algorithms have 
allowed compressors to optimize performance for different load 
conditions as well as minimize temperature fluctuations for better food 
preservation. Samsung stated that the energy savings of such 
technologies would be realized under real-world variable-load 
conditions due to door openings, introduction of large food

[[Page 56797]]

loads, seasonal temperature changes, and consumer day/night routines. 
(Samsung, No. 24, pp. 2-3)
    Samsung acknowledged that testing in two ambient test conditions 
would result in an increase in the test burden, but Samsung stated that 
such burden is justified by the need for representativeness in order to 
accurately measure the efficiency benefits of new technologies. Samsung 
recommended that DOE could limit test burden by developing an optional 
single ambient test condition approach, as DOE has similarly done for 
the optional measurement or calculation of motor performance in the 
2016 test procedure final rule for pumps.\18\ (Samsung, No. 24, p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ On January 25, 2016, DOE published a final rule 
establishing a new test procedure for pumps with calculation methods 
applicable for certain types of pumps. 81 FR 4085, 4140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEEA also commented in support of an approach in which 
manufacturers could elect to perform an optional second ambient 
condition test, noting that this approach would be an incremental 
approach to incentivize more efficient technologies while not 
increasing burden for those manufacturers choosing not to run the 
additional test. (NEEA, No. 26, p. 4)
    At the December 2019 NOPR Public Meeting, ASAP commented that IEC 
62552 has a strong international pedigree and recommended that DOE 
perform a side-by-side comparison of the IEC 62552 and the DOE test 
procedure. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 11, pp. 89-91) The CA 
IOUs also recommended that DOE conduct such a comparison to determine 
the representativeness of the single ambient test condition, and stated 
that the DOE test procedure should provide adequate differentiation of 
part-load compressor technologies. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 11, pp. 91-92)
    DOE appreciates the comprehensive feedback from commenters 
regarding the ambient test condition issue. The primary concerns with 
the existing single ambient test condition approach were regarding 
representativeness (specifically for variable speed compressor 
products) and the potential for circumvention.
    DOE recognizes the concern of using a single test condition to 
measure energy consumption of models with variable speed compressors. 
While variable speed compressors and single speed compressors may have 
similar performance at full-load conditions (i.e., full speed and 
compressor always on), variable speed compressors typically perform 
more efficiently than single speed compressors when operating at part-
load conditions. Variable speed compressors may match the lower cooling 
demand by reducing speed rather than by cycling on and off, thereby 
avoiding losses that occur when the system cycles on and off. On March 
29, 2021, DOE published a final rule to amend the test procedure for 
room air conditioners to, in part, provide for the testing of variable 
speed compressor products to better reflect their relative efficiency 
gains at lower outdoor temperatures compared to single speed compressor 
products (the ``March 2021 Room AC Final Rule''). 86 FR 16446 (March 
29, 2021). In the March 2021 Room AC Final Rule, DOE explained that the 
previous test procedure for room air conditioners measured performance 
while operating at full-load conditions (i.e., the compressor is 
operated continuously on), and as a result, the existing DOE test 
procedure for room air conditioners did not capture any inefficiencies 
due to cycling losses. Id at 86 FR 16452. DOE included a methodology 
for determining and applying a ``performance adjustment factor'' for 
variable speed room air conditioners to reflect the avoidance of 
cycling losses that would be experienced in a representative consumer 
installation (i.e., at part load conditions). 86 FR 16446, 16455-16460. 
However, the same is not true for the existing test procedures for 
refrigeration products: the existing 90 [deg]F ambient test point does 
not impose a full-load test condition for all refrigeration products. 
As discussed previously in this section, the 90 [deg]F test condition 
represents typical room conditions (72 [deg]F (22.2 [deg]C)) with door 
openings (i.e., typical operation rather than maximum thermal load 
operation). At the ambient test condition temperature of 90 [deg]F, 
many refrigeration products exhibit compressor cycling, and thus the 90 
[deg]F condition typically already represents part-load conditions for 
single speed compressor products and variable speed compressor products 
alike. This is further supported by the existence of multiple 
provisions in HRF-1-2019 and IEC 62552 regarding cycling compressor 
systems (e.g., stabilization requirements and test period selection 
requirements). Given that most refrigeration products have compressors 
that cycle at this test condition, the single elevated ambient test 
method already captures inefficiencies due to cycling losses (and 
correspondingly, efficiencies for variable speed compressors avoiding 
cycling losses) for refrigeration products, which generally addresses 
the primary concerns that commenters raised regarding the test 
procedure not adequately capturing efficiency benefits of variable 
speed compressors.
    As discussed, NEEA presented data from testing six refrigerators 
using two ambient test points of 32 [deg]F and 16 [deg]F (as set forth 
in IEC 62552), and this data is reproduced in Table III.1. Because the 
existing DOE test procedures use an ambient test condition of 90 [deg]F 
(approximately 32 [deg]C), DOE has calculated the performance 
differentials for these six refrigerators in terms of a percent 
decrease in energy use from 32 [deg]C to 16 [deg]C.

                               Table III.1--NEEA Ambient Test Condition Comparison
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Percent
                                                            32 [deg]C annual  16 [deg]C annual     decrease in
                Unit                    Compressor type          energy            energy        energy use from
                                                            consumption (kWh/ consumption (kWh/  32 [deg]C to 16
                                                                   yr)               yr)             [deg]C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B..................................  Single Speed.........            536.50            243.43                55
C..................................  Single Speed.........            607.19            281.61                54
F..................................  Single Speed.........            563.55            291.21                48
    Single Speed Mean..............  .....................  ................  ................                52
A..................................  Variable Speed.......            625.41            327.61                48
D..................................  Variable Speed.......            467.05            231.36                50
E..................................  Variable Speed.......            451.43            229.32                49
    Variable Speed Mean............  .....................  ................  ................                49
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: 16 [deg]C is approximately equal to 60 [deg]F and 32 [deg]C is approximately equal to 90 [deg]F.


[[Page 56798]]

    NEEA's data indicate that the variable speed units exhibited a 
smaller decrease in energy use than single speed units when testing at 
16 [deg]C compared to 32 [deg]C. Specifically, the average percent 
decrease in energy use (from 32 [deg]C to 16 [deg]C) was 52% for single 
speed compressor products but only 49% for variable speed compressor 
products in NEEA's dataset. This indicates that, on average, variable 
speed compressor products did not exhibit additional savings over 
single speed compressor products at lower ambient conditions.
    In response to comments suggesting that DOE conduct additional 
investigative testing on a larger sample of single speed compressor 
products and similar variable speed compressor products, DOE tested 16 
additional products using appendices A and B test procedures at ambient 
conditions of 90 [deg]F and 60 [deg]F to compare the resulting impacts 
on variable speed and single speed compressor products. DOE's 
investigative testing results are shown in Table III.2.

                                                   Table III.2--DOE Ambient Test Condition Comparison
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                              Percent
                                                                                                             90 [deg]F       60 [deg]F      decrease in
                                                                                          Total adjusted   annual energy   annual energy    energy use
                  Unit                        Product class           Compressor type     volume (ft\3\)    consumption     consumption      from  90
                                                                                                             (kWh/yr)        (kWh/yr)      [deg]F to 60
                                                                                                                                              [deg]F
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G......................................  13A....................  Single Speed..........             4.4             229              76              67
H......................................  3......................  Single Speed..........            11.9             312             152              51
I......................................  3......................  Single Speed..........            21.9             392             189              52
J......................................  3A.....................  Single Speed..........            17.6             266              82              69
K......................................  5A.....................  Single Speed..........            27.7             682             402              41
L......................................  5A.....................  Single Speed..........            34.7             750             404              46
M......................................  9......................  Single Speed..........            35.2             486             288              41
    Single Speed Mean..................  .......................  ......................  ..............  ..............  ..............              52
N......................................  13A....................  Variable Speed........             5.2             239              63              74
O......................................  3......................  Variable Speed........            24.4             388             161              59
P......................................  5......................  Variable Speed........            13.2             306             157              49
Q......................................  5A.....................  Variable Speed........            27.5             508             309              39
R......................................  5A.....................  Variable Speed........            28.7             748             432              42
S......................................  5A.....................  Variable Speed........            39.2             764             541              29
T......................................  5A.....................  Variable Speed........            39.3             645             418              35
U......................................  5A.....................  Variable Speed........            40.1             782             480              39
V......................................  5-BI...................  Variable Speed........            11.9             442             152              66
    Variable Speed Mean................  .......................  ......................  ..............  ..............  ..............              48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Deviation for all Samples (G    .......................  ......................  ..............  ..............  ..............              13
 through V).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Test results for product class 5A utilize an automatic icemaker energy adder of 84 kWh per year.

    Similar to the test results from NEEA, DOE's test results showed no 
clear performance improvement for variable speed compressor products 
relative to single speed compressor products at the 60 [deg]F test 
condition. Specifically, the average percent decrease in energy use 
(from 90 [deg]F to 60 [deg]F) was 52% for single speed compressor 
products but only 48% for variable speed compressor products in DOE's 
dataset, which closely matches the results from NEEA's dataset. This 
suggests that given the current state of compressor technology, 
introducing a second low temperature ambient test would have no 
significant impact on the relative measured energy use of variable 
speed compressor products compared to single speed compressor products. 
Therefore, adding a lower ambient temperature test for the purpose of 
differentiating the performance of variable speed compressors is not 
justified at this time.
    In response to comments indicating that a single ambient test 
condition introduces the potential for circumvention, DOE provides 
principles of interpretation for its test procedures in 10 CFR 
430.23(a)(7), 10 CFR 430.23(b)(7) and 10 CFR 430.23(ff)(7) to describe 
the intent of the test procedures and the requirements regarding 
component operation in the test condition versus typical room 
temperature operation. For example, energy consuming components that 
operate in typical room conditions (including as a result of door 
openings, or a function of humidity), and that are not excluded by the 
test procedure, must operate in an equivalent manner during energy 
testing under the test procedure, or be accounted for by all 
calculations as provided for in the test procedure. 10 CFR 
430.23(a)(7)(i). Further, commenters did not provide an explanation for 
why a test conducted at the high temperature test condition (i.e., 90 
[deg]F) and a second low temperature condition (i.e., 60 [deg]F) would 
be any more robust in preventing circumvention attempts.
    On December 8, 2020 DOE published an early assessment review and 
request for information regarding energy conservation standards for 
miscellaneous refrigeration products (the ``December 2020 MREFs RFI''). 
85 FR 78964 (December 8, 2020). In response to the December 2020 MREFs 
RFI, the CA IOUs raised concerns about the appropriateness of the 90 
[deg]F ambient test condition for MREFs that utilize thermoelectric 
cooling rather than compressor cooling. The CA IOUs commented that, 
compared to other refrigeration products, MREFs have a lower cooling 
load and less frequent door openings. The CA IOUs suggested that 
alternative testing approaches would be more representative of an 
average use cycle for MREFs than the load factor adjustment in DOE's 
current test procedure, and these could also lead to more appropriately 
engineered solution so that consumers may realize improved real-world 
benefits. Specifically, the CA IOUs indicated that the adjustment 
factor of 0.55 in Appendix A may be appropriate for MREFs with 
compressor cooling, but that there was insufficient evidence presented 
by DOE that this same factor would be appropriate for MREFs with 
thermoelectric cooling. The CA IOUs noted that this could misrepresent 
and

[[Page 56799]]

potentially limit the use of non-compressor cooling technologies (such 
as thermoelectric or magnetocaloric systems), which are capable of 
operating more efficiently at lower temperature differences between the 
cabinet interior and the ambient condition. The CA IOUs referenced data 
for coolers provided during the development of DOE's test procedure for 
MREFs.\19\ (CA IOUs, December 2020 MREFs RFI, No. 5, pp. 3-4) \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ DOE presented laboratory test data for vapor compression 
and thermoelectric wine chillers in a notice of proposed rulemaking 
regarding test procedures for MREFs. 79 FR 74893, 74910-74912 
(December 16, 2014).
    \20\ The December 2020 MREFs RFI and corresponding comments are 
located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to consider amended energy 
conservation standards for MREFs. (Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039, 
which is maintained at https://www.regulations.gov/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the development of the July 2016 Final Rule, DOE considered the 
data referenced in the CA IOUs comment and determined that one set of 
test requirements was appropriate for testing coolers in appendix A, 
regardless of refrigeration technology. 81 FR 46767, 46781-46782. DOE 
included the 90 [deg]F ambient test temperature and 0.55 usage factor, 
as initially proposed for vapor-compression coolers, to establish 
consistent test requirements across all coolers, as this would ensure 
that all products offering the same consumer utility and function are 
rated on a consistent basis, thus providing consumers with a meaningful 
basis on which to compare product energy consumptions. 81 FR 46767, 
46782. DOE also stated that manufacturers of products which are unable 
to maintain the standard 55 [deg]F cooler compartment temperature when 
subject to a 90 [deg]F ambient condition would be required to pursue a 
test procedure waiver to determine an appropriate energy use rating for 
these products that reflects actual energy use under normal consumer 
use. 81 FR 46767, 46781. As of this final rule, DOE has not received 
any petitions for waiver regarding non-compressor MREFs.
    As such, the 0.55 usage factor applied to calculate energy 
consumption for MREFs accounts for the reduced cooling load and less 
frequent door openings for cooler compartments, which is a consistent 
reduction regardless of refrigeration technology. Furthermore, DOE 
notes that these provisions have not precluded the availability of 
thermoelectric coolers on the market and certified to DOE. In this 
final rule, DOE will maintain the existing approach for testing MREFs, 
including instructions for pursuing a test procedure waiver when 
appropriate.
    For the aforementioned reasons, DOE is maintaining the single 
ambient test condition approach by incorporating by reference the most 
recent industry test procedure, HRF-1-2019.
2. Updates to AHAM HRF-1-2019
    As discussed earlier in section III.B of this document, multiple 
commenters recommended that DOE incorporate by reference HRF-1-2019 
because it is the latest industry test procedure. (AHAM, No. 18 at p. 
2; Whirlpool, No. 19, p. 1; Liebherr, No. 16, p. 1; Sub Zero, No. 17, 
p. 1-2)
    In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE noted that HRF-1-2019 was not yet 
final and provided a link to the public review draft. 84 FR 70842, 
70847. Because HRF-1-2019 was not yet available at that time, DOE 
proposed incorporating the latest industry standard available at that 
time, HRF-1-2016, with additional proposed amendments in Appendices A 
and B. 84 FR 70842, 70847-70848. DOE also stated that it would consider 
incorporating by reference HRF-1-2019 in its entirety when made 
available for public distribution. 84 FR 70842, 70848.
    In response to the December 2019 NOPR, AHAM commented that since 
posting the draft for public review, AHAM made one non-editorial change 
incorporated in the published HRF-1-2019 standard related to the two-
part equation used to account for defrost energy consumption. (AHAM, 
No. 18 at pp. 2-3)
    For this final rule, DOE reviewed HRF-1-2019 to determine whether 
it would be an appropriate reference for the DOE test procedures. 
Consistent with AHAM's comment, DOE observed only editorial changes in 
HRF-1-2019 compared to the public review draft referenced in the 
December 2019 NOPR, except for the two-part calculation updates. These 
calculation updates are discussed further in section III.F of this 
final rule. Compared to HRF-1-2016, the updates in HRF-1-2019 generally 
harmonize with DOE's existing requirements for refrigeration products, 
incorporate the proposals made by DOE in the December 2019 NOPR, or 
otherwise improve clarity of the industry test method. Other than the 
updates discussed in this section and the following sections of this 
final rule, the relevant sections of HRF-1-2019 are substantively 
consistent with the test procedure proposed in the December 2019 NOPR, 
which proposed to incorporate by reference certain sections of HRF-1-
2016 (i.e., except as discussed in this final rule, any minor changes 
to terminology, organization, or wording in HRF-1-2019 relative to the 
December 2019 NOPR would not change the required testing or 
calculations). Accordingly, DOE is incorporating by reference HRF-1-
2019 for its test procedures in appendices A and B.
    The following discussion addresses updates resulting from adoption 
of HRF-1-2019, generally. Following that discussion, DOE presents the 
topics highlighted in the December 2019 NOPR, and provides separate 
discussion sections to discuss its proposals, comments received in 
response to the December 2019 NOPR, and determinations made for this 
final rule (including incorporation by reference of HRF-1-2019 and any 
adjustments to the industry standard, as applicable).
Purpose and Scope
    Sections 1 and 2 of HRF-1-2019 specify the purpose and scope of the 
industry test standard. These sections generally harmonize with DOE's 
existing test requirements and scope of coverage in its regulations in 
10 CFR 430.2, 10 CFR 430.23, and Appendices A and B, but include 
several minor differences. While DOE is incorporating by reference HRF-
1-2019 in its entirety, DOE is not referring to section 1 or 2 for 
testing to avoid potential conflicts with the scope and requirements of 
DOE's regulations. DOE also states in section 1 of appendices A and B 
that DOE's regulations take priority in the case of any conflict with 
HRF-1-2019.
Definitions
    DOE provides a number of relevant definitions in 10 CFR 430.2 and 
in appendices A and B. Additionally, appendices A and B currently 
reference Section 3, ``Definitions'', of HRF-1-2008. Section 3 of HRF-
1-2019 includes updates that generally harmonize with the requirements 
of the existing DOE test procedures; however, DOE identified certain 
substantive definition updates or terms that require further 
clarification, and which are addressed in the following paragraphs.
    Section 1 of appendices A and B both include definitions for the 
term ``through-the-door ice/water dispenser.'' HRF-1-2019 refers to 
this term but does not include a definition. Because this term is 
likely well understood in the context of conducting testing per HRF-1-
2019, DOE is maintaining the definition for ``through-the-door ice/
water dispenser'' in both appendices A and B. Including this definition 
will additionally provide context for differentiating between 
refrigeration product classes with and without ``through-the-door ice 
service'' as specified in 10 CFR 430.32(a).

