[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 125 (Thursday, June 30, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39164-39231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13225]
[[Page 39163]]
Vol. 87
Thursday,
No. 125
June 30, 2022
Part II
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Commercial
Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 39164]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
[EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008]
RIN 1904-AD83
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Commercial
Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public
meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') proposes to amend the
test procedures for commercial refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers,
and freezers to reference the latest versions of the applicable
industry standards. DOE also proposes to establish definitions and test
procedures for new equipment categories, adopt test procedures
consistent with recently published waivers and interim waivers,
establish product-specific enforcement provisions, allow for volume
determinations based on computer aided designs, specify a sampling plan
for volume and total display area, and adopt additional clarifying
amendments. DOE is seeking comment from interested parties on the
proposal.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposal no later than August 29, 2022. See section [V], ``Public
Participation,'' for details. DOE will hold a webinar on Monday, August
1, 2022, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section V, ``Public
Participation,'' for webinar registration information, participant
instructions, and information about the capabilities available to
webinar participants.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket
number EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008, by any of the
following methods:
(1) Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number
EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008 in the subject line of the message.
(2) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
(3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202)
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section V of this document.
Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts (if a public meeting is held),
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed
in the www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the
index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public
disclosure, may not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section V for information on how to submit comments through
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Stephanie Johnson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-2J,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1943. Email [email protected].
Mr. Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in a public meeting (if
one is held), contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program
staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DOE proposes to maintain previously approved incorporations by
reference and to incorporate by reference the following industry
standards into 10 CFR part 431:
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (``AHRI'')
Standard 1200, ``Performance Rating of Commercial Refrigerated Display
Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets,'' draft version submitted to DOE
with expected publication in 2022 (``AHRI 1200-202X'').
American National Standards Institute (``ANSI'')/AHRI Standard
1320, ``Performance Rating of Commercial Refrigerated Display
Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets for Use With Secondary
Refrigerants,'' approved 2011 (``AHRI 1320-2011'').
ANSI/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (``ASHRAE'') Standard 72, ``Method of Testing
Open and Closed Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers,'' second public
review version with expected publication in 2022 (``ASHRAE 72-2018R'').
ASTM, International (``ASTM'') F2143-16, ``Standard Test Method for
Performance of Refrigerated Buffet and Preparation Tables,'' approved
2016 (``ASTM F2143-16'').
Copies of the draft version of AHRI 1200-202X can be obtained by
going to www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008. Copies of
AHRI 1320-2011 can be obtained by going to ahri.net.org/search-standards. Copies of the second public review version of ASHRAE 72-
2018R can be obtained by going to www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008. Copies of ASTM F2143-16 can be purchased at www.astm.org/f2143-16.html.
For a further discussion of these standards, see section IV.M of
this document.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
C. Deviation From Appendix A
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Discussion
A. Scope and Definitions
1. Ice-Cream Freezers
2. High-Temperature CRE
3. Convertible Equipment
B. Updates to Industry Test Standards
1. AHRI 1200
2. ASHRAE 72
3. Secondary Coolants
4. International Standards Development
C. Test Conditions for Specific CRE Categories
1. Salad Bars, Buffet Tables and Refrigerated Preparation Tables
2. Pull-Down Temperature Applications
3. Blast Chillers and Blast Freezers
4. Chef Bases and Griddle Stands
[[Page 39165]]
5. Mobile Refrigerated Cabinets
6. Additional Covered Equipment
D. Harmonization of Efficiency Standards and Testing With NSF 7-
2019 Food Safety
E. Dedicated Remote Condensing Units
F. Test Procedure Clarifications and Modifications
1. Defrost Cycles
2. Total Display Area
G. Alternative Refrigerants
H. Certification of Compartment Volume
I. Test Procedure Waivers
J. Enforcement Provisions
K. Lowest Application Product Temperature
L. Removal of Obsolete Provisions
M. Additional Topics Raised in Comments From Interested Parties
1. Refrigerant Leakages and Life Cycle Performance
2. Refrigerant Collection for Remote Testing
3. Energy Conservation Standards
N. Sampling Plan
O. Test Procedure Costs and Harmonization
1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
2. Harmonization With Industry Standards
P. Compliance Date and Waivers
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
5. Identification of Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With
Other Rules and Regulations
6. A Description of Significant Alternatives to the Rule
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. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of the Webinar
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Commercial refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers
(collectively, commercial refrigeration equipment, or ``CRE'') are
included in the list of ``covered equipment'' for which DOE is
authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and
test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311)(1)(E)) DOE's energy conservation
standards and test procedures for CRE are currently prescribed at
subpart C of part 431 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(``CFR''). The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish
test procedures for CRE and relevant background information regarding
DOE's consideration of test procedures for this equipment.
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\
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 C \2\ of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title
IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for
Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve energy efficiency. This equipment includes CRE, the
subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311 (1)(E))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 6311),
test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315),
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42
U.S.C. 6296).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1)
certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable
energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the
efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must
use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies
with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(s))
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 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. 6316(b)(2)(D))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or
amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test
results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual
operating cost of a given type of covered equipment during a
representative average use cycle and requires that test procedures not
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
With respect to CRE, EPCA requires DOE to use the test procedures
determined by the Secretary to be generally accepted industry
standards, or industry standards developed or recognized by the
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (``ASHRAE'') or American National Standards Institute
(``ANSI''). (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(A)(i)) With regard to self-contained
CRE to which statutory standards are applicable, the required initial
test procedure is the ASHRAE 117 test procedure in effect on January 1,
2005. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(A)(ii)) Additionally, EPCA requires that if
ANSI 117 is amended, the Secretary shall, by rule, amend the test
procedure for the product as necessary to ensure that the test
procedure is consistent with the amended ASHRAE 117 test procedure,
unless the Secretary makes a determination, by rule, and supported by
clear and convincing evidence, that to do so would not meet the
statutory requirements regarding representativeness and burden. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(E)) Finally, EPCA states if a test procedure other
than the ASHRAE 117 test procedure is approved by ANSI, DOE must review
the relative strengths and weaknesses of the new test procedure
relative to the ASHRAE 117 test procedure and adopt one new test
procedure for use in the standards program. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(6)(F)(i)) \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In 2005, ASHRAE combined Standard 72-1998, ``Method of
Testing Open Refrigerators,'' and Standard 117-2002 and published
the test method as ASHRAE Standard 72-2005, ``Method of Testing
Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers,'' which was approved by ANSI
on July 29, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 39166]]
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate
test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including CRE, 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. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(1))
In addition, if the Secretary determines that a test procedure
amendment is warranted, the Secretary must publish proposed test
procedures in the Federal Register, and afford interested persons an
opportunity (of not less than 45 days' duration) to present oral and
written data, views, and arguments on the proposed test procedures. (42
U.S.C. 6314(b)) If DOE determines that test procedure revisions are not
appropriate, DOE must publish its determination not to amend the test
procedures. DOE is publishing this notice of proposed rulemaking
(``NOPR'') in satisfaction of the 7-year review requirement specified
in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii))
B. Background
DOE's current test procedure for CRE appears at 10 CFR part 431,
subpart C, appendix B (``Amended Uniform Test Method for the
Measurement of Energy Consumption of Commercial Refrigerators,
Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers'').
DOE last amended the test procedure for CRE in a final rule
published on April 24, 2014. (``April 2014 Final Rule''). 79 FR 22277.
Specifically, DOE clarified certain terms, procedures, and compliance
dates to improve repeatability and provide additional detail compared
to the prior version of the test procedure. DOE noted that the
amendments in the April 2014 Final Rule would not affect the measured
energy use of CRE as measured under the prior version of the test
procedure. 79 FR 22277, 22280-22281.