[[Page 56800]]

    HRF-1-2019 includes definitions for many terms that DOE defines in 
10 CFR 430.2. For example, HRF-1-2019 defines ``refrigerator,'' 
``refrigerator-freezer,'' ``freezer,'' and ``miscellaneous 
refrigeration product.'' The definitions in HRF-1-2019 are generally 
consistent with DOE's definitions in 10 CFR 430.2, but with minor 
differences. DOE is including a statement in section 3 of appendices A 
and B that in case of conflicting terms between DOE's regulations and 
HRF-1-2019, DOE's definitions take priority.
    Compared to the HRF-1-2008 standard, HRF-1-2019 includes a 
definition for the term ``compartment,'' as discussed in section III.C 
of this final rule. HRF-1-2019 also provides specific definitions for 
cooler compartment, freezer compartment, and fresh food compartment. 
The current test procedure includes definitions for fresh food 
compartment and freezer compartment by reference to HRF-1-2008. The 
fresh food compartment and freezer compartment definitions in HRF-1-
2019 include updates to harmonize the definitions with the testing 
requirements. For example, HRF-1-2008 defined freezer compartment in a 
combination refrigerator-freezer as the compartment(s) designed for 
storage of foods at temperatures of 8 [deg]F average or lower, but 
appendix A requires testing freezer compartments to a standardized 
compartment temperature of 0 [deg]F. (See section 3.2 of appendix A) 
HRF-1-2019, by contrast, defines freezer compartment in a refrigerator-
freezer as a compartment capable of maintaining temperatures colder 
than 0 [deg]F, which is consistent with the existing test procedure 
(and HRF-1-2019) requirement to test freezer compartments in 
refrigerator-freezers to a standardized compartment temperature of 0 
[deg]F. With this change, a freezer compartment in a refrigerator-
freezer not capable of maintaining a temperature of 0 [deg]F would not 
be required to be tested at the 0 [deg]F temperature requirement. DOE 
is not aware of any products that would be affected by this definition 
change in HRF-1-2019. Because the updated HRF-1-2019 definition better 
harmonizes with the existing test requirement, DOE is incorporating it 
in its test procedure by way of incorporation by reference to Section 
3, Definitions, of HRF-1-2019.
    HRF-1-2019's definitions for fresh food compartment and freezer 
compartment also remove reference to the design intent of the 
compartments included in the HRF-1-2008 definitions. For example, HRF-
1-2008 specifies that the fresh food compartment be designed for the 
refrigerated storage of food while HRF-1-2019 refers only to the 
capability of compartments to maintain temperatures as specified in the 
definitions. This is consistent with the approach DOE uses to define 
refrigeration products in 10 CFR 430.2. For example, DOE defines 
freezer as a product capable of maintaining compartment temperatures of 
0 [deg]F (as determined per the test procedure), without referencing 
whether the product is designed for the storage of food. (10 CFR 430.2)
    Section 1 of appendix A defines ``cooler compartment'' as a 
refrigerated compartment designed exclusively for wine or other 
beverages within a 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). HRF-1-2019 
also provides a definition for ``cooler compartment'' that specifies 
the same temperature operating range as the definition in appendix A 
but removes the provision that the compartment be designed exclusively 
for wine or other beverages. This update is consistent with the 
definitions for fresh food compartment, freezer compartments, and DOE's 
product definitions in 10 CFR 430.2, which all refer to the capability 
of products to maintain certain compartment temperatures rather than 
design intent. To ensure consistency among definitions and to avoid 
reliance on design intent, DOE is adopting the definition for ``cooler 
compartment'' included in HRF-1-2019 by way of incorporation by 
reference of Section 3, Definitions, of HRF-1-2019. DOE does not expect 
that this update to the cooler compartment definition would change how 
products are currently classified or tested. The ``cooler'' definition 
in 10 CFR 430.2 includes no such reference to storage of wine or other 
beverages, so this update only applies to cooler compartments in 
combination cooler refrigeration products. DOE is only aware of 
combination cooler refrigeration products with cooler compartments 
designed for refrigerating wine or other beverages, and therefore this 
amendment would not affect how these products are currently classified 
or tested.
    DOE has determined that the updated definitions in HRF-1-2019 
better harmonize the test standard definitions with the test 
requirements as established in this final rule, improve clarity of the 
test procedure, and do not substantively change the test requirements 
compared to the existing approach, except as noted in this final rule.
Anti-Sweat Heater Switches
    Section 2.3 of appendices A and B provides instructions regarding 
anti-sweat heater settings, stating that the anti-sweat heater switch 
is to be on during one test and off during a second test (except for 
units equipped with variable anti-sweat heater control). For units 
shipped with the anti-sweat heater switch in the highest energy use 
position, the test instructions in section 2.3 of appendix A require an 
additional test beyond what is required to calculate annual energy use, 
as described in the following paragraphs.
    DOE provides annual energy use calculations for refrigerators and 
refrigerator-freezers in 10 CFR 430.23(a)(5); freezers in 10 CFR 
430.23(b)(5); and miscellaneous refrigeration products in 10 CFR 
430.23(ff)(5). These sections refer to per-cycle energy consumption 
(i.e., the energy use per day), as determined in either appendices A or 
B, multiplied by 365 days per year to determine annual energy use. For 
units with anti-sweat heater switches, the annual energy use 
calculations are based on the average of the per-cycle energy 
consumption for the standard cycle (i.e., with the anti-sweat heater 
switch in the highest energy use position) and the per-cycle energy 
consumption for a test cycle type with the anti-sweat heater switch in 
the position set at the factory just before shipping. (10 CFR 
430.23(a)(5)(ii), 10 CFR 430.23(b)(5)(ii), and 10 CFR 
430.23(ff)(5)(ii)) Accordingly, for units with the anti-sweat heater 
switch shipped in the highest energy position, only the standard cycle 
is required for testing since the as-shipped position represents the 
highest energy use position required for the standard cycle. Therefore, 
for such units, the requirement in section 2.3 of appendices A and B to 
conduct testing with the anti-sweat heater off is unnecessary for 
determining annual energy use since only the test with the anti-sweat 
heater on (i.e., the highest energy use setting) would be used to 
calculate annual energy use per the calculations in 10 CFR 430.23.
    The updated language in HRF-1-2019 harmonizes the test procedure 
with the annual energy use calculations. Specifically, section 5.5.2(x) 
of HRF-1-2019 specifies testing anti-sweat heater switches in the 
highest and lowest energy use positions for each temperature control 
setting if the product is shipped with the switch in the lowest energy 
use position (e.g., the

[[Page 56801]]

off position); otherwise, it shall be run only in the highest energy 
use position for each temperature control setting. Conceptually, this 
requirement in HRF-1-2019 could represent a change from the current 
testing approach for models in which the as-shipped anti-sweat heater 
setting is not at either the highest or lowest energy use position 
(i.e., shipped with the anti-sweat heater at an intermediate setting); 
however, DOE is not aware of any models with anti-sweat heater control 
switches offering intermediate settings. Therefore, DOE does not expect 
this update to require re-testing or re-certification for any existing 
models.
    In summary, the updates included in HRF-1-2019 would avoid the 
potential for running unnecessary tests that would not be used in 
calculating annual energy use. For this reason, DOE is incorporating 
the HRF-1-2019 instructions for anti-sweat heater switch settings with 
no modification.
Test Conditions and Setup
    Section 2.2 of appendices A and B incorporates by reference HRF-1-
2008 sections 5.3.2 through 5.5.5.5 (excluding section 5.5.5.4) for 
certain test setup and operational conditions. These sections provide 
requirements for certain test conditions (relative humidity, air 
circulation, and radiation), instruments (temperature, electrical, 
time, relative humidity, and weight), and general test requirements 
(power supply, test setup, including unit settings, loading, and 
internal temperature measurements). Section 2 of appendices A and B 
otherwise provides additional test condition requirements, including 
ambient temperature conditions, anti-sweat heater instructions as 
discussed in the previous section, and additional test setup 
instructions.
    In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference 
sections 5.3.2 through 5.5.6.4 of HRF-1-2016, which specify test setup 
and operational conditions that are generally the same as those 
currently specified in the HRF-1-2008 incorporation by reference, in 
appendices A and B. 84 FR 70842, 70869, 70874. Section 5.5.6.5 of HRF-
1-2016, which was not proposed for incorporation by reference in the 
December 2019 NOPR, includes instructions for placing a thermocouple in 
any ice storage compartment. Section 5.5.6.5 of HRF-1-2019 includes 
this same setup requirement. Given that this temperature measurement is 
not used elsewhere in the standard, and to avoid unnecessary test setup 
requirements, DOE is not referencing this section of HRF-1-2019 for its 
test procedures. DOE is otherwise incorporating by reference section 5 
of HRF-1-2019, except as noted in this final rule, which generally 
maintains the existing test procedure setup and operational condition 
requirements.
    At the end of section 2.6 in appendix A and 2.4 in appendix B, DOE 
specifies that for cases in which setup is not clearly defined by the 
test procedure, manufacturers must submit a petition for a waiver. HRF-
1-2019 does not include this instruction, as it is specific to DOE's 
requirements. To ensure that models are tested and rated correctly 
under DOE's regulations, DOE is maintaining this instruction regarding 
test setups requiring petitions for waiver.
Test Measurements
    Section 5.1 of appendices A and B provides instructions regarding 
temperature measurements. Section 5.1(b) of appendices A and B specify 
the recording requirements when the interior temperature sensor 
arrangement does not conform to the setups specified in HRF-1-2008 and 
specify that the certification report must indicate that non-standard 
sensor locations were used. HRF-1-2019 generally includes this same 
recording requirement as in sections 5.1(b) of appendices A and B (See, 
for example, sections 5.5.6.1, 5.5.6.2, 5.5.6.4, and 5.8.1). However, 
DOE is maintaining the existing language from sections 5.1(b) of 
appendices A and B, with updated references to HRF-1-2019, to ensure 
that the test procedure explicitly specifies DOE's record keeping and 
reporting requirements. DOE is also amending the corresponding 
certification requirements in 10 CFR 429.14 (for refrigerators, 
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers) and 429.61 (for miscellaneous 
refrigeration products) to update references to appendices A and B as 
amended in this final rule.
    Section 2.9 of appendix A, section 2.7 of Appendix B, and section 
5.1.1 of both appendices A and B refer to temperature measurement 
intervals of 4 minutes or less. Section 5.1.1 of appendix A also 
specifies that the measurement intervals for multiple refrigeration 
system products shall not exceed one minute. Sections 3.28, 5.5.6.1, 
5.5.6.2, 5.5.6.4, and 5.8.1.1 of HRF-1-2019 refer to temperature 
measurement intervals not to exceed one minute. Based on DOE's testing 
of refrigeration products, the existing one-minute requirement for 
multiple refrigeration system products, and the presence of the one-
minute interval requirement in HRF-1-2016, DOE has determined that test 
laboratories already have the capability to record data at one-minute 
intervals using automated data acquisition systems, and manufacturers 
likely already record data at one-minute (or shorter) intervals. 
Accordingly, DOE is incorporating by reference this updated requirement 
in HRF-1-2019. DOE does not expect that this update will require re-
testing (or re-certification) of products already certified as 
complying with the current energy conservation standards when tested to 
the existing DOE test procedure, as manufacturers likely already test 
in accordance with the updated requirements specified in HRF-1-2019. In 
the event manufacturers do not already record data at one-minute 
intervals for existing models, DOE expects that any impact of this 
amendment on measured energy use would be de minimis, and manufacturers 
will not be required to re-test or re-certify performance of the 
existing models.
    DOE's current test procedures incorporate by reference section 
5.5.1 of HRF-1-2008 regarding power supply requirements, stating that, 
unless otherwise specified, the electrical power supply shall be 115 
 1 V, 60 Hz at the product service connection and the 
actual voltage shall be recorded as measured at the product service 
connection with the compressor motor operating. Section 5.5.1 in HRF-1-
2016 and HRF-1-2019 similarly specify that power supply be maintained 
at 115  1 V, 60 Hz at the product service connection, and 
that the actual voltage shall be maintained and recorded throughout the 
test, excluding instantaneous voltage fluctuations caused by the 
turning on or off of electrical components. The updated language in the 
more recent versions of HRF-1 is generally consistent with the existing 
test approach, with additional clarification to limit the potential for 
test variability. DOE does not expect the updated language to affect 
current model classifications or energy use ratings. DOE notes that 
HRF-1-2019 does not specify the required data recording intervals for 
power supply measurements. For consistency with the temperature 
measurement intervals and with how DOE expects manufacturers are 
currently testing refrigeration products, DOE is specifying in 
appendices A and B that the power supply requirements referenced in 
HRF-1-2019 section 5.5.1 be determined based on measurement intervals 
not to exceed one minute. DOE does not expect that this update will 
require re-testing or re-certification of any models, as manufacturers 
likely already test in accordance with this requirement, similar to the 
temperature

[[Page 56802]]

recording requirements discussed in this section.
Test Conduct
    Section 3.2 of both appendices A and B specifies which compartment 
temperatures are used to compare to the standardized compartment 
temperatures to determine appropriate temperature settings for testing, 
as specified in the existing Table 1 in both appendices A and B. HRF-1-
2019 generally includes the same test instructions regarding 
temperature settings but does not include the specification at the end 
of section 3.2 in both appendices A and B regarding what compartment 
temperatures should be compared to standardized compartment 
temperatures to determine appropriate temperature settings for testing. 
DOE is maintaining the provisions regarding compartment temperatures, 
with updated references to HRF-1-2019, to ensure that the test 
procedure maintains the existing temperature setting instructions.
    In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE proposed to update the formatting of 
Table 1 in both appendices A and B and to provide instructions 
regarding coverage and test procedure waivers. 84 FR 70842, 70857-
70858. Table 5-1 in HRF-1-2019 includes test instructions that are 
generally consistent with DOE's requirements. However, DOE expects that 
the amended Table 1 as proposed in the December 2019 NOPR improves 
clarity of the test requirements and the potential need for test 
procedure waivers by improving the table formatting (i.e., merging 
cells to show applicability of settings and results) and referring to 
the test procedure waiver provisions rather than a ``no energy use 
rating'' outcome from testing. The updated text in Table 5-1 of HRF-1-
2019 improves clarity regarding test results by referring to tested 
compartment temperatures relative to standardized compartment 
temperatures. Accordingly, DOE is providing an alternate table to be 
used in place of Table 5-1 of HRF-1-2019, consistent with the December 
2019 NOPR proposal, but including the improved wording from Table 5-1 
of HRF-1-2019.
    Additionally, section 7 of appendices A and B provides general 
instructions regarding the applicability and requirements for test 
procedure waivers, while HRF-1-2019 includes no such reference. 
Therefore, DOE is maintaining the test procedure waiver instructions as 
currently specified in section 7 of appendices A and B.
    Section 3.3 of appendix A provides an optional test for models with 
two compartments and user-operable controls, which allows for the use 
of three tests as specified in 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''). This optional approach incorporates a three-
test triangulation method to calculate performance at the standardized 
compartment temperatures rather than the two-test interpolation 
approach otherwise generally applied in appendix A. HRF-1-2019 includes 
the same reference to the AS/NZS 4474.1:2007 optional approach as in 
section 3.3 of appendix A; however, the instructions for that approach 
are included in section 5.6.3(6), within the section for ``Temperature 
Settings for Convertible Compartments.'' To ensure proper application 
of the optional test method, DOE is providing separate instructions in 
appendix A to clarify the use of section 5.6.3(6) of HRF-1-2019 (i.e., 
as an optional alternative test independent from the ``Temperature 
Settings for Convertible Compartments'' section in HRF-1-2019).
    Additionally, DOE is providing a reference for ``AS/NZS 
4474.1:2007'' in appendix A to clarify its use throughout the test 
procedure. HRF-1-2019 refers to this test standard, as described in the 
previous paragraph, but does not include a full reference.
Calculations
    In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE proposed to correct an omission 
regarding the calculations for the optional AS/NZS 4474.1:2007 test 
approach described in the previous section. 84 FR 70842, 70857. The 
energy use calculations associated with the optional test method are 
not currently included in appendix A; accordingly, DOE proposed to 
reinstate the calculations as previously established for refrigerator-
freezers prior to the inadvertent omission from appendix A. Id. HRF-1-
2019 does not include the energy use calculations associated with the 
optional AS/NZS 4474.1:2007 test approach; therefore, DOE is providing 
the calculations associated with that test in appendix A, as proposed 
in the December 2019 NOPR. Because the AS/NZS 4474.1:2007 approach is 
applicable to products with multiple temperature compartments, the 
approach is also applicable to combination cooler refrigeration 
products (i.e., not only to refrigerator-freezers). Therefore, DOE is 
also including energy use calculations for the AS/NZS 4474.1:2007 
optional test approach as applied to combination cooler refrigeration 
products.
    Section 5.10 of HRF-1-2019 provides annual energy consumption 
calculations. As discussed earlier in this section of this final rule, 
DOE currently provides annual energy use calculations as part of its 
test procedures in 10 CFR 430.23(a)(5), 10 CFR 430.23(b)(5), and 10 CFR 
430.23(ff)(5). The calculations in section 5.10 of HRF-1-2019 are 
consistent with DOE's current calculations. To avoid duplicate 
calculation requirements, DOE is updating 10 CFR 430.23(a)(5), 10 CFR 
430.23(b)(5), and 10 CFR 430.23(ff)(5) to remove calculation 
instructions and to instead reference appendices A or B, as 
appropriate, which in turn reference section 5.10 of HRF-1-2019, for 
determinations of annual energy use.
Specific Amendments Addressed by DOE
    The following sections discuss other specific amendments to the 
test procedures for refrigeration products, typically made by reference 
to HRF-1-2019. These amendments relate to compartment definitions, test 
setup requirements, ambient temperature requirements, stabilization 
requirements, defrost energy consumption, icemaking energy consumption, 
and other refrigeration product features.