The test procedure incorporates by reference the following industry
standards: (1) AHRI Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010, ``Performance Rating of
Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets''
(``AHRI 1200-2010''); (2) ASHRAE Standard 72-2005, ``Method of Testing
Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers'', which was approved by ANSI on
July 29, 2005 (``ASHRAE 72-2005''); and (3) ANSI/Association of Home
Appliances (``AHAM'') Standard HRF-1-2008, ``Energy, Performance, and
Capacity of Household Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and
Freezers'' (``AHAM HRF-1-2008'') for determining refrigerated volumes
for CRE.
On June 11, 2021, DOE published in the Federal Register an early
assessment request for information (``June 2021 RFI'') seeking comments
on the existing DOE test procedure for CRE. 86 FR 31182. In the June
2021 RFI, DOE requested comments, information, and data regarding a
number of issues, including (1) scope and definitions, (2) updates to
industry standards, (3) test conditions for specific CRE categories,
(4) harmonization with food safety standards, (5) remote condensing
units, (6) test procedure clarifications, (7) alternative refrigerants,
(8) compartment volume certification, and (9) test procedure waivers.
DOE received comments in response to the June 2021 RFI from the
interested parties listed in Table I.1.
Table I.1--List of Commenters With Written Comments Received in Response to June 2021 RFI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenter(s) Reference in this NOPR Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITW-Food Equipment Group, LLC........................ ITW......................... Manufacturer.
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration AHRI........................ Trade Association.
Institute.
True Manufacturing Company, Inc...................... True........................ Manufacturer.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance................. NEEA........................ Efficiency Organization.
Continental Refrigerator............................. Continental................. Manufacturer.
Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development... IGSD........................ Efficiency Organization.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California CA IOUs..................... Energy Utilities.
Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric; collectively,
the California Investor-Owned Utilities.
Arneg USA............................................ Arneg....................... Manufacturer.
Hoshizaki America, Inc............................... Hoshizaki................... Manufacturer.
Hussmann Corporation................................. Hussmann.................... Manufacturer.
Appliance Standards Awareness Program, American Joint Commenters............ Efficiency Organizations.
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, and Natural
Resource Defense Council.
Aarin King........................................... King........................ Individual.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
test procedures for CRE. (Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008, which is
maintained at www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged as
follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that
document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Deviation From Appendix A
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
appendix A (``appendix A''), applicable to CRE under 10 CFR 431.4, DOE
notes that it is deviating from the provision in appendix A regarding
the pre-NOPR stages for a test procedure rulemaking. Section 8(b) of
appendix A states that if DOE determines that it is appropriate to
continue the test procedure rulemaking after the early assessment
process, it will provide further opportunities for early public input
through Federal Register documents, including notices of data
availability and/or requests for information. DOE is opting to deviate
from this provision due to the substantial feedback and information
supplied by commenters in response to the June 2021 RFI.
As discussed in section I.B of this NOPR, the June 2021 RFI
requested submission of comments, data, and information pertinent to
test procedures
[[Page 39167]]
for CRE. In response to the June 2021 RFI, stakeholders provided
substantial comments and information, which DOE has found sufficient to
identify the need to modify the test procedures for CRE. Additionally,
DOE does not expect that further opportunities for early public input
would result in additional substantive comments from interested
parties. This NOPR discusses the comments received in response to the
June 2021 RFI and considered in forming DOE's proposals to amend the
CRE test procedure.
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to update subpart C of 10 CFR part 431
as follows:
(1) Establish new definitions for high-temperature refrigerator,
medium-temperature refrigerator, low-temperature freezer, mobile
refrigerated cabinet, and amend the definition for ice-cream freezer;
(2) Incorporate by reference the most current versions of industry
standards AHRI 1200, ASHRAE 72, and AHRI 1320;
(3) Establish definitions and a new appendix C including test
procedures for buffet tables and preparation tables;
(4) Establish definitions and a new appendix D including test
procedures for blast chillers and blast freezers;
(5) Amend the definition for chef base or griddle stand;
(6) Specify refrigerant conditions for CRE that use carbon dioxide
(``CO2'') refrigerant;
(7) Allow for certification of compartment volumes based on
computer aided design (``CAD'') models;
(8) Incorporate provisions for defrosts and customer order storage
cabinets currently specified in waivers and interim waivers;
(9) Adopt product-specific enforcement provisions;
(10) Clarify use of the lowest application product temperature
(``LAPT'') provisions;
(11) Remove the obsolete test procedure in appendix A; and
(12) Specify a sampling plan for volume and total display area
(``TDA'').
DOE's proposed actions are summarized in Table II.1 compared to the
current test procedure as well as the reason for the proposed change.
Table II.A--Summary of Changes in Proposed Test Procedure Relative to
Current Test Procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed test
Current DOE test procedure procedure Attribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defines commercial Defines high- Improves
refrigerator without temperature representativen
delineating between units refrigerator and ess.
that operate at medium and medium-temperature
high temperatures. refrigerator to
account for new high-
temperature rating
point.
Defines ice-cream freezer as a Defines low- Improves
type of commercial freezer. temperature freezer representativen
to delineate between ess.
ice-cream freezers
and other commercial
freezers.
Ice-cream freezer definition Ice-cream definition Improves
refers only to ``ice cream''. refers more broadly representativen
to ``frozen ess.
desserts''.
References AHRI 1200-2010 for References AHRI 1200- Harmonizes with
rating requirements. 202X for rating most recent
requirements. industry
standard.
References ASHRAE 72-2005 for References ASHRAE 72- Harmonizes with
test requirements. 2018R for test most recent
requirements. industry
standard.
References AHAM HRF-1-2008 for References AHRI 1200- Harmonizes with
volume measurement. 202X for volume most recent
requirements. industry
standard.
Includes a single 38 [deg]F Specifies 38 [deg]F Improves
rating point for commercial rating point for representativen
refrigerators. medium-temperature ess; harmonizes
refrigerators and 55 with industry
[deg]F rating point standard.
for high-temperature
refrigerators.
Does not specify a method for References AHRI 1320- Improves
testing CRE with secondary 2011 for CRE used representativen
coolants. with secondary ess; harmonizes
coolants. with industry
standard.
Does not specify definitions Defines buffet table Improves
or test procedures for buffet and preparation table representativen
tables and preparation tables. and establishes test ess; harmonizes
procedures based on with industry
ASTM F2143-16. standard.
Does not specify definitions Defines blast chiller Improves
or test procedures for blast and blast freezer and representativen
chillers and blast freezers. establishes test ess; harmonizes
procedures based on with industry
expected industry standard.
test method.
Chef bases and griddle stands Clarifies chef base Improves
definition does not refer to and griddle stand representativen
a maximum height. definition by ess.
specifying a maximum
height of 32 inches
for this equipment.
Does not provide procedures References ASHRAE 72- Addresses
for CRE with no automatic 2018R for test existing
defrost or with long duration instructions for waiver;
defrost cycles. units with no harmonizes with
automatic defrost and industry
adopts optional two- standard.
part test for CRE
with defrost cycles
longer than 24 hours.
Includes conflicting Corrects errors in Improves
instructions regarding TDA current test representativen
calculation. procedure by ess,
reference to AHRI repeatability,
1200-202X. and
reproducibility
; harmonizes
with industry
standard.
Provides refrigerant Specifies refrigerant Improves
conditions that applicable to conditions to allow representativen
common refrigerants. for testing with ess; harmonizes
carbon dioxide with existing
refrigerant. waiver.
Requires determining volume Allows the use of Reduces test
based on testing. computer-aided design burden.
(``CAD'') models to
certify volume.
Specifies a single door Defines customer order Improves
opening sequence. storage cabinet representativen
equipment category ess; harmonizes
and specifies an with existing
alternate door waiver.
opening sequence for
this equipment.