C. Compartment Definitions and Clarifications

    Although the term ``compartment'' is used throughout the current 
DOE test procedures in appendices A and B, the term 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).
    In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE proposed 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. 84 FR 70842, 70847. Specifically, DOE proposed to define a 
``compartment'' as an enclosed space within a refrigeration product 
that is directly accessible through one or more external doors and may 
be divided into sub-compartments. Id. DOE stated that the proposal 
would not affect how compartments would be classified or treated under 
the test procedure and, accordingly, DOE did not expect that the 
proposed definition

[[Page 56803]]

would impact measured energy consumption. Id.
    To provide further detail, DOE proposed 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. Id. DOE stated that this definition, coupled with the proposed 
definition for ``compartment,'' would remove the need to separately 
define ``separate auxiliary compartment'' and ``special compartment'' 
because these terms would be redundant with the proposed compartment 
definitions; therefore, DOE proposed to remove the terms ``separate 
auxiliary compartment'' and ``special compartment'' from appendices A 
and B and replace them with ``compartment'' or ``sub-compartment'' as 
appropriate. Id.
    In response to the December 2019 NOPR, AHAM commented that HRF-1-
2019 includes definitions for ``compartment'' and ``sub-compartment'' 
consistent with the December 2019 NOPR proposals. (AHAM, No. 18, pp. 7-
8) DOE did not receive any comments in objection to the proposals for 
compartment definitions.
    For the discussed reasons, DOE is adopting the definitions for 
``compartment'' and ``sub-compartment'' through incorporation of 
section 3.8 of HRF-1-2019.
    Section 5.5.2(s) of HRF-1-2019 includes instructions for testing 
products with convertible compartments consistent with DOE's existing 
test procedure in appendix A, section 2.7. However, these instructions 
specifically pertain to individual compartments within a product that 
may operate as fresh food, freezer, or cooler compartments without 
affecting the overall product's classification (e.g., as a 
``refrigerator'' or ``freezer''). For example, the current instruction 
regarding convertible compartments is included in appendix A. If a 
model consisting of a single convertible compartment were to be tested 
as a freezer compartment, appendix B rather than appendix A would be 
the applicable test procedure.
    In the April 2014 Final Rule, DOE separately addressed convertible 
products, such as those that can switch from ``refrigerator'' to 
``freezer'' and for which more than one product class may apply. DOE 
stated that, ``in the case of a product for which the convertible 
compartment is the only compartment (i.e., the entire product is 
convertible), the product effectively meets the definitions of two 
different covered products'' and that ``DOE is requiring that 
convertible products be tested and certified as both refrigerators and 
freezers if the products meet the applicable definition(s).'' 79 FR 
22319, 22343.
    DOE is aware of products currently available on the market that 
indicate capability to be converted between refrigerator operation and 
freezer operation, and that are only certified to DOE's Compliance 
Certification Management System (``CCMS'') database as freezers.
    Hence, DOE is reiterating its position regarding treatment of 
convertible products from the April 2014 Final Rule:
    DOE will require that manufacturers certify each individual model 
as complying with the energy conservation standard applicable to all 
product classes identified in Sec.  430.32(a) into which the individual 
model falls if the individual model is distributed in commerce as a 
model within that product class. The manufacturer must assign a 
different basic model number to the units in each product class even if 
a manufacturer uses the same individual model number to identify the 
product. As an example, if a single individual model were distributed 
in commerce as an automatic defrost all-refrigerator (product class 3A) 
and as an automatic defrost upright freezer (product class 9), the 
manufacturer could use the same individual model number but would be 
required to test the model according to the test procedure applicable 
to each corresponding product class (i.e., appendix A for class 3A and 
appendix B for class 9). The manufacturer would also need to certify 
each basic model separately (i.e., in product class 3A and in product 
class 9) using a different basic model number for the two product 
classes. 79 FR 22319, 22343.

D. Test Setup

    In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE discussed multiple aspects of the 
test procedure setup requirements, specifically with regard to built-in 
products, freezer drawers, test platforms, products with separate 
external temperature controls, and vertical ambient temperature 
measurement locations. 84 FR 70842, 70852-70854. The following sections 
discuss these test setup topics, including the resulting amendments 
established in this final rule.
1. Built-In Test Configuration
    Built-in 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 development of the 
existing test procedures for refrigeration products, DOE presented data 
indicating that performing testing in a built-in enclosure (i.e., 
enclosing the units in simulated cabinetry) may affect measured energy 
consumption for certain configurations of built-in products. 78 FR 
41610, 41649-41650 (July 10, 2013). Those products that reject 
condenser heat at the back of the unit showed a potential increase in 
energy use when tested in an enclosure. However, data supplied by 
Liebherr \21\ indicated no significant impact on measured energy 
consumption when rear-condenser built-in units were tested in an 
enclosure consistent with manufacturer recommendations. 78 FR 41610, 
41650.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Liebherr provided data as part of the previous test 
procedure rulemaking. These documents and corresponding comments are 
located in the docket of DOE's previous rulemaking to develop test 
procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. 
(Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-TP-0016, which is maintained at https://www.regulations.gov/) (See Document No. EERE-2012-BT-TP-0016-0034).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 29780, 29783-29784. Based on available test data and 
stakeholder comments received in response to the June 2017 RFI, in the 
December 2019 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that testing built-in 
units in enclosures consistent with the manufacturer installation 
instructions would result in no significant difference in measured 
energy use compared to testing in a freestanding configuration, and 
therefore, DOE did not propose to amend the current requirement that 
all units be tested in the freestanding configuration. 84 FR 70842, 
70851-70852.
    In response to the December 2019 NOPR, AHAM, FSI, and Sub Zero 
commented that requiring enclosures for built-in testing would be 
unduly burdensome without a corresponding benefit to the 
representativeness or accuracy of the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 18, p. 
7; FSI, No. 21, p. 2; Sub Zero, No. 17, p. 2)
    Based on the information gathered throughout the rulemaking process 
and consideration of the comments received,

[[Page 56804]]

DOE is maintaining the existing test approach for built-in products by 
adopting the test method in HRF-1-2019, which does not require that 
built-in products be tested in an enclosure.
2. Thermocouple Configuration for Freezer Drawers
    As discussed in section III.B of this document, the current test 
procedures for refrigeration products 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 
provides 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 locations chosen to represent 
approximately the entire cabinet.
    In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference 
HRF-1-2016 and the relevant errata, including a clarification to Figure 
5-2. 84 FR 70842, 70852-70853. DOE also proposed to amend appendices A 
and B to explicitly specify that for freezer drawers, the thermocouple 
setup for drawer-type freezer compartments must follow sensor layout 
type 6 specified in HRF-1-2016, as the configurations in Figure 5-2 of 
HRF-1-2016 (as well as HRF-1-2008) do not specify their applicability 
to drawer compartments. Id.
    In response to this proposal in the December 2019 NOPR, AHAM 
commented that DOE should instead incorporate by reference the 
provisions in HRF-1-2019, which are identical to those in HRF-1-2016 
but also include the aforementioned errata. (AHAM, No. 18, p. 8)
    HRF-1-2019 explicitly indicates in the notes to Figure 5-2 that 
freezer compartments less than 2 cubic feet in volume should be tested 
with one thermocouple located in the geometric center of the 
compartment. HRF-1-2019 also states that the type 5 and type 6 freezer 
thermocouple configurations in Figure 5-2 apply to vertical freezers 
and freezer compartments with either doors or drawers, addressing the 
clarification that DOE had proposed in the December 2019 NOPR.
    Based on its review of HRF-1-2019, DOE has determined that the test 
requirements in HRF-1-2019 are consistent with the December 2019 NOPR 
proposal. Therefore, DOE is adopting these provisions by incorporating 
by reference HRF-1-2019.
3. Test Platform Requirements
    Section 2.1.3 in both appendices A and 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 in its test procedures 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.
    As discussed in the December 2019 NOPR, the text of section 2.1.3 
in appendices A and B does not explicitly address the setup for a test 
chamber floor that has vents for airflow. 84 FR 70842, 70853. DOE 
stated that such a test chamber floor is analogous to a ``platform'' 
because the floor is elevated above an airflow pathway, and therefore, 
testing should follow the same procedure required for a test platform. 
Id. DOE proposed 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. Id. DOE also stated that, based on experience with third-
party laboratories, the proposal is consistent with current industry 
practice and therefore would not impact measured energy use. Id.
    In response to the December 2019 NOPR, AHAM supported DOE's 
proposal to specify that airflow pathways through the test floor must 
be located at least one foot away from all sides of the unit, 
indicating that this is consistent with the revised test procedure in 
HRF-1-2019. (AHAM, No. 18, p. 8)
    Based on the foregoing discussion, DOE is adopting these test 
platform requirements through incorporation by reference of section 
5.3.1 of HRF-1-2019.
4. Separate External Temperature Controls
    In 2014, DOE granted a waiver to Liebherr to allow for testing a 
refrigerator intended to be connected to a separate freezer that houses 
the controls for both the refrigerator and freezer cabinets. 79 FR 
19886 (April 10, 2014; case no. RF-035). Under the waiver approach, 
Liebherr must test the subject 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. 79 FR 19886, 19887-
19888.
    In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE stated that it is not aware of any 
other products for which the cabinet controls are housed in a separate 
product; however, DOE proposed to amend appendices A and B to address 
such products to eliminate the potential need for additional test 
procedure waivers. 84 FR 70842, 70853. DOE proposed to follow the 
approach specified in the Liebherr waiver, but with revisions to be 
applicable to different cabinet configurations. Id.
    In response to this proposal, Liebherr commented that Liebherr's 
products requiring the test procedure waiver for separate external 
temperature controls have been discontinued and Liebherr is likewise 
not aware of other such products. (Liebherr, No. 16, p. 1) AHAM 
provided a similar comment, and both commenters suggested there is no 
longer a need for such an amendment to the DOE test procedures. 
(Liebherr, No. 16, p. 1; AHAM, No. 18, pp. 8-9)
    HRF-1-2019 does not include the additional instructions that DOE 
proposed in the December 2019 NOPR regarding products with external 
controls. Based on DOE's review of the market and on the comments from 
Liebherr and AHAM indicating that products requiring such instructions 
are no longer available, DOE is not amending the test procedure to 
include instructions specific for refrigerators intended to be 
connected to a separate freezer that houses the controls for both the 
refrigerator and freezer cabinets models. The publication of this final 
rule terminates the existing Liebherr waiver consistent with 10 CFR 
430.27(h)(3) and 10 CFR 430.27(l).
5. Ambient Temperature Measurement Locations
    Section 2.1.2 of both appendices A and 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 of the unit under test at heights of 2

[[Page 56805]]

inches and 36 inches above the floor or supporting platform and at a 
height of 1 foot above the unit under test. 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).
    In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE proposed that when measuring the 
ambient temperature 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 
or dispensers). 84 FR 70842, 70854. DOE stated that this proposal would 
reduce the potential for testing variability and not impact measured 
energy use. Id.
    AHAM commented in response to the December 2019 NOPR that DOE's 
proposal is consistent with the updates to HRF-1-2019 section 5.3.1. 
(AHAM, No. 18, p. 9)
    Section 5.3.1 of HRF-1-2019 includes instructions that are 
consistent with the previous ambient temperature measurement locations 
but does not explicitly clarify that 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, as DOE had 
proposed in the December 2019 NOPR. In this final rule, DOE is 
incorporating that specification in section 5.1(a) of both appendices A 
and B to supplement the reference to HRF-1-2019.
    Additionally, HRF-1-2019 includes new provisions for the ambient 
temperature measurement locations for units 36 inches or less in 
height. Specifically, section 5.3.1 of HRF-1-2019 states that for a 
product height of 36 inches (91.5 cm) or less, the ambient temperature 
shall be recorded at points located at a distance of the product height 
divided by two above the floor or platform and 10 inches (25.4 cm) from 
the center of the two sides of the unit under test. This is in contrast 
to the provision for products greater than 36 inches in height (and 
consistent with the current DOE test procedures), for which HRF-1-2019 
states that the ambient temperature be measured at locations 36 inches 
above the floor or platform and 10 inches (25.4 cm) from the center of 
the two sides of the unit under test, consistent with the existing 
requirement for testing all products.
    After considering the new provisions for products 36 inches or less 
in height, DOE acknowledges that maintaining ambient temperature around 
the actual product dimensions rather than above units with height less 
than 36 inches would ensure the most repeatable and reproducible 
testing. Therefore, DOE is adopting these provisions by incorporating 
by reference HRF-1-2019. DOE expects that this update would not affect 
measured energy use compared to the existing approach (i.e., with 
ambient thermocouples 36 inches above the test floor). Section 2.1.2 of 
Appendices A and B requires a maximum vertical ambient temperature 
gradient of 0.5 [deg]F per foot, thereby limiting the variability of 
the ambient temperature as measured at different heights around the 
unit under test. Given that the test procedure amendment is not 
expected to change measured energy use, DOE does not expect the 
amendment to require re-testing or impact compliance of the affected 
products.

E. Test Conditions

1. Ambient Temperature and Vertical Ambient Gradient
    Section 2.1.2 of both appendices A and B, which, as discussed in 
the previous section, addresses the vertical ambient temperature 
gradient, does not specify the period during which 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 stated in the 
December 2019 NOPR that the vertical ambient temperature gradient 
should be maintained during both the stabilization period and test 
period to ensure consistent ambient conditions throughout both periods. 
84 FR 70842, 70853-70854. Thus, DOE proposed to specify that the 
vertical ambient temperature gradient be maintained during both the 
stabilization period and test period. Id.
    AHAM indicated that this proposal is consistent with the updates to 
HRF-1-2019 section 5.3.1. (AHAM, No. 18, p. 9)
    Section 5.3.1 of HRF-1-2019 does not explicitly provide that the 
vertical ambient temperature gradient should be maintained during both 
the stabilization period and test period to ensure consistent ambient 
conditions throughout both periods, as DOE had proposed. Additionally, 
section 5.3.1 of HRF-1-2019 specifies the ambient temperature 
requirement (90.0  1.0 [deg]F) must be maintained during 
the test period. This omits the current DOE requirement in section 
2.1.1 of appendices A and B that the ambient temperature shall be 
maintained during both the stabilization period and test period.
    To ensure that appropriate ambient conditions are maintained 
throughout testing, including both the stabilization and test periods, 
the amendments in this final rule incorporate by reference HRF-1-2019 
and additionally provide that both the ambient temperature and vertical 
ambient temperature gradient must be maintained during both the 
stabilization period and test period.
2. Stabilization
    This final rule establishes several amendments to stabilization 
criteria included in the test procedures for refrigeration products. 
These amendments adopt the relevant provisions in HRF-1-2019, which DOE 
is incorporating by reference, and are consistent with the amendments 
DOE proposed in the December 2019 NOPR. DOE addresses the specific 
topics and amendments regarding the stabilization amendments in the 
following sections.
Elapsed Time Between Measurement Periods
    Section 2.9 in appendix A and section 2.7 in appendix B 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 (``part A stability'') 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. If this first 
option cannot be used, a second option (``part B stability'') specifies 
that 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.
    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, as required 
for part A stability. However, as DOE stated in the development of the 
April 2014 Final Rule, DOE considers the 3-hour period to represent a 
minimum elapsed time between temperature checkpoint periods. 78 FR 
41610, 41651 (July 10, 2013). Accordingly, in the December

[[Page 56806]]

2019 NOPR, DOE proposed to clarify that the time elapsed between 
measurement periods must be at least 3 hours for the stability check. 
84 FR 70842, 70845.
    Section 3.28(a) of HRF-1-2019 specifies that 3 hours is the minimum 
time that must elapse between measurement periods using this option to 
verify steady-state conditions; hence, DOE is adopting this provision 
through incorporation by reference of HRF-1-2019.
Use of Stabilization Data for Steady-State Test Period
    In response to the June 2017 RFI, multiple interested parties 
suggested that for certain products, data recorded during the 
stabilization period could be considered part of the test period data. 
(AHAM, No. 5 at p. 8; BSH Home Appliances Corporation (``BSH''), No. 2 
at p. 2; Sub Zero, No. 4 at p. 2) DOE tentatively agreed that the 
stabilization period and part one of a two-part energy test capture 
essentially the same unit operation, and in the December 2019 NOPR 
proposed to amend the test period requirements in appendices A and B to 
provide that, if the part A stabilization criteria is used, that same 
period be used for steady-state test period data, where appropriate 
(i.e., for the test periods that do not capture defrosts). 84 FR 70842, 
70854.
    In response to the December 2019 NOPR, AHAM again supported a 
change that would allow full stability data to be used for the first 
part of the test instead of requiring a separate test part one 
test.\22\ (AHAM, No. 18, pp. 9-10) AHAM reiterated at the December 2019 
NOPR Public Meeting that using a proven period of stability for both 
stabilization and part one test periods is possible now and was not 
implemented in earlier versions of HRF-1 because newer data acquisition 
technologies allow labs to view and assess data in real time. (AHAM, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 11, p. 67) AHAM also recommended that 
DOE adopt the provisions in HRF-1-2019 to address this issue. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ DOE notes that the terms ``part one test'' and ``first part 
of the test'' refer to steady-state test periods which do not 
capture defrost energy use. ``Part two'' of a two-part test period 
captures the energy consumption associated with defrosting 
operation. The selection of this data period is described further in 
a subsequent subsection of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CA IOUs and CEC expressed concern that data from when the unit 
under test is achieving steady state operation should not be used for 
test period data. (CA IOUs, No. 23, p. 4; CEC, No. 20, pp. 4-5) These 
commenters stated that because the stabilization period is the 
timeframe the system takes to achieve steady state, any data collected 
during this period is ill-suited for product efficiency ratings. The CA 
IOUs and CEC also asked whether there is any precedent for such an 
approach and whether there are independent data and analysis that can 
validate the data quality of the stabilization period. (Id.)
    Section 3.28 of HRF-1-2019 specifies criteria to confirm that the 
test unit has achieved stable operation. The reference to stabilization 
and steady state periods refer to units that are already in stable 
operation rather than units achieving stability. Thus, the use of a 
steady state period as the test period ensures that data representing 
stable operation is used for the test period.
    Data used to confirm stable conditions is used as part of the test 
data only in specific circumstances. Section 5.7 of HRF-1-2019 provides 
that the data used to confirm steady state conditions is used as data 
for part one of the variable defrost control test or as the non-
automatic defrost test period. Section 5.7.2.1.1 also provides that the 
steady state data may be used for part one of the long-time automatic 
defrost control test if a two-part test period is conducted. In each of 
these circumstances, the data confirming steady state conditions 
captures the same type of unit operation as the data required for 
certain test periods under the existing test procedure approach (i.e., 
normal compressor operation and no operation associated with a 
defrost). The approach established in this final rule, by reference to 
HRF-1-2019, avoids the requirement for multiple data acquisition 
periods capturing the same types of unit operation. Further, the 
updated approach specifically requires that steady state conditions be 
confirmed on the test period data, whereas the existing approach 
requires confirming steady state prior to a test period.
    Through incorporation by reference, DOE is adopting the provisions 
in section 3.28, section 5.7.1, and section 5.7.2.1.1 of HRF-1-2019, 
which use verified stabilization data as the steady-state test periods 
for certain product types. These requirements are consistent with DOE's 
proposal in the December 2019 NOPR.
Irregular Compressor Cycling
    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.
    Figure 1 in appendix A shows the requirements for selecting the 
defrost portion of the test for a two-part test, including that the 
compressor cycles immediately preceding (i.e., cycle A) and following 
(i.e., cycle B) the defrost portion of the test must be within 0.5 
[deg]F of the non-defrost part of the test. As discussed in the 
December 2019 NOPR, products with irregular compressor cycling 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 appendices A and 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 that includes 
many compressor cycles. 84 FR 70842, 70854-70855. 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. Id. For 
cases of irregular compressor cycling using the two-part test method, 
DOE proposed to include an alternate determination of when to start and 
end the defrost test period. Id. DOE proposed that the beginning of the 
period be determined based on the average compartment temperatures over 
one or more complete compressor cycles before a defrost, that 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 (``part one'', the steady-state test period), and that all 
cycles included in the averaging period would be included within the 
defrost test period (``part two''). Id. 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