Does not specify product- Includes product- Improves
enforcement provisions. enforcement clarity.
provisions for
determining volume
and TDA.
[[Page 39168]]
Specifies LAPT instructions Clarifies use of LAPT Improves
for temperatures above target provisions for clarity.
test temperature. operating
temperatures below
the target test
temperature.
Includes obsolete appendix A Removes obsolete Improves
and current appendix B test appendix A; adds new readability.
procedures. appendix C for
testing buffet tables
and preparation
tables, and new
appendix D for
testing blast
chillers and blast
freezers.
Does not specify a sampling Specifies that volume Improves
plan for volume and TDA. and TDA be determined representativen
based on the mean of ess,
the test sample. repeatability,
and
reproducibility
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments
described in section III of this NOPR would not alter the measured
efficiency of CRE currently subject to energy conservation standards
and would not require retesting or recertification solely as a result
of DOE's adoption of the proposed amendments to the test procedures, if
made final. Additionally, DOE has tentatively determined that the
proposed amendments, if made final, would not increase the cost of such
testing. Additionally, for buffet tables and preparation tables, and
blast chillers and blast freezers, testing according to the proposed
test procedure would not be required until the compliance date of any
energy conservation standards for that equipment. To the extent
manufacturers of these CRE are making voluntary representations
regarding energy use, they would experience costs associated with
retesting. DOE provides a discussion of these testing costs in section
III.O.1 of this NOPR. Discussion of DOE's proposed actions are
addressed in detail in section III of this NOPR.
III. Discussion
A. Scope and Definitions
``Commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer''
means refrigeration equipment that is not a consumer product (as
defined in 10 CFR 430.2); is not designed and marketed exclusively for
medical, scientific, or research purposes; operates at a chilled,
frozen, combination chilled and frozen, or variable temperature;
displays or stores merchandise and other perishable materials
horizontally, semi-vertically, or vertically; has transparent or solid
doors, sliding or hinged doors, a combination of hinged, sliding,
transparent, or solid doors, or no doors; is designed for pull-down
temperature applications or holding temperature applications; and is
connected to a self-contained condensing unit or to a remote condensing
unit. 10 CFR 431.62.
For the purpose of determining applicability of certain test
procedure provisions, DOE is proposing to amend certain existing
definitions and to establish certain new definitions, as discussed in
the following paragraphs. DOE discusses additional equipment
definitions and test procedures for specific equipment categories in
section III.C of this NOPR.
1. Ice-Cream Freezers
DOE defines certain categories of CRE, including ``ice-cream
freezer.'' DOE defines an ``ice-cream freezer'' as a commercial freezer
that is designed to operate at or below -5 [deg]F (2
[deg]F) (-21 [deg]C 1.1 [deg]C) and that the manufacturer
designs, markets, or intends for the storing, displaying, or dispensing
of ice cream. 10 CFR 431.62.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on the technical
features that characterize ice-cream freezers and distinguish them from
other categories of commercial freezers capable of operating at or
below -5 [deg]F. 86 FR 31182, 31184.
ITW commented that in general, ice-cream freezers are standard
``commercial freezers'' operating at a modified storage temperature.
(ITW, No. 2, p. 1) True commented that when considering vertical
freezers, there are no features that would distinguish a freezer
storing ice cream from a standard commercial freezer, since both are
designed to maintain the same integrated average temperature
(``IAT'').\5\ (True, No. 4, p. 2) However, True commented that there
are significant differences between a CRE able to maintain an IAT of -
15 [deg]F and one that is only designed to maintain an IAT of 0 [deg]F.
(True, No. 4, p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Integrated average temperature means the average temperature
of all test package measurements taken during the test. 10 CFR
431.62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITW commented that dipping cabinets (i.e., cabinets intended for
ice cream service) are the obvious model type that can be easily
distinguished from other freezers and are generally characterized by
product visibility and accessories sold with the unit. (ITW, No. 2, p.
1)
Hussmann, AHRI, and Continental commented that ice-cream freezers
often have a manual defrost to maintain frozen products, which may be a
distinguishing feature for most ice-cream freezers. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 2;
Hussmann, No. 14, p. 2; Continental, No. 6, p. 1) Hussmann, AHRI, and
Continental commented that many of these models are of a cold wall
design rather than forced air evaporation. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 2;
Hussmann, No. 14, p. 2; Continental, No. 6, p. 1) Hussmann and AHRI
stated that in ice cream applications it is imperative to avoid
formation of ice crystals by maintaining temperature, particularly
surrounding defrost cycles. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 2; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 2)
Continental commented that features such as manual defrost and cold
wall evaporators minimize temperature fluctuations. (Continental, No.
6, p.1)
Dipping cabinets are one configuration of CRE that likely is
readily understood to be an ice-cream freezer; however, not all ice-
cream freezers are dipping cabinets. As such DOE is not proposing to
limit the definition of ``ice-cream freezer'' to those units.
Additionally, while ice-cream freezers may implement manual defrosts or
cold wall evaporators, DOE is aware of these equipment designs in other
commercial freezers, such that they do not uniquely distinguish ice-
cream freezers. DOE has not identified any technical features that
would allow for distinguishing ice-cream freezers from other commercial
freezers capable of operating at low temperatures and is therefore not
proposing to include any additional equipment characteristics in the
ice-cream freezer definition.
DOE notes that the equipment term and definition reference ``ice
cream,'' but ``ice cream'' is not defined. DOE understands that other
frozen products may be similarly stored and displayed. For example,
gelato, frozen yogurt, sorbet, and other ice-cream-like
[[Page 39169]]
products are typically displayed, stored, and dispensed in the same
manner as ice-cream. The CRE used for these food products is likely
similar, if not identical, to equipment used to store, display, or
dispense ice cream. In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on
whether further specificity is needed for the term ``ice-cream.'' 86 FR
31182, 31184.
ITW commented that ice-cream and ice-cream like products can be
divided into 3 temperature classes: (1) -5 [deg]F to 5 [deg]F,
equipment designed to hold ice cream for immediate consumption; (2) -10
[deg]F to -15 [deg]F, equipment designed to hold ice cream for short
term storage or retail sale; (3) -20 [deg]F to -40 [deg]F, equipment
designed to hold ice cream for long term storage. (ITW, No. 2, p. 1)
Hussmann and AHRI agreed that the term ``ice cream'' does not
exclusively apply to products that are designed to and tested at -15
[deg]F, and that simply including or excluding the term ``ice cream''
does not accurately distinguish the appropriate product category.
(Hussmann, No. 14, p. 2-3; AHRI, No. 3, p. 2) AHRI and Hussmann stated
that they do not support the removal of the term ``ice cream,'' but
support differentiating temperature categories for the various uses of
ice-cream applications. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 2-3; AHRI, No. 3, p. 2)
Hussmann and AHRI commented that the product category should be
based on the designed, marketed, and intended use of the equipment.
(Hussmann, No. 14, p. 2-3; AHRI, No. 3, p. 2) Hussmann and AHRI
commented that there is an important distinction between many products
that operate in the 0 [deg]F to -5 [deg]F range that are not designed
to operate at -15 [deg]F. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 2-3; AHRI, No. 3, p. 2)
True commented that the use of the term ``ice-cream'' to
distinguish a different equipment category does not make sense given
the range of operating temperatures for different types of ice-cream
and ice-cream like products, and that more generic terms should be used
such as ``commercial low temperature freezer'' (IAT of 0 [deg]F) and
``commercial lower temperature freezer'' (IAT of -15 [deg]F). (True,
No. 4, p. 2-3)
DOE recognizes that the reference to ``ice cream'' in the ice-cream
freezer definition does not itself distinguish this equipment from
other commercial freezers, and that the additional descriptors
specified in the definition (i.e., designed to operate at or below -5
[deg]F) together classify a unit as an ice-cream freezer. However, to
clarify the equipment classification and to avoid a potential
understanding that the term is limited to equipment associated with ice
cream and not other similar products, DOE is proposing to amend the
ice-cream freezer definition to refer to equipment designed, marketed,
or intended for the storing, displaying, or dispensing of ``frozen
desserts,'' rather than ice cream specifically. DOE does not expect
this proposal to affect testing or certifications for existing CRE
because equipment designed for frozen desserts other than ice cream
that otherwise meets the ice-cream freezer definition are likely
already tested and certified as an ice-cream freezer.
DOE requests comment on the proposed amended definition of ice-
cream freezer, and on whether any additional characteristics may better
differentiate this equipment from other commercial freezers.
Appendix B requires testing all ice-cream freezers to an IAT of -15
[deg]F. However, the term ``ice-cream freezer'' includes a variety of
equipment with a range of typical operating temperatures during normal
use. For example, certain ice-cream freezers are designed to operate
considerably below -5 [deg]F (sometimes referred to as ``hardening''
cabinets and specifically designed for ice cream storage), while other
ice-cream freezers are designed to operate closer to 0 [deg]F during
typical use (e.g., ``dipping cabinets'' and other equipment used to
hold ice cream intended for immediate consumption). Ice-cream freezers
intended for higher-temperature operation are often not capable of
achieving an IAT of -15 [deg]F. In such an instance, appendix B
requires testing the units to the LAPT.
If certain ice-cream freezers not capable of reaching an IAT of -15
[deg]F should instead be tested at an IAT of 0 [deg]F, there may be an
opportunity to better distinguish between ice-cream freezers and other
freezers, as discussed earlier in this section. For example, the ice-
cream freezer definition could be revised to refer to any freezer
capable of operating at an IAT of -15 [deg]F, regardless of the
intended end use of the equipment. Any other equipment currently
meeting the ice-cream freezer definition but not capable of reaching an
IAT of -15 [deg]F could instead be classified and tested as freezers,
rather than ice-cream freezers. Such an approach would use the measured
IAT of the equipment as the basis for this equipment definition, thus
eliminating the reliance on manufacturer intent or the end use of the
equipment.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether equipment
that meets the current ice-cream freezer definition but cannot operate
at an IAT of -15 [deg]F 2 [deg]F should be tested at an
IAT of 0 [deg]F 2 [deg]F instead of the LAPT. 86 FR 31182,
31184. DOE additionally requested comment on whether the ice-cream
freezer definition should refer only to equipment that is capable of
achieving an IAT of -15 [deg]F 2 [deg]F without reference
to the manufacturer's designed, marketed, or intended use. Id.
The Joint Commenters, True, and NEEA supported changing the
definition of ``ice-cream freezer'' to refer to operating capabilities
instead of design intent, or replacing ``ice-cream'' with a more
generic term, to remove ambiguity of equipment classes and ensure a
standardized temperature (-15 [deg]F or 0 [deg]F). (Joint Commenters,
No. 8, p. 1; True, No. 4, p. 3; NEEA, No. 5, p. 4) ITW, NEEA, and CA
IOUs further supported testing at standard IATs instead of LAPT to
create a more direct comparison of daily energy consumption. (ITW, No.
2, p. 1; NEEA, No. 5, p. 4-5) True commented that the test procedure,
in specifying IATs of 0 [deg]F and -15 [deg]F, is acceptable. True also
commented that CRE capable of maintaining an IAT of -15 [deg]F should
have a greater energy allowance than CRE only capable of maintaining an
IAT of 0 [deg]F. (True, No. 4, p. 3)
Hussmann, AHRI, Hoshizaki, and True agreed that ``ice-cream''
freezers that are not designed, marketed, and intended to operate at -
15 [deg]F could be tested at an IAT of 0 [deg]F 2 [deg]F
instead of the LAPT. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 2-3; AHRI, No. 3, p. 2;
Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 1; True, No. 4, p. 3) Hussmann, AHRI, Hoshizaki,
and Continental disagreed that the ice-cream freezer definition should
only refer to equipment that can achieve an IAT of -15 [deg]F 2 [deg]F without reference to the manufacturer's designed,
marketed, or intended use, asserting that the product category and
definition should be based on these factors. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 2-3;
AHRI, No. 3, p. 2, Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 1; Continental, No. 6, p. 1)
Continental added that this terminology is commonly used by
manufacturers and dealers to identify the appropriate equipment for
these applications. (Continental, No. 6, p. 1)
NEEA commented that as of July 16, 2021, there were 434 commercial
ice-cream freezers listed in DOE's compliance certification database,
with 410 rated for operation at either -10 [deg]F or -15 [deg]F, and
the remaining 24 units with an LAPT of -5 [deg]F. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 4)
NEEA added that the 24 units rated at -5 [deg]F were all service over
counter (``SOC'') units, demonstrating that their intended use is for
immediate consumption, whereas the other 410 units' primary function
was for hardening. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 4) The CA IOUs commented on this
same dataset;
[[Page 39170]]
however, they noted that 88 percent (382 units) of models were tested
at -15 [deg]F, with the remaining 12 percent (52 units) tested at -5
[deg]F or -10 [deg]F. (CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 5)
NEEA commented that DOE should define ice-cream freezers as those
able to operate at -10 [deg]F, and that -10 [deg]F is appropriate for
both testing and the definition, since it is more representative of
field usage and is low enough to achieve ice cream hardening. (NEEA,
No. 5, p. 4-5) NEEA commented that the definitions in both 10 CFR
431.62 and ENERGY STAR define ice-cream freezers as designed to operate
at or below -5 [deg]F, further supporting a temperature higher than -15
[deg]F for testing, and that this higher temperature (i.e., -10 [deg]F)
would capture a greater number of units under one definition and test.
(Id.)
The CA IOUs commented that there are two distinct uses for ice-
cream freezers: ice cream storage cabinets (with a cold holding
temperature of -15 [deg]F) and ice cream dipping cabinets (which
provide malleable ice cream serving at -5 [deg]F). (CA IOUs, No. 10, p.
5) The CA IOUs commented that in their investigation they found that
models tested at non-standard temperatures (i.e., above -15 [deg]F)
occurred primarily in horizontal closed solid (``HCS'') equipment, of
which 30 percent of products were tested at -10 [deg]F; and service
over counter equipment, of which 51 percent of products were tested at
-5 [deg]F. (CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 5-6). The CA IOUs commented that the
DOE should consider renaming the HCS ice-cream freezers to ``solid door
ice cream dipping cabinet'' and SOC ice-cream freezer to ``glass door
ice cream dipping cabinet'' to better align with industry terms and
differentiate between products tested at -15 [deg]F. (Id.) The CA IOUs
suggested testing these two equipment classes for ice cream dipping
applications at -5 [deg]F. (Id.)
DOE participated in the committee meetings to consider updates to
AHRI 1200-2013, eventually leading to the development of AHRI 1200-
202X. During these meetings, the committee discussed ice-cream freezer
rating temperatures and considered additional or alternate rating
temperatures for ice-cream freezer applications. The committee
determined that the existing rating points for commercial freezers
(i.e., -15 [deg]F for ice-cream freezers and 0 [deg]F for freezers) are
appropriate rating points for the range of typical commercial freezer
operation and maintained these rating points in section 3.15 ``Product
Temperature'' of AHRI 1200-202X. Consistent with the latest industry
rating standard, DOE is not proposing to amend the commercial freezer
target IATs for testing.