[[Page 56807]]

0.5 [deg]F of the average determined over the first part of the test, 
with all compressor cycles included in the averaging period included in 
the defrost test period. Id.
    AHAM expressed general support for this proposal and suggested that 
the updates in HRF-1-2019 would address such issues. (AHAM, No. 18, pp. 
9-10)
    Compared to DOE's proposed approach in the December 2019 NOPR, HRF-
1-2019 has a similar method for determining the defrost test period. 
Section 5.7.2.1.4 of HRF-1-2019 addresses systems with irregular 
cycling compressors, stating that when using a compressor cycle pattern 
to establish cycle A, cycle B, and the first part of the test, the 
compressor cycle pattern shall be the same for all. This is depicted in 
Figure 5-4 of HRF-1-2019. The method in section 5.7.2.1.4 of HRF-1-2019 
allows for the use of a consistent pattern of irregular compressor 
cycles to be used in place of single, regular compressor cycles. 
Additionally, whereas the method proposed by DOE would require that all 
compressor cycles included in the averaging period be included in the 
defrost test period, the method in section 5.7.2.1.4 of HRF-1-2019 is 
consistent with the method currently used in section 4.2.1.1 of 
appendices A and B, and would exclude cycle A and cycle B (which 
themselves may be cycle patterns) from the defrost part of the test 
period.
    DOE agrees that the method in section 5.7.2.1.4 of HRF-1-2019 is 
consistent with the intent of the current test procedures in appendices 
A and B and expects that it will improve representativeness, 
reproducibility, and repeatability of test results for products with 
irregular compressor cycling by ensuring consistent selection of cycle 
A and cycle B used to define the defrost portion of the test for these 
products. Additionally, the approach in HRF-1-2019 treats regular 
repeating sequences of compressor operation as normal compressor 
cycles, which ensures that units with regular and irregular compressor 
cycling operation are tested in a consistent manner. While the HRF-1-
2019 approach represents a minor change from the method proposed in the 
December 2019 NOPR (although it is consistent with the method included 
in the draft of HRF-1-2019 for public review, as referenced in the 
December 2019 NOPR), it accomplishes the same goal (i.e., ensuring the 
part two test period captures all operation associated with a defrost). 
Therefore, DOE is adopting this method through incorporation by 
reference of HRF-1-2019.
Multiple Compressor Products
    For products with multiple compressors, the asynchronous cycling of 
the different compressors may make it 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 (the cycle A and 
cycle B requirements discussed in the previous section). To address 
this issue, DOE proposed in the December 2019 NOPR 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. 84 FR 70842, 
70855. Under the proposed approach, the test period would start at the 
end of a regular freezer compressor on-cycle after the previous defrost 
occurrence (refrigerator or freezer). Id. 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 (in either the refrigerator or freezer). Id. This 
proposed approach is consistent with an existing waiver test method for 
a multiple compressor product.\23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In the notice granting the waiver, DOE determined that the 
specified multiple-compressor models would not be able to reach the 
temperature stability conditions specified in Appendix A. 80 FR 
7851, 7853. (See case number RF-042) On November 18, 2020, DOE 
extended the waiver to another GEA multiple-compressor combination 
cooler refrigeration product basic model to address the same issue 
of determining stability. 85 FR 73466. (See case number 2020-007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The updates in HRF-1-2019 incorporate methods for verifying steady 
state conditions for multiple compressor products. Section 3.28(c) of 
HRF-1-2019 instructs for multiple compressor products that the test 
shall start after a minimum 24-hour stabilization run for each 
temperature control setting or when the conditions of section 3.28(a) 
(``part A stability'') are met. This is consistent with the existing 
DOE steady-state condition requirement for multiple compressor 
products, as specified in appendix A, section 4.2.3.2.
    Section 5.7.2.4 of HRF-1-2019 provides test period selection 
instructions for multiple compressor products in a manner consistent 
with the proposed approach in the December 2019 NOPR. Section 5.7.2.4 
specifies that a two-part test period shall be used for multiple 
compressor products with automatic defrost; and for cycling compressor 
systems, each part shall comprise at least 24 hours, unless a defrost 
occurs prior to completion of 24 hours, in which case the test shall 
comprise at least 18 hours. Additionally, section 5.7.2.4 of HRF-1-2019 
clarifies that if at least one compressor cycles on and off, test 
periods shall be based on compressor cycles associated with the primary 
compressor system (these are referred to as ``primary compressor 
cycles''), and if the freezer compressor cycles on and off, it shall be 
the primary compressor system.
    AHAM encouraged DOE to adopt the provisions in HRF-1-2019 in order 
to improve the clarity of the testing instruction for multiple 
compressor products. (AHAM, No. 18, pp. 9-10)
    The new sections in HRF-1-2019 are generally consistent with DOE's 
existing approach and the provisions included in an existing waiver.
    In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE had also proposed regulatory text 
that would allow for considering multiple compressor cycles if 
individual cycles never meet the existing temperature criteria for test 
period part two, similar to the approach described in the previous 
irregular compressor cycling section. See 84 FR 70842, 70871. However, 
the irregular compressor cycling issue is addressed by the existing 
test procedure waiver provisions, which are incorporated into HRF-1-
2019, and does not require separate consideration in the test period 
instructions.
    Accordingly, DOE is adopting the multiple compressor test period 
and stability provisions through incorporation by reference of HRF-1-
2019.

F. Defrost Energy Consumption

    In addition to the changes discussed in section III.B.2 of this 
final rule, HRF-1-2019 also includes a substantial revision to the two-
part energy use equations currently used to account for defrost energy 
consumption for long-time automatic defrost control, variable defrost 
control, and multiple defrost types in sections 5.8.2.1.2, 5.8.2.1.3, 
and 5.8.2.1.6, respectively of HRF-1-2019. As stated in AHAM's comments 
in response to the December 2019 NOPR, this change to the two-part 
energy use equations is the one non-editorial change incorporated in 
the published HRF-1-2019 compared to the public draft for review as 
referenced in the December 2019 NOPR. (AHAM, No. 18 at pp. 2-3)

[[Page 56808]]

    The updated two-part equation determines the defrost energy 
consumption based on the compressor run-time between defrost periods 
and the compressor run-time ratio as measured during testing. The 
methodology currently in appendices A and B assumes a compressor run-
time ratio of 50 percent, or, 12 hours per day.
    In response to the December 2019 NOPR, AHAM stated that using the 
actual measured compressor run-time ratio in the equation improves the 
reproducibility of the energy test procedure by harmonizing the two 
methods (defrost-to-defrost method and two-part method) for testing 
long time automatic defrost models. AHAM commented that this is a 
significant improvement on the current DOE equation without introducing 
additional test burden, as it only changes the way the data collected 
under the current method is used. (AHAM, No. 18, pp. 2-3)
    AHAM acknowledged that this change would result in increased energy 
use ratings for certain products. AHAM collected data from 
manufacturers to estimate the impact of this change on the energy use 
measurement for models in product classes 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9, and 
suggested corresponding changes to DOE's energy conservation standards 
for these product classes. AHAM noted that its recommendations were 
based on data from both minimally compliant and ENERGY STAR rated 
products, as well as both variable speed compressor models and single 
speed compressor models. AHAM indicated that the change in the equation 
impacts ratings for variable speed compressor models and single speed 
compressor models differently. (AHAM, No. 28, p. 1-4) A part of AHAM's 
data summary and recommendation for adjustment of the standards is 
reproduced in Table III.3.

                Table III.3--Summary of AHAM Energy Use Impacts Based on Two-Part Equation Update
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Impact on annual energy usage rating
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Top-mount         Bottom-mount         Side-mount
                                      refrigerator-       refrigerator-       refrigerator-     Upright freezers
                                    freezers (product   freezers (product   freezers (product  (product class 9)
                                      class 3) (%)        class 5) (%)     classes 4 & 7) (%)         (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum..........................               -1.04               -1.37               -0.33               0.00
Maximum..........................                1.59                5.38                3.27               3.79
Mean.............................                0.34                0.76                1.19               1.83
AHAM Recommendation for                          0.00                2.50                1.50               2.50
 Adjustment to Energy
 Conservation Standards..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Samsung requested that DOE maintain the reference to the equation 
in AHAM HRF-1-2016, as proposed in the December 2019 NOPR, and not 
update it with the equation in AHAM HRF-1-2019. Samsung commented that 
it had informed AHAM of its findings that the updated energy 
consumption equation for variable defrost systems in HRF-1-2019 is 
technically incorrect and fails to accurately measure the defrost 
energy consumption of refrigerators with variable defrost systems, 
which in turn would result in higher defrost energy estimates for 
refrigerators that have variable speed compressors and lower defrost 
energy estimates for defrost systems using single speed compressors. 
(Samsung, No. 24, pp. 3-4)
    Samsung asserted that the equation in HRF-1-2019 is technically 
incorrect because, unlike long-time automatic defrost control 
algorithms, variable defrost control algorithms utilize a variety of 
parameters in order to determine the timing of the next defrost 
sequence, including: Compressor run time, number of door openings, 
previous defrost length, room humidity, etc. Samsung stated that a 
long-time automatic defrost control algorithm determines the timing of 
the next defrost sequence simply based on the compressor time elapsed, 
so it is appropriate to use an observed compressor run-time to predict 
the number of defrosts per day if this is the control algorithm. 
Samsung stated that the new HRF-1-2019 equation assumes that the number 
of defrosts per day using a variable defrost control algorithm is 
similarly dependent upon only the compressor time elapsed, which 
Samsung claims is not true for most variable defrost control 
algorithms. Samsung additionally showed that this calculation method 
benefits cycling single-speed compressor systems over variable-speed 
compressor systems. (Samsung, No. 24, pp. 4-8)
    DOE agrees that the premise of the updated equation, which would 
rely on test data rather than an assumption, would appear to improve 
representativeness of the test procedure. However, DOE also 
acknowledges Samsung's concern that variable defrost frequency is 
determined not only by compressor run-time, and thus the updated 
equation may not be representative for such products.
    Furthermore, DOE notes that section 5.8.2.1.5 of HRF-1-2019, which 
details the two-part energy use calculation for multiple-compressor 
products with automatic defrost, still maintains an assumption of 50 
percent run-time ratio.
    Thus, using the HRF-1-2019 updated equation for single-compressor 
products would cause a discrepancy between the calculations for single-
compressor and multiple-compressor products.
    As stated in AHAM's comments, the average overall impact of the 
calculation update included in HRF-1-2019 is expected to be small (2.5% 
or less for the impacted product classes). Given the small expected 
impact on measured energy use but significant questions regarding 
representativeness, as indicated in Samsung's comments, DOE is not 
incorporating this calculation update in this final rule. DOE is 
specifying in section 5.3 of both appendices A and B that the existing 
calculations be used in place of the equations in sections 5.8.2.1.2 
through 5.8.2.1.6 of HRF-1-2019. Maintaining the existing calculations 
is consistent with the approach as proposed in the December 2019 NOPR. 
The current DOE test procedures do not include provisions for 
calculating the two-part energy use for freezers with multiple 
compressors or for freezers with multiple defrost cycle types, and DOE 
is not aware of any such freezer products available on the market at 
this time. Therefore, DOE is maintaining the existing approach and not 
including provisions for multiple compressors or multiple defrost cycle 
types in its amendments to appendix B (consistent with the approach as 
proposed in the December 2019 NOPR).
    HRF-1-2019 additionally includes updated provisions for the valid 
range of CTL and CTM values (as described in the 
following paragraph), which are used for the calculation of CT, the 
compressor-on time between defrosts.
    In both appendices A and B, the CTL value is designated 
as the shortest compressor run-time between defrosts

[[Page 56809]]

used in the variable defrost control algorithm (greater than or equal 
to 6 but less than or equal to 12 hours), or the shortest compressor 
run time between defrosts observed for the test (if it is shorter than 
the shortest run time used in the control algorithm and is greater than 
6 hours), or 6 hours (if the shortest observed run time is less than 6 
hours). (See section 5.2.1.3 of appendix A and section 5.2.1.3 of 
appendix B) In the same section of both appendices, the CTM 
value is designated as the maximum compressor run-time between defrosts 
in hours (greater than CTL but not more than 96 hours). 
(Id.) Hence, the current test procedures require that 6 < 
CTL < 12 and CTL < CTM <= 96, in 
hours.
    By contrast, section 5.8.2.1.3 of HRF-1-2019 provides that 0 < 
CTL < CTM <= 96, in hours. DOE notes that this 
allows CTL values less than 6 hours, potentially resulting 
in adjustments to the CT values currently used in the energy use 
equations for current products. For example, if the shortest compressor 
run-time between defrosts observed for the test is 4 hours, the 
CTL value used in the current DOE test procedure would be 6 
hours, whereas the CTL value used in HRF-1-2019 would be 4 
hours. Such a change would typically increase the rated annual energy 
use of the product by increasing the estimated defrost energy use 
contribution in overall energy use.
    At this time, DOE does not have information to indicate to what 
extent manufacturer variable defrost control algorithms incorporate 
CTL parameters less than 6 hours. As a result, DOE cannot 
estimate to what extent current products would be affected by this 
change. Also, absent information as to whether manufacturer defrost 
control algorithms incorporate CTL parameters less than 6 
hours, DOE cannot determine whether the current approach is less 
representative than the approach taken in HRF-1-2019. Given the lack of 
information on the extent to which the industry update impacts product 
ratings and test procedure representativeness, DOE is not adopting the 
new provisions for CTL and CTM in HRF-1-2019. 
Instead, DOE is maintaining the current provisions, which specify that 
6 < CTL < 12 and CTL < CTM <= 96, in 
hours, consistent with the approach as proposed in the December 2019 
NOPR.

G. Icemaking Energy Consumption

    The current DOE test procedures for refrigeration products utilize 
a standardized energy adder of 84 kWh per year to account for the 
energy consumption of automatic icemakers. This adder approach was 
originally proposed in 2010 based on data available at that time and is 
based on data from AHAM \24\ suggesting an icemaking efficiency of 
0.128 kWh/lb \25\ and an assumed ice consumption (i.e. icemaking 
demand) of 1.8 lbs/day (0.128 kWh/lb x 1.8 lbs/day x 365 days/yr = 84 
kWh/yr). 75 FR 29824 (May 27, 2010). As discussed in the December 2019 
NOPR, since the establishment of the 84 kWh per year adder, DOE has 
received information indicating that the actual icemaking demand is 
considerably lower than the 1.8 lbs/day assumed as the basis for the 84 
kWh per year adder. 84 FR 70842, 70848. DOE has also considered 
incorporation of a test method to directly measure the icemaking energy 
consumption. 79 FR 22319, 22341-22342.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The AHAM data consisted of 51 samples from a variety of 
product classes and icemaker configurations.
    \25\ The average icemaking efficiency was originally reported as 
128 Wh per lb of ice produced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the June 2017 RFI, DOE presented the history of the icemaking 
energy use adder, including all data gathered to that point and the 
potential consideration of an active icemaking energy use test 
procedure, and 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 29780, 29782-
29783.
    Based on comments received in response to the June 2017 RFI, DOE 
proposed in the December 2019 NOPR that the icemaker energy use adder 
be based on a lower value of daily ice consumption as identified 
through data submitted by commenters. 84 FR 70842, 70849. Specifically, 
DOE proposed an amended icemaking energy use adder of 28 kWh per year 
based on an ice consumption value of 0.59 lbs/day, which represented 
the median ice consumption from the provided data. Id. DOE also 
initially determined that based on the reduced daily ice consumption, 
the benefits of any laboratory-based test procedure to measure 
icemaking energy use would likely not outweigh the burdens associated 
with this testing (an estimated 50 percent increase in total testing 
time). Id. DOE also proposed that the same fixed adder would apply for 
any products with automatic icemaking, regardless of the number of 
icemakers in the product. 84 FR 70842, 70850.
1. Icemaking Energy Use Adder
    In response to the December 2019 NOPR, DOE received multiple 
comments on the appropriateness of the proposals, which are addressed 
in the following discussion.
    NEEA, the CA IOUs, and CEC did not support DOE's proposed reduction 
to 28 kWh per year, asserting that the median ice usage of 0.59 lbs/day 
is too low to use for the icemaker adder. (NEEA, No. 26, pp. 5-6; CA 
IOUs, No. 23, p. 2; CEC, No. 20, p. 2) Instead, NEEA and the CA IOUs 
recommended that DOE account for the higher-volume ice users found in 
the study by using the mean ice usage of 0.83 lbs/day. (CA IOUs, No. 
23, p. 2; NEEA, No. 26, pp. 5-6) CEC additionally commented that DOE's 
proposal does not differentiate between through-the-door and in-freezer 
icemaker models, and CEC stated that studies showed differences in 
rates of ice use. (CEC, No. 20, p. 2)
    At the December 2019 NOPR Public Meeting, GEA stated that the 
median value of 0.59 lbs/day assumed by DOE is based on a sample of 
over 5,000 data points from across the 48 contiguous states, and that 
this value was representative because the distribution of icemaking 
values was skewed towards a larger population of lower values. GEA also 
stated that its results were consistent with the studies by NEEA. (GEA, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 11, p. 35) AHAM reiterated its comments 
on the previous rulemaking and supported DOE's proposal to amend the 
adder to 28 kWh per year. Similar to the comment by GEA, AHAM commented 
that the data from the NEEA and AHAM field use studies show that about 
60-70% of users use less ice than the average, and that therefore the 
median ice usage rate is a better value to use for the adder. (AHAM, 
No. 18, p. 5)
    AHAM also stated that it has no indication that consumer ice 
consumption rates have changed since 2014, so the previous field use 
studies still support a lower adder. AHAM also agreed with DOE's 
proposal to use the same fixed icemaker adder for all products with 
icemakers regardless of the number of icemakers. AHAM stated its 
understanding that consumer ice consumption rates do not change based 
on the number of automatic icemakers their product has. (AHAM, No. 18, 
p. 6)
    The comments received in response to the December 2019 NOPR refer 
to the same data regarding ice consumption that DOE used to develop its 
initial determination in the December 2019 NOPR. Absent any new data, 
DOE is maintaining its preliminary conclusion from the December 2019 
NOPR that the median ice consumption rate, 0.59 lbs/day, is appropriate 
for the calculation of the icemaking energy use adder because of the 
prevalence of lower ice consumption rates found in field use studies 
(i.e., the median provides a more

[[Page 56810]]

representative value of consumer use than the mean).
    In addition to discussing the representative daily ice use rate, 
commenters also discussed icemaking efficiency and other factors that 
may influence the corresponding energy use of an automatic icemaker.
    The CA IOUs and CEC both stated that the current ice maker energy 
use adder assumed a relatively high efficiency ice maker based on a 
2011 study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(``NIST'') that showed a range of efficiencies in measured icemakers, 
including units using over twice as much energy as assumed in DOE's 
adder. (CA IOUs, No. 23, pp. 2-3; CEC, No. 20, p. 2) The CA IOUs 
commented that should DOE decide to keep a no-test adder, they would 
support an adder in the range of 43 to 50 kWh per year, based on the 
average ice making consumption of 0.83 lbs/day with an ice making 
efficiency of 0.142 to 0.165 kWh per lb of ice, which CA IOUs 
characterized as being in alignment with the ice making efficiencies 
found in the NOPR published on July 10, 2013 (See 78 FR 41610). (CA 
IOUs, No. 23, pp. 2-3) NEEA supported an adder of 55 kWh per year based 
on 0.83 lbs/day, but provided additional test data for six products for 
which the average energy consumption was 35.53 kWh per year based on 
the existing assumption of an icemaking rate of 0.59 lbs/day. (NEEA, 
No. 26, pp. 5-6)
    AHAM, Sub Zero, and FSI recommended DOE incorporate the 28 kWh per 
year adder as specified in HRF-1-2019. (Sub Zero, No. 17, p. 2; AHAM, 
No. 18, p. 4-5; FSI, No. 21, p.1)
    DOE revisited the icemaker energy use data provided by AHAM,\26\ 
applying an updated assumption of daily ice consumption of 0.59 lbs/day 
(in place of AHAM's original assumption of 1.8 lbs/day), which produced 
a revised estimate of annual energy use of 27.6 kWh/year (0.128 kWh/lb 
x 0.59 lbs/day x 365 days/yr = 27.6 kWh/yr). As noted, the AHAM data 
consisted of 51 data samples from a variety of product classes and 
icemaker configurations. Combining this revised estimate based on 
AHAM's 51 data points with the 6 additional sample points provided by 
NEEA results in an average energy use of 28.4 kWh/year across all 57 
data points (using the current estimated icemaking rate of 0.59 lbs/
day). This combined set of available data supports the 28 kWh per year 
adder as proposed in the December 2019 NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ As part of the development of the April 2014 Final Rule, 
AHAM presented data derived from three consumer surveys and three 
separate field tests which indicated a representative icemaking 
energy use adder of 84 kWh per year based on a production rate of 
1.8 lbs/day. This data summary, ``AHAM Update to DOE on Status of 
Ice Maker Energy Test Procedure--November 19, 2009'' is filed under 
Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-TP-0016 and can be found online at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2012-BT-TP-0016/document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on DOE's consideration of the data submitted by stakeholders 
and for the reasons discussed, DOE is adopting an icemaker adder value 
of 28 kWh per year by referencing HRF-1-2019.
2. Icemaking Energy Test Method Impacts
    Certain commenters urged DOE to consider using a test to directly 
determine the icemaking energy use instead of using a fixed energy 
adder.
    CEC opposed reducing the adder based on human behavior rather than 
testing the efficiency of the ice maker. CEC claimed that by lowering 
the icemaking energy use adder, DOE is artificially lowering the 
efficiency of the entire refrigerator, which will negatively impact 
consumers' ability to choose efficient refrigeration products. (CEC, 
No. 20, p. 2)
    NEEA, the CA IOUs, and CEC all commented that a no-test adder will 
limit innovation in efficient automatic ice making techniques and may 
lead to less efficient operating units. These parties recommended that 
DOE reconsider a test method to directly measure the energy consumption 
associated with automatic icemaking rather than permanently use an 
energy adder. (NEEA, No. 26, p. 6; CA IOUs, No. 23, p. 3; CEC, No. 20, 
pp. 2-3) The CA IOUs reiterated that the fixed adder was not intended 
to be a permanent measure, and the original product testing did not 
constitute a representative sample of products that would justify a 
permanent simplification to persist in the test procedure. (CA IOUs, 
No. 23, p. 3)
    AHAM commented that because ice consumption is so low, there is 
limited opportunity for energy savings, and the icemaker energy use is 
a small percent (2.5-4.5%) of the rated energy use of typical 
refrigeration products. Furthermore, AHAM stated that much of the 
energy use associated with icemaking comes from the thermodynamic 
energy required for freezing 90 [deg]F water. According to AHAM, there 
are limited icemaker technologies that could be employed to improve 
icemaker energy use, and some could sacrifice consumer utility (e.g. 
speed of ice production) in order to improve efficiency. AHAM stated 
that manufacturers are not likely to make a trade-off compromising 
consumer utility (and, under EPCA, must not be required to) in pursuit 
of energy efficiency. (AHAM, No. 18, p. 5)
    NEEA also commented that the energy used by the ice maker appears 
to be determined by the time required to produce the ice, and that 
faster production requires a lower freezer compartment temperature and 
corresponding increase in compressor operation time or speed. (NEEA, 
No. 26, p. 5)
    In addition to these potential efficiency impacts, commenters also 
discussed costs directly associated with a potential test method for 
measuring ice maker energy use.
    CEC recommended that DOE incorporate the icemaker energy test 
included in IEC 62552, indicating that manufacturers have not found the 
costs of this test to be unduly burdensome. CEC asserted that the 
explicit instructions for automatic ice makers in IEC 62552 would 
guarantee repeatability of the test, and manufacturers would not incur 
an additional burden to separately test the efficiency of the automatic 
ice maker when present. According to CEC, the IEC 62552 test provides a 
better representation of real-world conditions, lowers the testing 
burden on manufacturers, and is more likely to lead to a measurement of 
a representative average use cycle. (CEC, No. 20, pp. 3-4)
    NEEA commented that a test to measure the energy use of an icemaker 
should be optional. NEEA suggested that DOE provide the option of 
allowing manufacturers to test an ice maker to the NIST test procedure 
in place of the default value of the icemaker adder.\27\ (NEEA, No. 26, 
p. 6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ NEEA did not specify the NIST test procedure referenced in 
its comments. DOE is aware of a 2012 publication from NIST titled 
Development of a Method to Measure the Energy Consumption of 
Automatic Icemakers in Domestic Refrigerators with Single Speed 
Compressors, as discussed further in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM commented that the burden of testing icemaker energy use is 
high, resulting in a 50% increase in test time and a subsequent 25% 
decrease in test capacity. AHAM stated that depending on the test 
facility, the increased test time may also require the addition of test 
rooms in order to recoup that lost capacity. AHAM asserted that this 
was not cost-effective, specifying that the cost to operate an icemaker 
for a year is low, about $2.92 per year based on a rate of 10.65[cent] 
per kWh. (AHAM, No. 18, pp. 4-6) Sub Zero similarly commented that an 
icemaker energy test was not justified for such a low contribution to 
overall product energy use, and Sub

[[Page 56811]]

Zero supported the amended value of the adder, stating that it is 
representative of field use data. (Sub Zero, No. 17, p. 2) FSI strongly 
supported the continuation of using an adder instead of requiring 
testing, stating that many smaller businesses do not have the means to 
fix water temperature and pressure for consistent icemaker energy test 
results and would have to outsource these tests at great cost. (FSI, 
No. 21, p. 1)
    DOE generally maintains its preliminary determination made in the 
December 2019 NOPR that, based on more recent and complete data 
suggesting a lower rate of daily ice consumption than had been 
previously assumed, the benefits of any laboratory-based test procedure 
to measure icemaking energy use would not outweigh the burdens 
associated with this testing (an estimated 50 percent increase in total 
testing time).
    In its review of the IEC 62552 test method for measuring the energy 
used to make ice, DOE notes that Annex F.3 of IEC 62552-3:2015 
specifies: (1) The test is usually undertaken adjacent to (following or 
prior to) a normal energy consumption test, and (2) the test is 
conducted at ambient temperatures of 16 [deg]C and 32 [deg]C. 
Conducting an icemaker test at two ambient temperatures would result in 
a significant increase in test time in comparison to the current DOE 
test procedure.
    Furthermore, DOE found the IEC 62552 method to be limited in its 
applicability to refrigeration products. The method in Annex F.3 of IEC 
62552-3:2015 is specifically applicable only to tank-type automatic 
icemakers, in which fresh water is used from an internal tank that is 
manually filled by the user. IEC 62552:2015 does not provide a test 
procedure for products that are connected to a mains water supply for 
automatic icemaking, which represents nearly all automatic icemaking 
models available on the market.
    The NIST method,\28\ which is similar to that used by AHAM to 
collect data on icemaker energy use, relies upon additional 
measurements of ice production rates and covers products that connect 
to a mains water supply. However, this test would represent an 
estimated 50% increase in test duration for products with automatic 
icemakers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ DOE reviewed the publication Development of a Method to 
Measure the Energy Consumption of Automatic Icemakers in Domestic 
Refrigerators with Single Speed Compressors, by David A. Yashar 
(September 18, 2012). Available online at https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/TechnicalNotes/NIST.TN.1759.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE appreciates the comprehensive information provided by 
interested parties on this topic. DOE has reviewed the additional test 
method options but has concluded that the adoption of a 28 kWh per year 
adder through the incorporation by reference of HRF-1-2019 is 
justified. DOE has determined that based on the currently established 
methods for measuring icemaking energy consumption, adopting a test 
method to determine icemaking energy use would significantly increase 
test burden with little potential to improve representativeness of 
measured energy use. Thus, DOE concludes that a test procedure 
incorporating the fixed energy use adder of 28 kWh per year results in 
a measure of annual energy consumption that is representative of actual 
consumer use while not being unduly burdensome to conduct.
    For the aforementioned reasons, in this final rule, DOE is adopting 
the 28 kWh per year icemaker adder through incorporation by reference 
of HRF-1-2019, which includes in section 5.9 a constant adder of 0.0767 
kWh per cycle (i.e., per day) for products with automatic icemakers.
3. Amended Energy Conservation Standards
    Under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1), DOE is required to determine whether an 
amended test procedure will alter the measured energy use of any 
covered product. If an amended test procedure does alter measured 
energy use, DOE is required to make a corresponding adjustment to the 
applicable energy conservation standard to ensure that minimally-
compliant covered products remain compliant. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) In 
the December 2019 NOPR, DOE stated that because the energy adder for 
automatic icemakers would be reduced 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 with automatic icemakers would also decrease by 56 kWh per 
year. 84 FR 70842, 70850. As a result, DOE proposed in the December 
2019 NOPR to amend the energy conservation standards for refrigeration 
products with automatic icemakers to reflect a reduction of 56 kWh per 
year in the equations for maximum energy use. 84 FR 70842, 70850-70851. 
DOE also proposed a one-year lead-time period for the required use of 
the revised icemaker energy use adder and corresponding amended energy 
conservation standards to reduce the burden on manufacturers of re-
certifying and re-labeling their products. 84 FR 70842, 70850-70851.
    In response to the December 2019 NOPR, AHAM opposed a one-year lead 
time to implement the change to the icemaker adder, stating that it 
could lead to stranded investments and additional costs for 
manufacturers to re-certify products and change EnergyGuide labels. 
AHAM recommended that DOE not require compliance until the compliance 
date of the next amended standards. AHAM asserted that this would be 
consistent with DOE's previous rulemaking approach and makes sense to 
address any impacts on measured energy. (AHAM, No. 18, p. 6-7) Sub Zero 
stated that the amended icemaking energy use adder would be best 
implemented on the effective date of the next standard. (Sub Zero, No. 
17, p. 2) Whirlpool commented that any modifications to the icemaker 
energy fixed adder should not be adopted before the compliance date for 
the next amended energy conservation standard. (Whirlpool, No. 19, p. 
1)
    In response to the December 2019 NOPR, FSI encouraged DOE to make 
no administrative changes that do not directly benefit the environment 
or energy consumption. FSI asserted that changing the energy use adder 
for icemakers in DOE's energy conservation standards would require 
companies to spend time making changes to certifications for no real 
change or benefit. FSI suggested that amendments of this nature could 
be deferred until after recovery from the COVID-19 crisis. (FSI, No. 
21, p. 1)
    DOE recognizes the concerns raised by the commenters that the 
proposal would create burden associated with this updated calculation, 
including costs to re-certify products, re-label products, and update 
marketing materials. In consideration of these comments, DOE will not 
require testing with the amended icemaking energy use adder until the 
compliance dates of the next amended energy conservation standards for 
refrigeration products.\29\ Newly amended section 5.3 of both 
appendices A and B specifies an exception to the application of Section 
5.8.2, Energy Consumption, of HRF-1-

[[Page 56812]]

2019 to substitute an icemaking energy use adder of 0.23 kWh/cycle 
(i.e., 84 kWh/year) to demonstrate compliance with the existing energy 
conservation standards for refrigeration products at 10 CFR 430.32(a) 
and (aa). As such, DOE is not amending energy conservation standards in 
this final rule, and manufacturers will not be required to update 
certification and labeling of products with automatic icemakers as a 
result of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ DOE is addressing Energy Conservation Standards for 
Consumer Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers in 
Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0003 (maintained at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0003). DOE is separately 
addressing Energy Conservation Standards for Miscellaneous 
Refrigeration Products in Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039 
(maintained at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Features Not Directly Addressed in Appendix A or Appendix B

    The current test procedures in appendices A and B do not include 
provisions specific to products with door-in-door designs (or other 
features that reduce the thermal load on the product by limiting the 
need for door openings) and smart functions such as display screens and 
network-connected functionality.\30\ The following sections discuss 
these features.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The current DOE test procedures require that consumer 
refrigeration products that have a communication module specifically 
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. Section 5.5.2(g) of HRF-1-2008, 
which is incorporated by reference into the existing DOE test 
procedures, requires testing with customer-accessible features not 
required for normal operation and which are electrically powered, 
manually initiated, and manually terminated--which typically 
includes any connected functions other than demand response-- set at 
their lowest energy usage positions when adjustment is provided 
(i.e., typically the off position).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Door-in-Door Designs
    As discussed in section III.B of this final rule, the current DOE 
test procedures for 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 door openings--as warmer ambient air 
mixes with the refrigerated air inside the cabinet--as well as the 
loading of warmer items in the cabinet. This approach is maintained in 
the updated industry test procedure, HRF-1-2019, which DOE is 
incorporating by reference in this final rule.
    As discussed in the June 2017 RFI, DOE is aware of certain products 
available on the market that incorporate a door-in-door design, which 
could reduce energy consumption during actual use by minimizing the 
amount of cool cabinet air escaping to the room and being replaced by 
warmer ambient air during door openings. 82 FR 29780, 29782.
    In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE noted that door-in-door features, 
and other systems such as camera display systems (which show the user 
the interior of the cabinet without needing to open the door), have 
some potential to reduce energy consumption associated with door 
openings for these products. 84 FR 70842, 70855-70856. However, DOE 
initially determined that there was not sufficient data regarding 
consumer usage patterns of these features to warrant revisions to the 
test procedures and did not propose amendments to address their use in 
the December 2019 NOPR. Id.
    In response to the December 2019 NOPR, Samsung commented that more 
consumer use data must be collected to fully understand user behavior 
before considering such changes in the test procedures. Samsung 
recommended that separate product classes and energy conservation 
standard levels be considered based on additional door designs. 
(Samsung, No. 24, p. 4) AHAM agreed with DOE's proposed approach not to 
amend the test procedure to account for newly developing features such 
as door-in-door designs, display screens, and connected functions 
without national, statistically significant, field use data on consumer 
use. AHAM commented that these features are still developing, as are 
consumers' use and understanding of them. (AHAM, No. 18, p. 10)
    Specifically, AHAM indicated that it does not currently have data 
regarding consumer use of the door-in-door feature or corresponding 
energy impacts of different types of door openings; and that guesses, 
estimations, or unsupported assumptions are not enough to justify test 
procedure amendments as per the Data Quality Act.\31\ AHAM reiterated 
that it would oppose any proposed change that would alter the closed-
door test, which it stated is based on data regarding ambient 
conditions and door openings, and because door openings are difficult 
to control and introduce significant variation. AHAM commented that 
when 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. (AHAM, No. 18, p. 10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ DOE understands AHAM's reference to the ``Data Quality 
Act'' to refer to section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 
2763) and the associated implementing guidelines. DOE's implementing 
guidelines are available at https://www.energy.gov/cio/downloads/2019-final-updated-version-doe-information-quality-guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM and Sub Zero also stated that regulating such features now 
would likely stifle innovation and could in some cases prevent 
manufacturers from including such features. (AHAM, No. 18, p. 10; Sub 
Zero, No. 17, p. 2) Sub Zero commented that these features may offer a 
consumer utility, and there is no data at present to determine if there 
is an appreciable energy impact. Sub Zero suggested that DOE may want 
to revisit this issue when data is available in the future, but HRF-1-
2019 currently provides appropriate instruction on how these features 
are to be tested. (Sub Zero, No. 17, p. 2)
    DOE does not currently have consumer usage data to support 
amendments to the test procedures for refrigeration products with door-
in-door or camera display designs, which may reduce door openings. In 
order to limit testing burden and avoid affecting the 
representativeness, repeatability, or reproducibility of the test 
procedure, DOE is maintaining the closed-door methodology as specified 
in HRF-1-2019 and consistent with the approach proposed in the December 
2019 NOPR. DOE would consider whether separate product classes and 
energy conservation standards would be appropriate for products with 
special door designs as part of an energy conservation standards 
rulemaking.
2. Display Screens, Connected Functions, and Demand Response
    Refrigeration products that include user control panels or displays 
located on the front of the product are currently available on the 
market. Many products incorporating these more advanced user interfaces 
also include internet connections to allow for additional functions, 
which can control the product's operation and provide additional 
attributes, such as television or internet access. These attributes can 
operate with many different control schemes, including activation by 
proximity sensors.
    The current DOE test procedures require that refrigeration products 
with 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, through reference to HRF-1-2008, 
require testing with customer-accessible features not required for 
normal operation and which are electrically powered, manually