Of the 418 ice-cream freezer models certified to DOE,\6\ 50 are
rated based on LAPTs higher than -15 [deg]F, including 24 models with a
rating temperature of -5 [deg]F. Many of these models have a horizontal
or service over counter configuration and are intended to hold ice
cream for immediate consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Based on review of DOE's Compliance Certification Database,
available at www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data (accessed
February 1, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE recognizes that testing and rating certain commercial freezers
to 0 [deg]F may be more appropriate than testing and rating to -15
[deg]F. DOE already requires a 0 [deg]F rating temperature for
commercial freezers. Based on comments from interested parties and a
review of the commercial freezer market, DOE has tentatively determined
that ice-cream freezers that meet the current ice-cream freezer
definition but cannot operate as low as an IAT of -15 [deg]F 2 [deg]F can be tested at an IAT of 0 [deg]F 2
[deg]F. Therefore, DOE is proposing to amend the ice-cream freezer
definition in this NOPR to specify that the designed operating
temperature is required to be at or below -15.0 [deg]F (2.0
[deg]F), upon the compliance date(s) of any amended energy conservation
standard(s) for ice-cream freezers.
To clarify which commercial freezers are required to test at an IAT
of 0 [deg]F according to appendix B, DOE is proposing to define the
term ``low-temperature freezer'' to mean a commercial freezer that is
not an ice-cream freezer.
DOE requests comment on the proposed amended definition for ice-
cream freezer and the proposed definition for low-temperature freezer.
2. High-Temperature CRE
DOE defines ``commercial refrigerator as'' a unit of commercial
refrigeration equipment in which all refrigerated compartments in the
unit are capable of operating at or above 32 [deg]F (2
[deg]F). 10 CFR 431.62.
Section 2.1 of appendix B requires testing commercial refrigerators
to an IAT of 38 [deg]F 2 [deg]F. DOE is aware of equipment
that meets the definition of a commercial refrigerator but is capable
of operating only at temperatures above the 38 [deg]F 2
[deg]F IAT required for testing. Examples of these types of equipment
include CRE designed for storing or displaying chocolate and/or wine,
with typical recommended storage temperatures around 55 [deg]F.
Consistent with the current test procedure, manufacturers certify such
equipment using the LAPT setting. LAPT can vary by model, so this
approach which does not rely on a uniform operating temperature can
result in measured energy consumptions that are not necessarily
comparable between models.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE stated that it was considering adding a
definition for ``high-temperature refrigerator'' to better delineate
commercial refrigerators not capable of operating at the IAT required
for testing a commercial refrigerator. 86 FR 31182, 31184.
The Joint Commenters, NEEA, CA IOUs, AHRI, and Hussmann supported
DOE establishing a new definition for ``high-temperature refrigerator''
and separate test requirements for this equipment. (Joint Commenters,
No. 8, p. 1-2; NEEA, No. 5, p. 6; CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 5; AHRI, No. 3,
p. 3; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 4)
AHRI and Hussmann commented that they support a higher temperature
category and requested that it be representative of the higher
temperature ranges used in the marketplace (e.g., floral, wine, cigars,
meat aging, etc.). (AHRI, No. 3, p. 3; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 4)
ITW commented that it is desirable to maintain consistent testing
criteria between DOE equipment families to eliminate errors and
misunderstandings between nationally recognized testing laboratories
(``NRTLs''), DOE, manufacturers, and consumers. (ITW, No. 2, p. 2) ITW
commented that changes to the test procedure for high-temperature
refrigerators would account for only nominal differences in the
measured energy consumption rate, while adding complexity. (Id.)
NEEA commented that DOE should develop a definition and test
procedure for high temperature commercial cabinets as a parallel to
DOE's definition of residential high temperature refrigerators, and
stated that there is a the potential for energy savings in this
equipment category. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 6-7)
DOE is aware of certain commercial refrigerators that are intended
for use only at IATs higher than the 38 [deg]F 2 [deg]F
required by the existing DOE test procedure. For example, 133 models of
single-compartment commercial refrigerators are rated at LAPTs at or
above 40 [deg]F. By definition, these models are not capable of
operating at the required test integrated average temperature. 10 CFR
431.62. As indicated in comments from interested parties, categorizing
these commercial refrigerators in a separate high-temperature category
would allow DOE to consider test procedures for this
[[Page 39171]]
equipment that may better represent actual use.
To allow for differentiating typical commercial refrigerators from
commercial refrigerators that operate only at higher temperature, DOE
proposes to define ``high-temperature refrigerator'' as a commercial
refrigerator that is not capable of operating with an integrated
average temperature as low as 38.0 [deg]F (2.0 [deg]F). DOE
recognizes that certain commercial refrigerators may be capable of
operating with IAT of 38.0 [deg]F (2.0 [deg]F) but are
intended for use at higher storage temperatures. However, DOE is
proposing to define ``high-temperature refrigerator'' based on
operating capability rather than intended use to ensure consistent
application of DOE's definitions and to ensure that CRE currently
tested and rated with IATs of 38.0 [deg]F (2.0 [deg]F)
would continue to be categorized, tested, and rated at that operating
condition.
To clarify the classification of commercial refrigerators overall,
DOE is also proposing to define the term ``medium-temperature
refrigerator'' to refer to commercial refrigerators capable of
operating with IATs of 38.0 [deg]F (2.0 [deg]F) or lower.
As discussed further in section III.B.1.b of this document, DOE is
proposing to require testing high-temperature refrigerators according
to AHRI 1200-202X, which requires an IAT of 55 [deg]F 2.0
[deg]F. Under the proposed approach, a commercial refrigerator would be
tested and rated as either a medium-temperature refrigerator (if
capable of operating with an IAT of 38.0 [deg]F (2.0
[deg]F)) or as a high-temperature refrigerator (if not capable of
operating with an IAT as low as 38.0 [deg]F (2.0 [deg]F)).
DOE recognizes that certain commercial refrigerators may be capable
of operating at both IATs of 38 [deg]F (2.0 [deg]F) and 55
[deg]F (2.0 [deg]F). In the April 2014 Final Rule, DOE
stated that CRE capable of operating at IATs that span multiple
equipment categories must be certified and comply with DOE's
regulations for each applicable equipment category. 79 FR 22277, 22291.
The proposed definition of high-temperature refrigerator would exclude
CRE capable of operating at medium temperatures (i.e., an IAT of 38
[deg]F), and therefore would exclude models capable of operating at
both IATs. Thus, as proposed, a unit of CRE capable of operating at
both IATs of 38 [deg]F and 55 [deg]F would meet the definition of only
a medium-temperature refrigerator.
As an alternative to the proposed definition, DOE could instead
define high-temperature refrigerator based only on the capability of a
commercial refrigerator to operate at IATs of 55 [deg]F (2.0 [deg]F). Under such an alternate approach, a unit of CRE
capable of operating at both IATs of 38 [deg]F and 55 [deg]F would meet
the definition of both a medium-temperature refrigerator and a high-
temperature refrigerator.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for high-
temperature refrigerator and medium-temperature refrigerator, including
whether the terms should be mutually exclusive or constructed such that
equipment could be considered to meet both definitions.
DOE discusses proposed test requirements for this equipment in
section III.B.1.b of this NOPR.
3. Convertible Equipment
In the April 2014 Final Rule, DOE noted that some basic models of
CRE may have operating characteristics that include an operating
temperature range that spans multiple equipment classes and
subsequently required that self-contained equipment or remote
condensing equipment with thermostats capable of operating at IATs that
span multiple equipment categories be certified and comply with DOE's
regulations for each applicable equipment category. 79 FR 22277, 22291.
Similarly, DOE adopted requirements for remote condensing equipment
without a thermostat that specify that if a given basic model of CRE is
marketed, designed, or intended to operate at IATs spanning multiple
equipment categories, the CRE basic model must be certified and comply
with the relevant energy conservation standards for all applicable
equipment categories. Id.
DOE is proposing to specify in 10 CFR 429.42 the requirements from
the April 2014 Final Rule that require basic models of CRE that operate
in multiple equipment classes to certify and comply with the energy
conservation standards for each applicable equipment class. This
proposal is consistent with the notice of petition for a test procedure
waiver that DOE published on May 26, 2017, for AHT Cooling Systems GmbH
and AHT Cooling Systems USA Inc. (``AHT'') in which DOE declined to
grant AHT an interim waiver that would allow for testing only in the
ice-cream freezer equipment class for AHT's specified multi-mode CRE
basic models. 82 FR 24330.
DOE requests comment on the proposal to specify the requirements
from the April 2014 Final Rule regarding basic models of CRE that
operate in multiple equipment classes.
B. Updates to Industry Test Standards
DOE's test procedure for CRE currently adopts through reference
certain provisions of AHRI 1200-2010, ASHRAE 72-2005, and AHAM HRF-1-
2008. 10 CFR 431.63. With regard to the provisions relevant to the DOE
test procedure, AHRI 1200-2010 references certain provisions of ASHRAE
72-2005 and AHAM HRF-1-2008.
Since establishing the DOE test procedure in appendix B, AHRI,
ASHRAE, and AHAM have published updated versions of the referenced test
standards. On October 1, 2013, ANSI approved an updated version of AHRI
1200, ANSI/AHRI Standard 1200 (I-P), ``2013 Standard for Performance
Rating of Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandizers and Storage
Cabinets,'' (``AHRI 1200-2013''). On August 1, 2018, ANSI approved an
updated version of ASHRAE 72, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72-2018, ``Method of
Testing Open and Closed Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers,''
(``ASHRAE 72-2018''). AHAM more recently approved and published an
updated version of its industry test standard, AHAM HRF-1-2019,
``Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances,'' (``AHAM
HRF-1-2019''). For each of these industry test standards, DOE has
initially determined that the changes within these updated industry
test standards are either editorial, improve clarity, better harmonize
with the DOE test procedure, or not relevant to CRE (e.g., relevant to
products such as consumer refrigerators). Based on DOE's initial
assessment, the changes in the updated versions of the industry test
standards would not impact the measured energy consumption, volume, or
TDA of CRE, as applicable.
DOE is also aware of updates being considered for AHRI 1200-2013
and ASHRAE 72-2018. DOE has participated in the industry committee
meetings in which updates to these industry standards are being
developed. Based on these meetings, the changes being considered by the
industry committee appear intended largely to improve the clarity,
consistency, and representativeness of the industry test methods. DOE
discusses these changes further in sections III.B.1 and III.B.2 of this
NOPR.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether it should
reference the most recent versions of AHRI 1200 or ASHRAE 72 and
whether any of the updates to these standards would have an impact on
the measured energy consumption of CRE, and if so, how. 86 FR 31182,
31185. DOE additionally
[[Page 39172]]
requested comment on whether the CRE test procedure should reference
the most current version of AHAM HRF-1 and whether any of the updates
to that standard would have an impact on measured volume, and if so,
how. Id.
Hoshizaki and Continental commented in support of referencing AHRI
1200-2013 and ASHRAE 72-2018. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 1; Continental,
No. 6, p. 1) The CA IOUs commented in support of referencing ASHRAE 72-
2018. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 1; Continental, No. 6, p. 1CA IOUs, No.
10, p. 2) ITW commented that the DOE should only consider the ANSI
approved versions of AHRI 1200-2013, ASHRAE 72-2018, and AHAM HRF-1-
2008 \7\ standards, stating that any reference to standards not yet
approved would be premature and would not consider the final impact.
(ITW, No. 2, p. 2) AHRI and Hussmann commented that DOE should
incorporate by reference the upcoming versions of AHRI 1200 and ASHRAE
72. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 3-4; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 5) AHRI and Hussmann
commented that both draft standards are in the review phase and that
draft copies were available to DOE upon request. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ITW and other commenters did not reference a specific ANSI
approved version of AHRI 1200, ASHRAE 72, and AHAM HRF-1. DOE
assumed commenters referenced the most recent ANSI approved versions
of these standards--AHRI 1200-2013 and ASHRAE 72-2018--unless
otherwise specified by the commenter. DOE assumed commenters
referenced the ANSI approved version of AHAM HRF-1 (i.e., HRF-1-
2008) referenced by ASHRAE 72-2018 and AHRI 1200-2013, unless
otherwise specified by the commenter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHRI and Hussmann commented that the AHAM HRF-1-2008 volume
calculations have been incorporated into the latest version of AHRI
1200 and ASHRAE 72 and that the appropriate volume requirements are
covered in appendix C of AHRI Standard 1200 to avoid referencing a
standard that does not specifically apply to industry equipment. (AHRI,
No. 3, p. 3-4; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 5) AHRI and Hussmann also commented
that appendix C of AHRI 1200 encourages the use of computer models to
determine measured volumes. (Id.)
Hoshizaki and Continental commented that DOE should not require
retesting and recertification of already certified products, as doing
so would create additional burden on manufacturers. (Hoshizaki, No. 13,
p. 1; Continental, No. 6, p. 1) AHRI and Hussmann commented that DOE
would need to evaluate if the updated standards would require retesting
of already certified equipment or reevaluation of energy efficiency
metrics and levels. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 3-4; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 5)
DOE is aware that revisions to AHRI 1200-2013 and ASHRAE 72-2018
are underway. Specifically, DOE expects the ongoing revision to AHRI
1200-2013 to be near complete and has considered a draft version \8\ of
the updated standard for the purposes of the proposals in this NOPR
(referred to as ``AHRI 1200-202X'' to distinguish this from existing
versions of the standard). Similarly, DOE expects that the ongoing
revision to ASHRAE 72 is also nearly complete. On April 22, 2022,
ASHRAE published a second public review draft of the revision to ASHRAE
72-2018 (referred to as ``ASHRAE 72-2018R'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ On August 17, 2021, AHRI shared with DOE a draft version of
AHRI 1200 for the purposes of referencing. AHRI indicated an
expected publication date by the end of 2021. The updated AHRI 1200
has not yet published, so DOE is referencing the draft standard in
this NOPR. As indicated in the AHRI correspondence, AHRI Standard
1200-202X is in draft form and its text was provided to the
Department for the purposes of review only during the drafting of
this NOPR. Free copies of published AHRI Standards and a listing of
documents open for Public Comment are available on the AHRI website.
The draft of AHRI 1200 is available in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking on regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference the most current
versions of AHRI 1200 and ASHRAE 72, as discussed in the following
sections. For the purposes of this NOPR, DOE references AHRI 1200-202X
and ASHRAE 72-2018R to indicate the language in the available draft
updates. DOE has participated in the committee processes to develop the
revised standards for both AHRI 1200 and ASHRAE 72. Based on this
participation, DOE does not expect that substantive revisions will be
made to AHRI 1200-202X and ASHRAE 72-2018R in the final published
versions of the standards. DOE's intent is to adopt the final versions
of these industry standards (with deviations as proposed in this NOPR)
when they are available, to the extent that they are consistent with
the review drafts discussed in this document. DOE will review and
consider the final published versions of each standard when available.
DOE acknowledges that the versions of the industry test standards
proposed for incorporation by reference in this NOPR are not yet ANSI
approved. However, DOE has tentatively determined that these standards
provide an appropriate basis for testing that would produce test
results which reflect energy use of CRE during a representative average
use cycle and would not be unduly burdensome to conduct as required by
42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2).
The following sections discuss the revisions made in each of these
industry test standards and DOE's proposed adoption of certain
provisions of the industry standards into the DOE test procedure.