[[Page 56813]]

initiated, and manually terminated, set at their lowest energy usage 
positions when adjustment is provided.
    In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE acknowledged that some consumers 
will use connected functions if offered on a product; however, 
connected products are in the early stages of development and 
meaningful data on consumer use for connected functions or display 
screens are currently unavailable. 84 FR 70842, 70856. DOE stated that 
it 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 functions may offer. Id. Additionally, DOE 
noted that connected functions vary by model, and that further 
specifying a test to reflect the energy consumption of the various 
connected functions would likely introduce test variability and 
increase test burden. Id. For these reasons, DOE did not propose any 
amendments to the existing test procedure approach to address connected 
functions. Id.
    In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE did propose 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 just before shipping,'' 
which would result in such communication modules being set to their 
lowest energy usage positions (off). 84 FR 70842, 70856-70857. This 
proposal was intended to maintain consistency between the 
specifications for demand response functions and other features not 
required for maintaining compartment temperatures per AHAM HRF-1-2016. 
Id.
    In response to the December 2019 NOPR, the Joint Commenters 
encouraged DOE to investigate the energy consumption of display screens 
and connected functions and how consumers use these functions so that 
they can be captured in the test procedure in the future. The Joint 
Commenters stated that DOE should maintain the existing approach of 
testing demand-response function communication modules in the as-
shipped configuration and adopt a similar approach for other consumer-
accessible functions. The Joint Commenters claimed that with the 
amendment proposed in the December 2019 NOPR, manufacturers may ship 
products with demand-response function communication modules in a 
position other than off, and yet that energy use would not be captured 
in the product's rating. The Joint Commenters stated that consumers 
could unknowingly end up paying more to operate the product without 
receiving any benefit from the added functionality (e.g., if the 
consumer's electric utility does not offer any demand response 
program). The Joint Commenters added that by encouraging (but not 
requiring) manufacturers to ship modules in the off position, the 
existing approach does not impede innovation, and that the same would 
apply for other consumer-accessible functions such as display screens. 
(Joint Commenters, No. 22, p. 2-3)
    NEEA recommended that DOE include network power consumption and 
connected function modes in the test procedures by connecting the 
appliance to a network for testing as recommended for normal use by the 
supplier where such smart functions are provided. According to NEEA, 
network connected devices with display panels are increasing in usage. 
Data presented by NEEA showed that 75% of the ENERGY STAR refrigerator 
sales from 2015 to 2019 are bottom-mount and 9.9% of those have 
connected capability. NEEA stated that connected appliances offer 
energy savings opportunities and opportunities for grid interaction to 
reduce the demand on the grid. (NEEA, No. 26, p. 6)
    The CA IOUs opposed DOE's proposal to set connected functionality 
to the ``off'' position during testing and instead recommended a method 
of incorporating the energy usage into the test procedures because the 
active-mode power mode of smart functions may meaningfully add to the 
unit's overall electrical load. The CA IOUs did not agree that that 
measurement and disclosure of smart devices could limit innovation. The 
CA IOUs referred to BSH's comment on the June 2017 RFI \32\ as evidence 
that a method could be developed with low test burden and thus 
encouraged DOE to reconsider incorporating a method to measure 
networked functionality and, at the very least, test products in their 
``as-shipped'' mode. (CA IOUs, No. 23, p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ In response to the June 2017 RFI, BSH commented that 
display screens consume energy in normal use and that energy is not 
captured during the existing test procedure. BSH supported including 
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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CEC supported the comments from the CA IOUs and recommended that 
standby mode and off mode of connected devices be measured, stating 
that such measurements are required under EPCA. According to the CA 
IOUs, DOE provided insufficient rationale excluding the measurement of 
energy consumption associated with connected functions in the test 
procedures. (CEC, No. 20, p. 4) The CA IOUs supported alignment with 
the California Energy Commission's Low Power Modes Roadmap, based on 
IEC Standard 62301:2011, which identifies data collection procedures 
for standby power draw of several products. The CA IOUs recommended 
that DOE should: (1) Collect data on power draw of smart functions in 
all operational modes, (2) isolate the power required for network 
connectivity in various covered smart appliances, (3) incorporate 
standby and off-mode energy usage into the standard metrics. The CA 
IOUs predicted that growth will not only occur among smart device 
functions for higher end products where they currently exist, but 
across the market, pushed in part by California Senate Bill No. 49: 
Clean Power, Smart Power. (CA IOUs, No. 23, pp. 3-4)
    At the December 2019 NOPR Public Meeting, NRDC stated that testing 
connected functions in the off position--and assuming their component 
energy consumption is 0 kWh/yr--is not representative of actual 
consumer usage, and thus opposed DOE's proposed amendment. (NRDC, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 11, pp. 78 & 89)
    AHAM commented that it is too soon to address display screens and 
connected functions given the currently limited market penetration. 
AHAM supported DOE's proposal to have these functions tested in their 
lowest energy use positions to avoid stifling innovation and reduce 
cumulative regulatory burden. AHAM also suggested that DOE could 
incorporate by reference HRF-1-2019, which requires that devices with 
communication modules be tested with the device on but not connected to 
any communication network. AHAM asserted that this approach would not 
impact measured energy use. (AHAM, No. 18, pp. 10-11) Whirlpool agreed 
that the test procedure should not be amended for features like door-
in-door designs, display screens, and connected features at this time. 
(Whirlpool, No. 19, p. 1) Both Whirlpool and Sub Zero supported AHAM's 
recommendation to incorporate by reference HRF-1-2019.

[[Page 56814]]

(Whirlpool, No. 19, p. 1; Sub Zero, No. 17, p. 2)
    Based on consideration of the industry test standard HRF-1-2019 and 
of comments received in response to the December 2019 NOPR, DOE is 
incorporating by reference section 5.5.2(r) of HRF-1-2019, which 
specifies testing units with communication modules with the 
communication modules on but not connected to any communication 
network. DOE has determined that the adopted approach provides a 
representative measure of the energy use during an average period of 
use. DOE acknowledges that manufacturers market connected functions 
available on refrigeration products and consumers purchasing such 
products will likely use the connected functions to some extent. 
However, the range of functions available varies by model and DOE lacks 
information on how consumers use such functions (e.g., which connected 
functions consumers choose to use, how frequently consumers access such 
functions, etc.). Accordingly, DOE has determined that measuring energy 
consumed by the communication module rather than any specific connected 
function provides a representative, repeatable, and reproducible test 
procedure for these products. Additionally, this approach reflects 
current industry practice--as it is the approach specified in the 
industry test procedure--and therefore does not add an undue burden.
    In response to AHAM's concern, the adopted procedure for testing 
communication modules measures energy consumed by the communication 
module while not connected to a network rather than the energy consumed 
while the unit is performing any connected functions. Therefore, the 
test procedure would not introduce any additional burden associated 
with testing multiple connected functions or modes that manufacturers 
may choose to introduce in products with communication modules.
    With regard to comments suggesting that DOE incorporate standby and 
off-mode energy use into the standard metrics for refrigerators, as 
discussed, EPCA requires that DOE amend its test procedures for 
refrigeration products to integrate measures of standby mode and off 
mode energy consumption into the overall energy efficiency, energy 
consumption, or other energy descriptor, unless the current test 
procedure already incorporates the standby mode and off mode energy 
consumption, or if such integration is technically infeasible. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) If an integrated test procedure is technically 
infeasible, DOE must prescribe separate standby mode and off mode 
energy use test procedures for the covered product, if a separate test 
is technically feasible. (Id.) Any such amendment must consider the 
most current versions of the IEC Standard 62301 and IEC Standard 62087 
as applicable. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
    As described in the April 2014 Final Rule, the DOE test procedures 
for refrigeration products measure the energy use of these products 
during extended time periods that include periods when the compressor 
and other key components are cycled off. All of the energy these 
products use during the ``off cycles'' is already included in the 
measurements. 79 FR 22320, 22345. The approach of testing with 
connected functions on but not connected to a network accounts for 
energy consumption of such functions as part of active mode testing, 
and as a result, this method provides consumers with representative 
estimates of energy consumption. DOE reiterates its conclusion from the 
April 2014 Final Rule that by measuring the energy use during ``off 
cycles,'' the current test procedures already address EPCA's 
requirement to include standby mode and off mode energy consumption in 
the overall energy descriptor for refrigeration products. Id.
    Through incorporation by reference of HRF-1-2019, DOE is adopting 
the provision in section 5.5.2(r) of HRF-1-2019, which states that 
units shipped with communication devices shall be tested with the 
communication device on but not connected to any communication network. 
This approach also requires testing communication modules for demand-
response functions on but not connected to a network, amending the 
current requirements in sections 2.10 of appendix A and 2.8 of appendix 
B that such communication modules be tested in the as-shipped position.
    DOE does not currently have test data as to the extent of energy 
use of connected functions. DOE did not receive such data from 
stakeholders. DOE is adopting the amended approach in HRF-1-2019 as it 
is reflective of the industry consensus for testing refrigeration 
products with communication modules. Absent data which would suggest 
otherwise, DOE agrees with AHAM's comment indicating that the HRF-1-
2019 approach is not expected to impact measured energy use and thus 
would not impact compliance of these products. Hence DOE has also 
concluded that an amendment to the energy conservation standards with 
respect to this amendment is not necessary.

I. Corrections

    In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE proposed several corrections to the 
test procedures in appendices A and B, which included amendments to 
improve clarity and consistency with the industry test procedure 
proposed to be incorporated by reference (i.e., AHAM HRF-1-2016). 84 FR 
70842, 70857-70858.
    The inadvertent omission of calculations associated with the 
optional test for models with two compartments and user-operable 
controls according to AS/NZS 4474.1:2007 is discussed in section 
III.B.2 of this final rule. Similarly, the updates to Table 1 in 
appendices A and B, as proposed in the December 2019 NOPR, are 
discussed in section III.B.2 of this final rule.
    In this final rule, DOE is incorporating by reference HRF-1-2019, 
which resolves the need to issue separate corrections regarding other 
issues identified in the December 2019 NOPR. Re-ordering of definitions 
in Appendix A is no longer necessary given the updated incorporation by 
reference of HRF-1-2019. Similarly, updating appendix B, as proposed, 
to ensure consistent terminology and instructions as appendix A is no 
longer necessary given that the volume instructions for both Appendices 
are now included by reference to HRF-1-2019. Additionally, HRF-1-2019 
includes the proposed clarification to the instructions in section 
3.2.1 of appendices A and B, which would have clarified the 
instructions regarding electronic control settings for the median test.
    DOE identified one additional error, which is corrected in this 
final rule. In 10 CFR 429.14(d)(1), the instructions regarding 
compartment volumes used to determine product category refer to 10 CFR 
429.72(d) rather than (c). 10 CFR 429.72(d) provides the alternative 
method for determining volume in miscellaneous refrigeration products. 
10 CFR 429.72(c) provides this method for refrigerators, refrigerator-
freezers, and freezers. DOE is amending 10 CFR 429.14(d)(1) to 
correctly refer to 10 CFR 429.72(c).

J. Effective Date, Compliance Date, and Waivers

    The effective date for the adopted test procedure amendments will 
be 30 days after publication of this final rule in the Federal 
Register. EPCA prescribes that all representations of energy efficiency 
and energy use, including those made on marketing materials and product

[[Page 56815]]

labels, must be made in accordance with an amended test procedure, 
beginning 180 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)) 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.)
    As discussed in section III.G.3, compliance with the amended 
icemaking energy use adder for products with one or more automatic 
icemakers will be required for representations of energy use on or 
after the compliance date of any amended energy conservation standards 
for refrigeration products.
    Upon the compliance date of test procedure provisions in this final 
rule, any waivers that had been previously issued and are in effect 
that pertain to issues addressed by such provisions are terminated. (10 
CFR 430.27(h)(3)) Recipients of any such waivers are required to test 
the products subject to the waiver according to the amended test 
procedure as of the compliance date of the amended test procedure. The 
amendments adopted in this document pertain to issues addressed by a 
waiver granted to GEA (case nos. RF-042 and 2020-007). Per 10 CFR 
430.27(l), the publication of this final rule eliminates the need for 
the continuation of granted waivers. As discussed previously, DOE is 
not amending the test procedure to address the waiver granted to 
Liebherr (case no. RF-035), as the products for which the waiver was 
required are no longer available and the waiver is no longer necessary. 
The publication of this final rule terminates this waiver consistent 
with 10 CFR 430.27(h)(3) and 10 CFR 430.27(l). Under 10 CFR 
430.27(h)(3), the waiver automatically terminates on the date on which 
use of the test procedure is required to demonstrate compliance.

K. Test Procedure Costs

    In this document, DOE amends the existing test procedures for 
refrigeration products by incorporating by reference the current 
version of an industry standard, with minor modifications as discussed 
in the previous sections of this final rule. This updated reference 
results in the following substantive changes compared to the existing 
test approach: (1) Clarifying test setup provisions; (2) specifying 
certain test condition measurements and applicability to data recording 
periods; (3) allowing for stabilization data to also serve as test data 
for certain product types; (4) specifying stabilization requirements 
for products not able to meet the existing requirements; (5) revising 
the automatic icemaking energy consumption adder; and (6) requiring 
connected function communication modules to be on, but not connected to 
a network, for testing.
    DOE's analysis of these amendments indicates a resulting net cost 
savings to manufacturers. Further discussion of the cost impacts of the 
test procedure amendments are presented in the following paragraphs.
1. Amendment Regarding the Stabilization and Test Periods
    DOE is adopting the provisions in HRF-1-2019 to combine the 
stabilization period with the test period for certain models of 
refrigeration products. This would decrease test burden by shortening 
the test duration for any model with stabilization currently 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 all refrigeration 
products.
    Based on review of the CCMS, DOE has identified 3,618 models of 
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, and 583 models of 
MREFs that would be impacted by this amendment.
    DOE expects that this amendment 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).\33\ 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, refrigerator, refrigerator-
freezer, and freezer and MREF manufacturers would introduce 
approximately 1,200 new or modified covered 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 2,400 tests annually using these shorter overall 
testing periods. Using these estimates, DOE anticipates industry cost 
savings of approximately $1,200,000 per year for refrigeration product 
manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 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 expects that the amendment would not impact the representations 
of energy efficiency or energy use for refrigeration products currently 
on the market. Manufacturers would be able to rely on data generated 
under the current test procedure. As such, manufacturers would not be 
required to retest refrigeration products as a result of DOE's adoption 
of the amendment to the test procedure stabilization period.
2. Amendment Regarding Energy Use Associated With Automatic Icemaking
    DOE is amending the automatic icemaker energy use adder in the test 
procedures for refrigeration products with automatic icemakers (these 
amendments would reflect an energy use reduction of 56 kWh per year). 
As discussed in section III.G.3 of this document, DOE is not requiring 
use of the amended automatic icemaker energy use adder until the 
compliance dates of any amended energy conservation standards for 
refrigeration products that account for the amended energy use value. 
Therefore, manufacturers will not be required to re-certify or re-label 
products with automatic icemakers as a result of the amended automatic 
icemaker energy use adder adopted in this final rule and will incur no 
corresponding costs.
3. Impact of the Other Amendments
    DOE anticipates that the remainder of the amendments would not 
impact manufacturers' test or certification costs. Most of the 
amendments provide additional specificity to the applicability and 
conduct of the test procedures. These amendments include: (1) 
Clarifying test setup provisions; (2) specifying certain test condition 
measurements and applicability to data recording periods; (3) 
specifying stabilization requirements for products not able to meet the 
existing requirements; and (4) requiring connected function 
communication modules to be on, but not connected to a network, for 
testing.
    While these amendments are not expected to impact measured energy 
use compared to the existing test procedure, manufacturers may opt to 
re-test models according to the amended test procedure. Because DOE 
requires

[[Page 56816]]

manufacturers to test at least two units per model to determine 
ratings, DOE estimates this optional re-testing cost would be $9,000 
per re-tested model.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Based on the initial $5,000 per unit testing cost estimate 
and the $500 savings due to the stabilization criteria proposed in 
this amended test procedure. DOE estimates that the stabilization 
period time savings would apply to most consumer refrigeration 
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has determined that these other amendments would not require 
changes to the designs of refrigeration products, and that the 
amendments would not impact the utility or availability of these 
products. The other amendments would not impact the representations of 
energy efficiency or energy use of refrigeration products. As a result, 
manufacturers would be able to rely on data generated under the current 
test procedure. Manufacturers would not be required to re-test 
refrigeration products as a result of DOE's adoption of the other 
amendments to the test procedure.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

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

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any 
final rule where the agency was first required by law to publish a 
proposed rule for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the 
rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 
13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 
67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on 
February 19, 2003 to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on 
small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking 
process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available 
on the Office of the General Counsel's website: https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
    DOE reviewed this adopted rule to amend the test procedures for 
refrigeration products under the provisions of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 
19, 2003. This final rule amends DOE's refrigeration products test 
procedures to incorporate by reference AHAM HRF-1-2019, which includes 
the following substantive changes compared to the existing test 
procedures: (1) Clarifying test setup provisions; (2) specifying 
certain test condition measurements and applicability to data recording 
periods; (3) allowing for stabilization data to also serve as test data 
for certain product types; (4) specifying stabilization requirements 
for products not able to meet the existing requirements; (5) revising 
the automatic icemaking energy consumption adder; and (6) requiring 
connected function communication modules to be on, but not connected to 
a network, for testing. DOE concludes that this final rule will not 
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
and the factual basis for this certification is set forth in the 
following paragraphs.
    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'').\35\ 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 refrigeration products is 335220, 
major household appliance manufacturing.\36\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Available online at: https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards.
    \36\ 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 refrigeration products are 
large multinational corporations. DOE conducted a focused inquiry into 
small business manufacturers of products covered by this rulemaking. 
DOE used the CCMS Database \37\ for miscellaneous refrigeration 
products and for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers to 
create a list of companies that sell refrigeration products covered by 
this rulemaking in the United States. DOE identified a total of 42 
original equipment manufacturers that sell refrigeration products in 
the United States market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data. Accessed 
September, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 five domestic 
manufacturers of 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 a FRFA was needed (i.e., whether DOE could certify that this 
rulemaking would not have a significant impact).
    As described, DOE is incorporating by reference the latest version 
of the industry standard HRF-1-2019, which results in certain 
substantive changes in the test procedure compared to the existing 
approach, some of which may impact costs incurred by manufacturers.
    DOE is combining the stabilization period with the test period for 
certain products. This change would likely 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). 84 FR 70842, 70862. 
DOE estimated that this would translate to a cost savings of $500 per 
test for these models (an estimated 10 percent of total testing costs). 
Id. Based on review of the CCMS Database, DOE identified 325 models 
affected by the amendment of the stabilization period, representing 
five small domestic manufacturers. Id. Additionally, based on data from 
DOE's CCMS Database, DOE anticipated that small domestic manufacturers 
would replace or modify existing models every 3.5 years; therefore, on 
average, small domestic manufacturers would introduce approximately 93 
new or modified models each year that would use these shorter overall 
testing periods. Id. Given that DOE requires manufacturers to test at 
least two units per model, small manufacturers would on average conduct 
186 tests annually using these shorter overall testing periods. Id. 
Using these estimates, DOE anticipated the stabilization amendment 
would save small domestic manufacturers approximately $93,000 per year. 
Id. Therefore, DOE determined that this proposed amendment to the test 
procedure would lead to cost savings for small domestic manufacturers. 
Id.