1. AHRI 1200
As stated in the June 2021 RFI, the 2013 revision to AHRI 1200
provides editorial, clarifying, or harmonizing updates that would not
impact the measured energy consumption, volume, or TDA of CRE as
compared to the current test procedure. 86 FR 31182, 31184. As compared
to AHRI 1200-2013, DOE has tentatively determined that the revisions in
AHRI 1200-202X are largely to improve clarity of the test standard.
These draft updates address application of the standard and its use in
relation to other industry standards (i.e., ASHRAE 72-2018).
Specifically, AHRI 1200-202X includes the following updates: harmonized
definitions for consistency with ASHRAE 72-2018 and DOE's existing
regulations; updated definitions for consistency with the use of the
rating standard; removal of test requirements that were duplicative
with ASHRAE 72-2018; clarified measurement requirements and the use of
calculations; inclusion of direct refrigerated volume measurement
instructions (rather than referencing the AHAM test standard); and
detailed total display area requirements and examples.
DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference AHRI 1200-202X for use
in the DOE test procedure because DOE has tentatively determined that
the updates compared to AHRI 1200-2013 would improve the clarity of the
test standard, ensure consistent testing, and as a result would improve
reproducibility of the test procedure. As stated, AHRI 1200-202X
includes procedures for measuring refrigerated volume rather than
referring to the AHAM standard (although the procedures are consistent
between these standards). Therefore, DOE is proposing to remove the
incorporation by reference of AHAM HRF-1-2008 and instead refer to AHRI
1200-202X directly for refrigerated volume measurement. Based on DOE's
review of AHRI 1200-202X, the updates included in the standard are
primarily editorial and are not expected to change test results as
compared to the existing test procedure, except for the specific
updates as discussed in the following paragraphs. Therefore, DOE has
tentatively determined that any existing test data for CRE currently
available on the market are expected to be consistent with the proposed
test procedure.
[[Page 39173]]
DOE requests comment on the proposal to incorporate by reference
AHRI 1200-202X and on whether the use of the updated test method would
impact CRE ratings based on the current DOE test procedure.
In addition to the clarifying revisions that would not
substantively change testing as compared to the current approach using
the DOE test procedure and AHRI 1200-2013, AHRI 1200-202X also includes
two substantive additions: addressing the use of high glide
refrigerants and providing an additional temperature rating point for
``high temperature'' applications. DOE is proposing to adopt these
provisions in its test procedure, as discussed in the following
sections.
a. High Glide Refrigerants
For remote condensing CRE, AHRI 1200 provides calculations to
estimate the compressor energy consumption necessary to provide the
cooling to the refrigerator or freezer. These calculations are based on
the dew point of the refrigerant during testing, which is intended to
be representative of the evaporator temperature. See Table 1 and
Section 5.2.1 of AHRI 1200-2013 and AHRI 1200-202X.
For certain refrigerants, the saturated vapor temperature (i.e.,
the dew point) can be different from the saturated liquid temperature
at a given pressure, in which case the refrigerant is considered to
have ``glide.'' AHRI 1200-202X includes a definition for ``high glide
refrigerant'' as a zeotropic refrigerant blend whose temperature glide
is greater than 2 [deg]F. ASHRAE defines ``glide'' as the absolute
value of the difference between the starting and ending temperatures of
a phase-change process by a refrigerant within a component of a
refrigerating system, exclusive of any subcooling or superheating. This
term usually describes condensation or evaporation of a zeotrope.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See ASHRAE's glossary of defined terms at xp20.ashrae.org/terminology/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For high glide refrigerants, the refrigerant dew point is not
necessarily representative of the overall evaporator temperature. AHRI
1200-202X specifies that for high glide refrigerants, the temperature
used to calculate compressor energy consumption is based on an adjusted
mid-point evaporator temperature rather than an adjusted dew point
temperature.
Because the evaporator provides cooling to the CRE over the entire
heat exchanger surface, using the evaporator mid-point temperature
would ensure that the temperature used to calculate compressor energy
consumption is more representative of the overall evaporator
temperature. DOE has initially determined that the AHRI 1200-202X
approach of using the evaporator mid-point temperature rather than
refrigerant dew point is more representative of actual remote
condensing CRE use for which the equipment uses high glide refrigerants
and would improve consistency of remote testing using different
refrigerants. Additionally, this approach would improve consistency
when testing a given remote condensing CRE model with either high glide
or low glide refrigerants by ensuring that the evaporator mid-point
temperature for a high glide refrigerant is similar to the refrigerant
dew point for a low glide refrigerant.
DOE is proposing to adopt through reference the high glide
refrigerant provisions of AHRI 1200-202X. Because the existing DOE test
procedure, by reference to AHRI 1200-2013, only references adjusted dew
point for calculating compressor energy consumption, this proposed
amendment would result in different test results for remote condensing
CRE models tested with a high glide refrigerant. However, DOE expects
that current remote condensing CRE models are typically tested and
rated using low glide refrigerants (most commonly R-404A); therefore,
DOE has tentatively determined that this proposed test procedure
amendment is not expected to result in changes to rated energy
consumption for any currently available remote CRE models.
DOE requests comment on the proposal to incorporate by reference
AHRI 1200-202X, including the new provisions regarding high glide
refrigerants. DOE also requests information on whether any remote
condensing CRE are currently tested and rated using high glide
refrigerants and whether the proposed test procedure would impact the
rated energy consumption for such models.
b. High Temperature Applications
As discussed in section III.A.2 of this NOPR, DOE is proposing a
definition for ``high-temperature refrigerator.'' In the context of
consumer refrigeration products, DOE established the miscellaneous
refrigeration product category to capture similar consumer products,
with ``coolers'' tested at a standardized cabinet temperature of 55
[deg]F.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether an IAT of 55
[deg]F 2 [deg]F is an appropriate test condition for high-
temperature CRE and data on the typical operating temperatures for this
equipment. 86 FR 31182, 31184. DOE also requested comment on whether
any additional clarifications to the test procedure are needed (i.e.,
appropriate loading and door-opening requirements for high-temperature
CRE). Id.
AHRI, Hussmann, NEEA, and CA IOUs commented that an IAT of 55
[deg]F 2 [deg]F is an appropriate test condition for
commercial high-temperature refrigerators. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 4;
Hussmann, No. 14, p. 3; NEEA, No. 5, p. 7; CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 5) AHRI
and Hussmann commented that this test condition was incorporated into
the latest draft version of AHRI Standard 1200. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 4;
Hussmann, No. 14, p. 4)
NEEA also commented that higher-temperature CRE are sometimes
designed to have a highly specific end use such as the following: high
humidity floral cabinets (~35 [deg]F), wine chillers (~55 [deg]F), low
humidity chocolate cabinets (~65 [deg]F), higher humidity (~70 percent
relative humidity) cigar cabinets (~70 [deg]F). (NEEA, No. 5, p. 7)
NEEA commented in support of the 55 [deg]F IAT, but encouraged DOE to
identify whether more than one IAT is needed to effectively represent
higher-temperature CRE. (Id.) The CA IOUs also commented in support of
the DOE testing high temperature CRE products at a consistent operating
temperature rather than at an LAPT. (CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 5)
AHRI and Hussmann commented that the door openings and loadings
outlined in the ASHRAE 72-2018 are an adequate representation of high
temperature CRE systems. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 3; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 4)
NEEA recommended that DOE evaluate if the International
Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'') standard 62552:2015, ``Household
refrigerating appliances--Characteristics and test methods'' (``IEC
62552:2015'') can be used with high temperature CRE. (NEEA, No. 5, p.
6-7)
Section 3.15.1 of AHRI 1200-202X specifies that CRE intended for
high temperature applications shall have an integrated average
temperature of 55 [deg]F 2.0 [deg]F. As stated, DOE
requires testing high-temperature consumer refrigeration products
(i.e., ``coolers'') at a standardized cabinet temperature of 55 [deg]F.
10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A.