[[Page 56817]]

    FSI commented in response to the December 2019 NOPR that DOE energy 
tests for small companies without their own test facilities may cost 
$5,000 per test, and this cost is an impediment to innovation. FSI 
further supported the use of computer-aided design (``CAD'') instead of 
volume measurements to reduce costs and improve accuracy and 
reproducibility of testing. FSI strongly urged DOE to simplify setup 
and test procedures to drive this cost down. FSI observed that 
innovation often comes from new and small companies and that increasing 
regulatory burden or complexity is a significant barrier to the kind of 
innovation taking place in these businesses. (FSI, No. 21, p. 2)
    DOE recognizes these comments and notes they are similar to those 
submitted by FSI in response to the June 2017 RFI (FSI, No. 6, pp. 2-
3), which DOE considered in the December 2019 NOPR. 84 FR 70842, 70862. 
DOE is not establishing any amendments to the test procedures for 
refrigeration products that would increase the cost of these tests at 
third-party or manufacturer test laboratories. DOE also 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. 
Regarding complexity of the test procedures, DOE notes that the 
amendments established in this final rule harmonize with the industry 
test method, improve clarity, and overall are expected to decrease 
costs associated with testing.
    As discussed in section III.K of this document, DOE does not expect 
any other amendments established in this final rule to impact testing, 
certification, or labelling costs for manufacturers.
    Overall, DOE estimates that the amendments for small businesses 
would translate to a cost savings of approximately $93,000 each year.
    Therefore, DOE concludes that the cost effects accruing from the 
final rule would not have a ``significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities,'' and that the preparation of a 
FRFA is not warranted. DOE has submitted a certification and supporting 
statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of 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 
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.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this final rule, DOE establishes test procedure amendments that 
it expects will be used to develop and implement future energy 
conservation standards for refrigeration products. DOE has determined 
that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically 
excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 
CFR part 1021. Specifically, DOE has determined that adopting test 
procedures for measuring energy efficiency of consumer products and 
industrial equipment is consistent with activities identified in 10 CFR 
part 1021, appendix A to subpart D, A5 and A6. Accordingly, neither an 
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 
1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and 
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that 
have federalism implications. The Executive order requires agencies to 
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any 
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the states and 
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order 
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure 
meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. 
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the 
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the 
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final 
rule and determined that it will not have a substantial direct effect 
on the states, on the relationship between the national government and 
the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal 
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the 
products that are the subject of this final rule. States can petition 
DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on 
criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is 
required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation 
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal 
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) 
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to 
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected 
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification 
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable 
effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the 
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines 
key terms; and (6) addresses

[[Page 56818]]

other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship 
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of 
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations 
in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine 
whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. 
DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the 
extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards 
of Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'') 
requires each federal agency to assess the effects of federal 
regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the 
expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year 
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of state, local, and tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, 
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available 
at https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this 
final rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined 
that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a 
mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in 
any year, so these requirements do not apply.

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

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

J. Review Under 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). Pursuant 
to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information 
Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which 
are available at https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has 
reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has 
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those 
guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, 
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A 
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency 
that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final 
rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive 
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the 
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy 
supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of 
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on 
energy supply, distribution, and use.
    This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has 
it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator 
of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, 
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

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

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the 
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal 
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; 
``FEAA'') Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where 
a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the 
notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and 
background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE 
to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC 
concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on 
competition.
    The modifications to the test procedures for refrigeration products 
adopted in this final rule incorporate testing methods contained in 
certain sections of HRF-1-2019. 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., whether it was developed in a manner 
that fully provides for public participation, comment, and review.) DOE 
has consulted with both the Attorney General and the Chairman of the 
FTC about the impact on competition of using the methods contained in 
these standards and has received no comments objecting to their use.

M. Congressional Notification

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

N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

    In this final rule, DOE incorporates by reference the test 
procedure published

[[Page 56819]]

by AHAM, titled ``Energy and Internal Volume of Consumer Refrigeration 
Products,'' HRF-1-2019. HRF-1-2019 is an industry-accepted test 
procedure for measuring the energy consumption of electric (single-
phase, alternating current) refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 
freezers or miscellaneous refrigeration products. Specifically, the 
test procedure codified by this final rule references various sections 
of HRF-1-2019 that address test setup, instrumentation, test conduct, 
and calculations.
    Copies of HRF-1-2019 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 https://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 changes in this final rule.

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

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

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429

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

10 CFR Part 430

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

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on September 
29, 2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant 
Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of 
Energy. That document with the original signature and date is 
maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance 
with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the 
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to 
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as 
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative 
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon 
publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on September 30, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

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

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

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

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.


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


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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Pursuant to Sec.  429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall 
include the following additional product-specific information: Whether 
the basic model has variable defrost control (in which case, 
manufacturers must also report the values, if any, of CTL 
and CTM (See section 5.3 of appendix A and appendix B to 
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430) used in the calculation of energy 
consumption), whether the basic model has variable anti-sweat heater 
control (in which case, manufacturers must also report the values of 
heater Watts at the ten humidity levels (5%, 15%, 25%, 35%, 45%, 55%, 
65%, 75%, 85%, and 95%) used to calculate the variable anti-sweat 
heater ``Correction Factor''), and whether testing has been conducted 
with modifications to the standard temperature sensor locations, as 
specified in section 5.1(g) of appendices A and B to subpart B of 10 
CFR part 430, as applicable.
* * * * *
    (d) Product category determination. Each basic model shall be 
certified according to the appropriate product category as defined in 
Sec.  430.2 based on compartment volumes and compartment temperatures.
    (1) Compartment volumes used to determine product category shall be 
the mean of the measured compartment volumes for each tested unit of 
the basic model according to the provisions in section 4.1 of appendix 
A of subpart B of part 430 of this chapter for refrigerators and 
refrigerator-freezers and section 4.1 of appendix B of subpart B of 
part 430 of this chapter for freezers, or the compartment volumes of 
the basic model as calculated in accordance with Sec.  429.72(c); and
    (2) Compartment temperatures used to determine product category 
shall be the mean of the measured compartment temperatures at the 
coldest setting for each tested unit of the basic model according to 
the provisions of appendix A of subpart B of part 430 of this chapter 
for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers and appendix B of subpart B 
of part 430 of this chapter for freezers.

0
3. Section 429.61 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(3) and (d) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  429.61  Consumer miscellaneous refrigeration products.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Pursuant to Sec.  429.12(b)(13), a certification report coolers 
or combination cooler refrigeration products shall include the 
following additional product-specific information: Whether the basic 
model has variable defrost control (in which case, manufacturers must 
also report the values, if any, of CTL and CTM 
(See section 5.3 in appendix A to subpart B of part 430 of this 
chapter) used in the calculation of energy consumption), whether the 
basic model has variable anti-sweat heater control (in which case, 
manufacturers must also report the values of heater Watts at the ten 
humidity levels (5%, 15%, 25%, 35%, 45%, 55%, 65%, 75%, 85%, and 95%) 
used to calculate the variable anti-sweat heater ``Correction 
Factor''), and whether testing has been conducted with modifications to 
the standard temperature sensor locations, as specified in section 
5.1(g) of appendix A to subpart B of part 430 of this chapter.
* * * * *
    (d) Product category determination. Each basic model of 
miscellaneous refrigeration product must be certified according to the 
appropriate product category as defined in Sec.  430.2 based on 
compartment volumes and compartment temperatures.
    (1) Compartment volumes used to determine product category shall be 
the mean of the measured compartment volumes for each tested unit of 
the basic model according to the provisions in section 4.1 of appendix 
A to subpart B of part 430 of this chapter, or the compartment volumes 
of the basic model as calculated in accordance with Sec.  429.72(d); 
and

[[Page 56820]]

    (2) Compartment temperatures used to determine product category 
shall be the mean of the measured compartment temperatures at the 
coldest setting for each tested unit of the basic model according to 
the provisions of appendix A to subpart B of part 430 of this chapter. 
For cooler compartments with temperatures below 39 [deg]F (3.9 [deg]C) 
but no lower than 37 [deg]F (2.8 [deg]C), the compartment temperatures 
used to determine product category shall also include the mean of the 
measured compartment temperatures at the warmest setting for each 
tested unit of the basic model according to the provisions of appendix 
A to subpart B of part 430 of this chapter.

0
4. Section 429.134 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (l)(2) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  429.134  Product-specific enforcement provisions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Test for models with two compartments, each having its own 
user-operable temperature control. The test described in section 5.2(b) 
of the applicable test procedure for refrigerators or refrigerator-
freezers in appendix A to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 shall be used 
for all units of a tested basic model before DOE makes a determination 
of noncompliance with respect to the basic model.
* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (2) Test for models with two compartments, each having its own 
user-operable temperature control. The test described in section 5.2(b) 
of the applicable test procedure in appendix A to subpart B part 430 of 
this chapter shall be used for all units of a tested basic model before 
DOE makes a determination of noncompliance with respect to the basic 
model.
* * * * *

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

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

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


0
6. Section 430.3 is amended by revising paragraph (i)(4) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  430.3  Materials incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (4) AHAM HRF-1-2019 (``HRF-1-2019''), Energy and Internal Volume of 
Consumer Refrigeration Products, Copyright (copyright) 2019, IBR 
approved for appendices A and B to subpart B of this part.
* * * * *

0
7. Section 430.23 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(ii), 
(a)(2)(ii), (a)(3)(ii), (a)(4) and (5), (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(ii), 
(b)(3)(ii), (b)(4) and (5); (ff)(1)(ii), (ff)(2)(ii), (ff)(3)(ii), and 
(ff)(4) and (5) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) The average per-cycle energy consumption for the standard 
cycle in kilowatt-hours per cycle, determined according to appendix A 
of this subpart; and
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Half the sum of the average per-cycle energy consumption for 
the standard cycle and the average per-cycle energy consumption for a 
test cycle type with the anti-sweat heater switch in the position set 
at the factory just before shipping, each in kilowatt-hours per cycle, 
determined according to appendix A of this subpart; and
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) The average per-cycle energy consumption for the specified 
cycle type, determined according to appendix A of this subpart; and
* * * * *
    (4) The energy factor, expressed in cubic feet per kilowatt-hour 
per cycle, shall be:
    (i) For models without an anti-sweat heater switch, the quotient 
of:
    (A) The adjusted total volume in cubic feet, determined according 
to appendix A of this subpart, divided by--
    (B) The average per-cycle energy consumption for the standard cycle 
in kilowatt-hours per cycle, determined according to appendix A of this 
subpart, the resulting quotient then being rounded to the second 
decimal place; and
    (ii) For models having an anti-sweat heater switch, the quotient 
of:
    (A) The adjusted total volume in cubic feet, determined according 
to appendix A of this subpart, divided by--
    (B) Half the sum of the average per-cycle energy consumption for 
the standard cycle and the average per-cycle energy consumption for a 
test cycle type with the anti-sweat heater switch in the position set 
at the factory just before shipping, each in kilowatt-hours per cycle, 
determined according to appendix A of this subpart, the resulting 
quotient then being rounded to the second decimal place.
    (5) The annual energy use, expressed in kilowatt-hours per year and 
rounded to the nearest kilowatt-hour per year, shall be determined 
according to appendix A of this subpart.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) The average per-cycle energy consumption for the standard 
cycle in kilowatt-hours per cycle, determined according to appendix B 
of this subpart; and
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Half the sum of the average per-cycle energy consumption for 
the standard cycle and the average per-cycle energy consumption for a 
test cycle type with the anti-sweat heater switch in the position set 
at the factory just before shipping, each in kilowatt-hours per cycle, 
determined according to appendix B of this subpart; and
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) The average per-cycle energy consumption for the specified 
cycle type, determined according to appendix B of this subpart; and
* * * * *
    (4) The energy factor, expressed in cubic feet per kilowatt-hour 
per cycle, shall be:
    (i) For models without an anti-sweat heater switch, the quotient 
of:
    (A) The adjusted total volume in cubic feet, determined according 
to appendix B of this subpart, divided by--
    (B) The average per-cycle energy consumption for the standard cycle 
in kilowatt-hours per cycle, determined according to appendix B of this 
subpart, the resulting quotient then being rounded to the second 
decimal place; and
    (ii) For models having an anti-sweat heater switch, the quotient 
of:
    (A) The adjusted total volume in cubic feet, determined according 
to appendix B of this subpart, divided by--
    (B) Half the sum of the average per-cycle energy consumption for 
the standard cycle and the average per-cycle energy consumption for a 
test cycle type with the anti-sweat heater switch in the position set 
at the factory just before shipping, each in kilowatt-hours per cycle, 
determined according to appendix B of this subpart, the resulting 
quotient then being rounded to the second decimal place.

[[Page 56821]]

    (5) The annual energy use, expressed in kilowatt-hours per year and 
rounded to the nearest kilowatt-hour per year, shall be determined 
according to appendix B of this subpart.
* * * * *
    (ff) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) The average per-cycle energy consumption for the standard 
cycle in kilowatt-hours per cycle, determined according to appendix A 
of this subpart; and
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Half the sum of the average per-cycle energy consumption for 
the standard cycle and the average per-cycle energy consumption for a 
test cycle type with the anti-sweat heater switch in the position set 
at the factory just before shipping, each in kilowatt-hours per cycle, 
determined according to appendix A of this subpart; and
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) The average per-cycle energy consumption for the specified 
cycle type, determined according to appendix A of this subpart; and
* * * * *
    (4) The energy factor, expressed in cubic feet per kilowatt-hour 
per cycle, shall be:
    (i) For models without an anti-sweat heater switch, the quotient 
of:
    (A) The adjusted total volume in cubic feet, determined according 
to appendix A of this subpart, divided by--
    (B) The average per-cycle energy consumption for the standard cycle 
in kilowatt-hours per cycle, determined according to appendix A of this 
subpart, the resulting quotient then being rounded to the second 
decimal place; and
    (ii) For models having an anti-sweat heater switch, the quotient 
of:
    (A) The adjusted total volume in cubic feet, determined according 
to appendix A of this subpart, divided by--
    (B) Half the sum of the average per-cycle energy consumption for 
the standard cycle and the average per-cycle energy consumption for a 
test cycle type with the anti-sweat heater switch in the position set 
at the factory just before shipping, each in kilowatt-hours per cycle, 
determined according to appendix A of this subpart, the resulting 
quotient then being rounded to the second decimal place.
    (5) The annual energy use, expressed in kilowatt-hours per year and 
rounded to the nearest kilowatt-hour per year, shall be determined 
according to appendix A of this subpart.
* * * * *

0
8. Appendix A to subpart B of part 430 is revised to 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 April 11, 2022, any representations of volume and 
energy use of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 
miscellaneous 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 volume and energy use must be in 
accordance with whichever version is selected. On or after April 11, 
2022, any representations of volume and energy use must be based on 
the results of testing pursuant to this appendix.
    For refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, the rounding 
requirements specified in sections 4 and 5 of this appendix are not 
required for use until the compliance date of any amendment of 
energy conservation standards for these products published after 
October 12, 2021.

1. Referenced Materials

    DOE incorporated by reference AHAM HRF-1-2019, Energy and 
Internal Volume of Consumer Refrigeration Products (``HRF-1-2019''), 
and AS/NZS 4474.1:2007, Performance of Household Electrical 
Appliances--Refrigerating Appliances; Part 1: Energy Consumption and 
Performance, Second Edition (``AS/NZS 4474.1:2007''), in their 
entirety in Sec.  430.3; however, only enumerated provisions of 
these documents are applicable to this appendix. If there is any 
conflict between HRF-1-2019 and this appendix or between AS/NZS 
4474.1:2007 and this appendix, follow the language of the test 
procedure in this appendix, disregarding the conflicting industry 
standard language.
    (a) AHAM HRF-1-2019, (``HRF-1-2019''), Energy and Internal 
Volume of Consumer Refrigeration Products:
    (i) Section 3--Definitions, as specified in section 3 of this 
appendix;
    (ii) Section 4--Method for Determining the Refrigerated Volume 
of Consumer Refrigeration Products, as specified in section 4.1 of 
this appendix;
    (iii) Section 5--Method for Determining the Energy Consumption 
of Consumer Refrigeration Products (excluding Table 5-1 and sections 
5.5.6.5, 5.8.2.1.2, 5.8.2.1.3, 5.8.2.1.4, 5.8.2.1.5, and 5.8.2.1.6), 
as specified in section 5 of this appendix; and
    (iv) Section 6--Method for Determining the Adjusted Volume of 
Consumer Refrigeration Products, as specified in section 4.2 of this 
appendix;
    (b) AS/NZS 4474.1:2007, (``AS/NZS 4474.1:2007''), Performance of 
Household Electrical Appliances--Refrigerating Appliances; Part 1: 
Energy Consumption and Performance, Second Edition:
    (i) Appendix M--Method of Interpolation When Two Controls are 
Adjusted, as specified in sections 5.2(b) and 5.3(e) of this 
appendix.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    If there is any conflict between HRF-1-2019 and this appendix or 
between AS/NZS 4474.1:2007 and this appendix, follow the language of 
the test procedure in this appendix, disregarding the conflicting 
industry standard language.

2. Scope

    This appendix provides the test procedure for measuring the 
annual energy use in kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/yr), the total 
refrigerated volume in cubic feet (ft\3\), and the total adjusted 
volume in cubic feet (ft\3\) of refrigerators, refrigerator-
freezers, and miscellaneous refrigeration products.

3. Definitions

    Section 3, Definitions, of HRF-1-2019 applies to this test 
procedure. In case of conflicting terms between HRF-1-2019 and DOE's 
definitions in this appendix or in Sec.  430.2, DOE's definitions 
take priority.
    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.

4. Volume

    Determine the refrigerated volume and adjusted volume for 
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and miscellaneous 
refrigeration products in accordance with the following sections of 
HRF-1-2019, respectively:
    4.1. Section 4, Method for Determining the Refrigerated Volume 
of Consumer Refrigeration Products; and
    4.2. Section 6, Method for Determining the Adjusted Volume of 
Consumer Refrigeration Products.

5. Energy Consumption

    Determine the annual energy use (``AEU'') in kilowatt-hours per 
year (kWh/yr), for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 
miscellaneous refrigeration products in accordance with section 5, 
Method for Determining the Energy Consumption of Consumer 
Refrigeration Products, of HRF-1-2019, except as follows.

5.1. Test Setup and Test Conditions

    (a) In section 5.3.1 of HRF-1-2019, the top of the unit shall be 
determined by the refrigerated cabinet height, excluding any 
accessories or protruding components on the top of the unit.
    (b) The ambient temperature and vertical ambient temperature 
gradient requirements specified in section 5.3.1 of HRF-1-2019 shall 
be maintained during both the stabilization period and the test 
period.
    (c) The power supply requirements as specified in section 5.5.1 
of HRF-1-2019 shall be maintained based on measurement intervals not 
to exceed one minute.
    (d) The ice storage compartment temperature requirement as 
specified in

[[Page 56822]]

section 5.5.6.5 in HRF-1-2019 is not required.
    (e) For cases in which setup is not clearly defined by this test 
procedure, manufacturers must submit a petition for a waiver (See 
section 6 of this appendix).
    (f) If the interior arrangements of the unit under test do not 
conform with those shown in Figures 5-1 or 5-2 of HRF-1-2019, 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 5-2 of HRF-1-2019 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 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.

5.2. Test Conduct

    (a) Standard Approach
    (i) For the purposes of comparing compartment temperatures with 
standardized temperatures, as described in section 5.6 of HRF-1-
2019, the freezer compartment temperature shall be as specified in 
section 5.8.1.2.5 of HRF-1-2019, the fresh food compartment 
temperature shall be as specified in section 5.8.1.2.4 of HRF-1-
2019, and the cooler compartment temperature shall be as specified 
in section 5.8.1.2.6 of HRF-1-2019.
    (ii) In place of Table 5-1 in HRF-1-2019, refer to Table 1 of 
this section.

                          Table 1--Temperature Settings: General Chart for All Products
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     First test                                     Second test               Energy calculation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------      based on:
             Setting                    Results             Setting             Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid for all Compartments........  All compartments    Warmest for all     All compartments    Second Test Only.
                                   below standard      Compartments.       below standard
                                   reference                               reference
                                   temperature.                            temperature.
                                                                          One or more         First and Second
                                                                           compartments        Test.
                                                                           above standard
                                                                           reference
                                                                           temperature.
                                  One or more         Coldest for all     All compartments    First and Second
                                   compartments        Compartments.       below standard      Test.
                                   above standard                          reference
                                   reference                               temperature.
                                   temperature.
                                                                          One or more         Model may not be
                                                                           compartments        certified as
                                                                           above standard      compliant with
                                                                           reference           energy
                                                                           temperature.        conservation
                                                                                               standards based
                                                                                               on testing of
                                                                                               this unit.
                                                                                               Confirm that unit
                                                                                               meets product
                                                                                               definition. If
                                                                                               so, see section 6
                                                                                               of this appendix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Three-Point Interpolation Method (Optional Test for Models 
with Two Compartments and User-Operable Controls). As specified in 
section 5.6.3(6) of HRF-1-2019, and as an optional alternative to 
section 5.2(a) of this appendix, perform three tests such that the 
set of tests meets the ``minimum requirements for interpolation'' of 
AS/NZS 4474.1:2007 appendix M, section M3, paragraphs (a) through 
(c) and as illustrated in Figure M1. The target temperatures txA and 
txB defined in section M4(a)(i) of AS/NZ 4474.1:2007 shall be the 
standardized temperatures defined in section 5.6 of HRF-1-2019.

5.3. Test Cycle Energy Calculations

    Section 5.8.2, Energy Consumption, of HRF-1-2019 applies to this 
test procedure, except as follows:
    (a)(i) For refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers: To 
demonstrate compliance with the energy conservation standards at 10 
CFR 430.32(a) applicable to products manufactured on or after 
September 15, 2014, IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle, 
equals 0.23 for a product with one or more automatic icemakers and 
otherwise equals 0 (zero).
    (ii) For miscellaneous refrigeration products: To demonstrate 
compliance with the energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 
430.32(aa) applicable to products manufactured on or after October 
28, 2019, IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle, equals 0.23 
for a product with one or more automatic icemakers and otherwise 
equals 0 (zero).
    (b) In place of section 5.8.2.1.2 of HRF-1-2019, use the 
calculations provided in this section. For units with long-time 
automatic defrost control using the two-part test period, the test 
cycle energy shall be calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12OC21.001

Where:

ET = test cycle energy expended in kilowatt-hours per day;
1440 = conversion factor to adjust to a 24-hour average use cycle in 
minutes per day;
K = dimensionless correction factor of 1.0 for refrigerators and 
refrigerator-freezers and 0.55 for miscellaneous refrigeration 
products.
EP1 = energy expended in kilowatt-hours during the first part of the 
test;
EP2 = energy expended in kilowatt-hours during the second part of 
the test;
T1 and T2 = length of time in minutes of the first and second test 
parts, respectively;
CT = defrost timer run time or compressor run time between defrosts 
in hours required to go through a complete cycle, rounded to the 
nearest tenth of an hour;
12 = factor to adjust for a 50-percent run time of the compressor in 
hours per day.

    (c) In place of sections 5.8.2.1.3 and 5.8.2.1.4 of HRF-1-2019, 
use the calculations provided in this section. For units with 
variable defrost control, the test cycle energy shall be calculated 
as set forth in section 5.3(a) of this appendix with the following 
addition:
    CT shall be calculated equivalent to:

[[Page 56823]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12OC21.002

Where:

CTL = the least or shortest compressor run time between 
defrosts used in the variable defrost control algorithm (greater 
than or equal to 6 but less than or equal to 12 hours), or the 
shortest compressor run time between defrosts observed for the test 
(if it is shorter than the shortest run time used in the control 
algorithm and is greater than 6 hours), or 6 hours (if the shortest 
observed run time is less than 6 hours), in hours rounded to the 
nearest tenth of an hour;
CTM = the maximum compressor run time between defrosts in 
hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour (greater than 
CTL but not more than 96 hours);
For variable defrost models with no values of CTL and 
CTM in the algorithm, the default values of 6 and 96 
shall be used, respectively.
F = ratio of per day energy consumption in excess of the least 
energy and the maximum difference in per-day energy consumption and 
is equal to 0.20.

    (d) In place of section 5.8.2.1.5 of HRF-1-2019, use the 
calculations provided in this section. For multiple-compressor 
products with automatic defrost, the two-part test method in section 
5.7.2.1 of HRF-1-2019 shall be used, and the test cycle energy shall 
be calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12OC21.003

Where:

ET, 1440, 12, and K are defined in section 5.3(a) of this appendix;
EP1, and T1 are defined in section 5.3(a) of this appendix;
i = a subscript variable that can equal 1, 2, or more that 
identifies each individual compressor system that has automatic 
defrost;
D = the total number of compressor systems with automatic defrost;
EP2i = energy expended in kilowatt-hours during the 
second part of the test for compressor system i;
T2i = length of time in minutes of the second part of the 
test for compressor system i;
CTi = compressor run time between defrosts of compressor 
system i, rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour, for long-time 
automatic defrost control equal to a fixed time in hours, and for 
variable defrost control equal to:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12OC21.004

Where:

CTL,i = for compressor system i, the shortest cumulative 
compressor-on time between defrost heater-on events used in the 
variable defrost control algorithm (CTL for the 
compressor system with the longest compressor run time between 
defrosts must be greater than or equal to 6 but less than or equal 
to 12 hours), in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour;
CTM,i = for compressor system i, the maximum compressor-
on time between defrost heater-on events used in the variable 
defrost control algorithm (greater than CTL,i but not 
more than 96 hours), in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an 
hour;
For defrost cycle types with no values of CTL and 
CTM in the algorithm, the default values of 6 and 96 
shall be used, respectively.
F = ratio of per day energy consumption in excess of the least 
energy and the maximum difference in per-day energy consumption and 
is equal to 0.20.

    (e) In place of section 5.8.2.1.6 of HRF-1-2019, use the 
calculations provided in this section. For units with long-time 
automatic defrost control and variable defrost control with multiple 
defrost cycle types, the two-part test method in section 5.7.2.1 of 
HRF-1-2019 shall be used, and the test cycle energy shall be 
calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12OC21.005

Where:

ET, 1440, 12, and K are defined in section 5.3(a) of this appendix;
EP1, and T1 are defined in section 5.3(a) of this appendix;
i = a subscript variable that can equal 1, 2, or more that 
identifies the distinct defrost cycle types applicable for the 
product;
D = the total number of defrost cycle types;
EP2i = energy expended in kilowatt-hours during the 
second part of the test for defrost cycle type i;
T2i = length of time in minutes of the second part of the 
test for defrost cycle type i;
CTi = defrost timer run time or compressor run time 
between instances of defrost cycle type i, rounded to the nearest 
tenth of an hour;
12 = factor to adjust for a 50-percent run time of the compressor in 
hours per day.

    (i) For long-time automatic defrost control, CTi shall be equal 
to a fixed time in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour. 
For cases in which there are more than one fixed CT value for a 
given defrost cycle type, an average fixed CT value shall be 
selected for this cycle type.
    (ii) For variable defrost control, CTi shall be calculated 
equivalent to:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12OC21.006

Where:

CTL,i = the least or shortest compressor run time between 
instances of the defrost cycle type i in hours rounded to the 
nearest tenth of an hour (CTL for the defrost cycle type 
with the longest compressor run time between defrosts must be 
greater than or equal to 6 but less than or equal to 12 hours);
CTM,i = the maximum compressor run time between instances 
of defrost cycle type i in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an 
hour (greater than CTL,i but not more than 96 hours);
For cases in which there are more than one CTM and/or 
CTL value for a given defrost cycle type, an average of 
the CTM and CTL values shall be selected for 
this defrost cycle type. For defrost cycle types with no values of 
CTL and CTM in the algorithm, the default 
values of 6 and 96 shall be used, respectively.

[[Page 56824]]

F = ratio of per day energy consumption in excess of the least 
energy and the maximum difference in per-day energy consumption and 
is equal to 0.20.

    (f) If the three-point interpolation method of section 5.2(b) 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 5.9.1.1 of HRF-1-2019;
IET is defined in 5.9.2.1 of HRF-1-2019; and
Ex is defined and calculated as described in appendix M, 
section M4(a) of AS/NZS 4474.1:2007. 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 5.6 of HRF-1-2019.

6. Test Procedure Waivers

    To the extent that the procedures contained in this appendix do 
not provide a means for determining the energy consumption of a 
basic model, a manufacturer must obtain a waiver under Sec.  430.27 
to establish an acceptable test procedure for each such basic model. 
Such instances could, for example, include situations where the test 
setup for a particular basic model is not clearly defined by the 
provisions of this appendix. For details regarding the criteria and 
procedures for obtaining a waiver, please refer to Sec.  430.27.

0
9. Appendix B to subpart B of part 430 is revised to read as follows:

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

    Note: Prior to April 11, 2022, any representations of volume and 
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 volume and energy use must be in accordance with 
whichever version is selected. On or after April 11, 2022, any 
representations of volume and energy use must be based on the 
results of testing pursuant to this appendix.
    For freezers, the rounding requirements specified in sections 4 
and 5 of this appendix are not required for use until the compliance 
date of any amendment of energy conservation standards for these 
products published after October 12, 2021.

1. Referenced Materials

    DOE incorporated by reference HRF-1-2019, Energy and Internal 
Volume of Consumer Refrigeration Products (``HRF-1-2019'') in its 
entirety in Sec.  430.3; however, only enumerated provisions of this 
document are applicable to this appendix. If there is any conflict 
between HRF-1-2019 and this appendix, follow the language of the 
test procedure in this appendix, disregarding the conflicting 
industry standard language.
    (a) AHAM HRF-1-2019, (``HRF-1-2019''), Energy and Internal 
Volume of Consumer Refrigeration Products:
    (i) Section 3--Definitions, as specified in section 3 of this 
appendix;
    (ii) Section 4--Method for Determining the Refrigerated Volume 
of Consumer Refrigeration Products, as specified in section 4.1 of 
this appendix;
    (iii) Section 5--Method for Determining the Energy Consumption 
of Consumer Refrigeration Products (excluding Table 5-1 and sections 
5.5.6.5, 5.8.2.1.2, 5.8.2.1.3, 5.8.2.1.4, 5.8.2.1.5, and 5.8.2.1.6), 
as specified in section 5 of this appendix; and
    (iv) Section 6--Method for Determining the Adjusted Volume of 
Consumer Refrigeration Products, as specified in section 4.2 of this 
appendix.
    (b) Reserved.
    If there is any conflict between HRF-1--2019 and this appendix, 
follow the language of the test procedure in this appendix, 
disregarding the conflicting industry standard language.

2. Scope

    This appendix provides the test procedure for measuring the 
annual energy use in kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/yr), the total 
refrigerated volume in cubic feet (ft\3\), and the total adjusted 
volume in cubic feet (ft\3\) of freezers.

3. Definitions

    Section 3, Definitions, of HRF-1-2019 applies to this test 
procedure. In case of conflicting terms between HRF-1-2019 and DOE's 
definitions in this appendix or in Sec.  430.2, DOE's definitions 
take priority.
    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.

4. Volume

    Determine the refrigerated volume and adjusted volume for 
freezers in accordance with the following sections of HRF-1-2019, 
respectively:
    4.1. Section 4, Method for Determining the Refrigerated Volume 
of Consumer Refrigeration Products; and
    4.2. Section 6, Method for Determining the Adjusted Volume of 
Consumer Refrigeration Products.

5. Energy Consumption

    Determine the annual energy use (``AEU'') in kilowatt-hours per 
year (kWh/yr), for freezers in accordance with section 5, Method for 
Determining the Energy Consumption of Consumer Refrigeration 
Products, of HRF-1-2019, except as follows.

5.1. Test Setup and Test Conditions

    (a) In section 5.3.1 of HRF-1-2019, the top of the unit shall be 
determined by the refrigerated cabinet height, excluding any 
accessories or protruding components on the top of the unit.
    (b) The ambient temperature and vertical ambient temperature 
gradient requirements specified in section 5.3.1 of HRF-1-2019 shall 
be maintained during both the stabilization period and the test 
period.
    (c) The power supply requirements as specified in section 5.5.1 
of HRF-1-2019 shall be maintained based on measurement intervals not 
to exceed one minute.
    (d) The ice storage compartment temperature requirement as 
specified in section 5.5.6.5 in HRF-1-2019 is not required.
    (e) For cases in which setup is not clearly defined by this test 
procedure, manufacturers must submit a petition for a waiver (See 
section 6 of this appendix).
    (f) If the interior arrangements of the unit under test do not 
conform with those shown in Figure 5-2 of HRF-1-2019, 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 5-2 of HRF-1- 2019 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 prescribes 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 in this paragraph.

5.2. Test Conduct

    (a) For the purposes of comparing compartment temperatures with 
standardized temperatures, as described in section 5.6 of HRF-1-
2019, the freezer compartment temperature shall be as specified in 
section 5.8.1.2.5 of HRF-1-2019.
    (b) In place of Table 5-1 in HRF-1-2019, refer to Table 1 of 
this section.

[[Page 56825]]



                                   Table 1--Temperature Settings for Freezers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  First test                                   Second test
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Energy calculation
        Setting                Results                Setting                Results              based on:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid...................  Below standard         Warmest..............  Below standard        Second Test Only.
                         reference                                     reference
                         temperature.                                  temperature.
                                                                      Above standard        First and Second
                                                                       reference             Test.
                                                                       temperature.
                        Above standard         Coldest..............  Below standard        First and Second
                         reference                                     reference             Test.
                         temperature.                                  temperature.
                                                                      Above standard        Model may not be
                                                                       reference             certified as
                                                                       temperature.          compliant with
                                                                                             energy conservation
                                                                                             standards based on
                                                                                             testing of this
                                                                                             unit. Confirm that
                                                                                             unit meets product
                                                                                             definition. If so,
                                                                                             see section 6 of
                                                                                             this appendix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.3. Test Cycle Energy Calculations

    Section 5.8.2, Energy Consumption, of HRF-1-2019 applies to this 
test procedure, except as follows:
    (a) For freezers: To demonstrate compliance with the energy 
conservation standards at 10 CFR 430.32(a) applicable to products 
manufactured on or after September 15, 2014, IET, expressed in 
kilowatt-hours per cycle, equals 0.23 for a product with one or more 
automatic icemakers and otherwise equals 0 (zero).
    (b) In place of section 5.8.2.1.2 of HRF-1-2019, use the 
calculations provided in this section. For units with long-time 
automatic defrost control using the two-part test period, the test 
cycle energy shall be calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12OC21.007

Where:

ET = test cycle energy expended in kilowatt-hours per day;
1440 = conversion factor to adjust to a 24-hour average use cycle in 
minutes per day;
K = dimensionless correction factor of 0.7 for chest freezers and 
0.85 for upright freezers.
EP1 = energy expended in kilowatt-hours during the first part of the 
test;
EP2 = energy expended in kilowatt-hours during the second part of 
the test;
T1 and T2 = length of time in minutes of the first and second test 
parts, respectively;
CT = defrost timer run time or compressor run time between defrosts 
in hours required to go through a complete cycle, rounded to the 
nearest tenth of an hour;
12 = factor to adjust for a 50-percent run time of the compressor in 
hours per day.

    (c) In place of sections 5.8.2.1.3 and 5.8.2.1.4 of HRF-1-2019, 
use the calculations provided in this section. For units with 
variable defrost control, the test cycle energy shall be calculated 
as set forth in section 5.3(a) of this appendix with the following 
addition:
    CT shall be calculated equivalent to:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12OC21.008
    
Where:

CTL = the least or shortest compressor run time between 
defrosts used in the variable defrost control algorithm (greater 
than or equal to 6 but less than or equal to 12 hours), or the 
shortest compressor run time between defrosts observed for the test 
(if it is shorter than the shortest run time used in the control 
algorithm and is greater than 6 hours), or 6 hours (if the shortest 
observed run time is less than 6 hours), in hours rounded to the 
nearest tenth of an hour;
CTM = the maximum compressor run time between defrosts in 
hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour (greater than 
CTL but not more than 96 hours);
For variable defrost models with no values of CTL and 
CTM in the algorithm, the default values of 6 and 96 
shall be used, respectively.
F = ratio of per day energy consumption in excess of the least 
energy and the maximum difference in per-day energy consumption and 
is equal to 0.20.

6. Test Procedure Waivers

    To the extent that the procedures contained in this appendix do 
not provide a means for determining the energy consumption of a 
basic model, a manufacturer must obtain a waiver under Sec.  430.27 
to establish an acceptable test procedure for each such basic model. 
Such instances could, for example, include situations where the test 
setup for a particular basic model is not clearly defined by the 
provisions of this appendix. For details regarding the criteria and 
procedures for obtaining a waiver, please refer to Sec.  430.27.

[FR Doc. 2021-21663 Filed 10-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P