Based on consideration of comments from interested parties, the
industry rating method, and the analogous existing test procedure for
consumer refrigeration products, DOE is proposing
[[Page 39174]]
to require testing high-temperature refrigerators according to AHRI
1200-202X, which requires an integrated average temperature of 55
[deg]F 2.0 [deg]F.
As noted by commenters, high-temperature refrigerators may serve
many distinct applications, each with specific intended storage
conditions. However, DOE has initially determined that the IAT
specified in AHRI 1200-202X is most representative of high-temperature
refrigerator operating conditions overall because the high-temperature
refrigerators that DOE identified have operating temperature ranges
which include 55 [deg]F and allows for consistent measurements of
energy use for equipment in this category.
In referencing AHRI 1200-202X, the DOE test procedure would also
require that high-temperature refrigerators be tested according to the
same procedure as other CRE, other than the IAT. Supported by comments
from AHRI and Hussmann, DOE has tentatively determined that the door
opening and loading procedures in ASHRAE 72-2018R are appropriate for
high-temperature refrigerators. Following the proposed test approach
would also ensure consistent test methods across CRE categories, albeit
at different IATs.
In response to NEEA's comment regarding the use of IEC 62552:2015
for high-temperature refrigerators, DOE notes that IEC 62552:2015 is
intended for testing household refrigerating appliances. Additionally,
DOE's test procedures for consumer refrigeration products do not follow
the approach in IEC 62552:2015 and instead reference AHAM HRF-1-2019.
See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A and appendix B. Based on
available industry standards and for consistency with existing DOE test
procedures, DOE has tentatively determined that testing according to
AHRI 1200-202X would be more appropriate for high-temperature CRE than
IEC 62552:2015.
DOE requests comment on the proposal to adopt a rating point of 55
[deg]F 2.0 [deg]F for high-temperature refrigerators by
adopting through reference certain provisions of AHRI 1200-202X.
Because the proposed test procedure for high-temperature
refrigerators would amend the current test approach for certain
commercial refrigerators (i.e., those currently rated using the LAPT),
DOE is proposing that the high-temperature refrigerator provisions in
AHRI 1200-202X would not be required for use until the compliance date
of any energy conservation standards established for high-temperature
refrigerators based on the proposed test procedure. Under this
approach, CRE that would be defined as high-temperature refrigerators
would continue to be tested and rated at the LAPT and subject to the
current DOE energy conservation standards for CRE.
2. ASHRAE 72
As stated in the June 2021 RFI, the 2014 and 2018 revisions to
ASHRAE 72 provide editorial, clarifying, or harmonizing revisions that
would not impact the measured energy consumption, volume, or TDA of CRE
as compared to the existing DOE test procedure. 86 FR 31182, 31184.
The revisions in ASHRAE 72-2018R as compared to the most recent
2018 version are largely to improve clarity of the test standard and
include substantial re-organization of the test standard. Specifically,
the foreword to ASHRAE 72-2018R states that the revision reorganizes
the standard to make it easier to read and use; includes updates in the
loading of test simulators and filler material; revises the sequence of
operations during the test; provides instructions for certain
measurements; and adds provisions for roll-in racks. The following
paragraphs describe these revisions in more detail.
The reorganization of the test standard in ASHRAE 72-2018R is not
expected to substantively change any test requirements as compared to
the current test procedure. DOE understands that the intent of the
reordering was to more closely align the test standard with the order
of operations that a test facility would follow when conducting
testing.
The updates to the loading of test simulators (a small package with
temperature measuring device) and filler material (material loaded
between test simulators for additional product mass, intended to
approximate food product loading) in ASHRAE 72-2018R revise certain
requirements included in ASHRAE 72-2005. These updates change certain
instructions regarding loading, but DOE has tentatively determined that
these updates are either clarifying in nature or more closely align
ASHRAE 72 with the capability of test facilities to conduct testing.
Specifically, ASHRAE 72-2018R would improve the clarity of the
simulator loading location instructions, more clearly define net usable
volume to determine the loaded volume, and adjust the fill volumes from
70 to 90 percent of the net usable volume to 60 to 80 percent. See
Section 5.4 of ASHRAE 72-2018R.
DOE has tentatively determined that in principle the update to the
fill volume requirement would be a substantive change to the current
DOE test procedure. However, DOE understands that ASHRAE implemented
this revision because test facilities currently may have difficulty
loading to more than 80 percent of the net usable volume. Based on this
difficulty, DOE expects that most tests are currently conducted with
loads between 70 to 80 percent of the net usable volume. Additionally,
the revision to allow loading as low as 60 percent of net usable volume
would allow additional flexibility for test facilities when loading
equipment for testing and any impact on measured energy use is expected
to be minimal. DOE also expects that to the extent that testing with a
lower load percentage would have any impact on measured energy use, it
would likely increase measured energy use as CRE with doors would have
more internal compartment volume occupied by air rather than the test
load, allowing for more internal air to exchange with warm ambient air
during the test procedure's door opening period. Therefore, DOE has
tentatively determined that this proposed amendment to the test
procedure would not allow any CRE not currently complying with DOE's
energy conservation standards to become compliant.
Section 7.1 of ASHRAE 72-2018R specifies the sequence of operations
for conducting a test. The overall sequence requires conducting two
tests, Test A and Test B, to verify stability of the unit under test.
Both Test A and Test B would be conducted in the same way--starting
with a defrost and with door or drawer openings, night curtains, and
lighting occupancy sensors and controls, as applicable--as specified in
Section 7.3 of ASHRAE 72-2018R. The test is determined to be stable if
the average temperature of simulators during Test B is within 0.4
[deg]F of the average measured temperature during Test A. See Section
7.5 of ASHRAE 72-2018R. As compared to the current DOE test procedure
and ASHRAE 72-2005, the 2018R version provides specificity for how to
determine that a test is stable. ASHRAE 72-2005 currently requires
steady-state conditions for the test (section 7.1.1) and a
stabilization period during which the CRE operates with no adjustment
to controls for at least 12 hours (section 7.4). Section 3 of ASHRAE
72-2005 defines steady-state as the condition in which the average
temperature of all test simulators changes less than 0.4 [deg]F from
one 24-hour period or refrigeration cycle to the next. ASHRAE 72-2005
does not specify whether the 24-hour periods used to determine steady-
state conditions
[[Page 39175]]
include door openings, which are required to be performed during the
24-hour performance test. Additionally, the temperatures maintained
over a 24-hour period with door openings may differ from a 24-hour
period with no door openings. If steady-state is determined without
door openings, the door openings during a test may increase simulator
temperatures outside of the desired range for a test, requiring a
change to the temperature setting and re-starting the steady-state
determination prior to another test period.
Whereas, the approach included in ASHRAE 72-2018R specifies that
Test A and Test B are conducted in the same way, and therefore the
temperatures used to determine stability would also be at the target
temperatures for the test. DOE has determined that this approach
provides clarity to the existing test procedure while limiting burden
by reducing the need for re-tests (i.e., by maintaining target
temperatures during the stability determination). Because the sequence
of operations in ASHRAE 72-2018R is generally consistent with ASHRAE
72-2005 but with added specificity, DOE does not expect that the
updated sequence of operations would impact current CRE ratings based
on the current DOE test procedure.
Additionally, ASHRAE 72-2018R more explicitly specifies test
conditions and data collection requirements in a new appendix A:
``Measurement Locations, Tolerances, Accuracies, and Other
Characteristics.'' This appendix includes a table that presents the
measurements required during testing, the measurement location (if
applicable), the period of time the measurement is taken (e.g., once
per minute throughout Test A and Test B, once before Test B, and once
after Test B, etc.), the required measurement accuracy, and the
required value (i.e., the test condition, if applicable). The
measurement instructions and requirements in appendix A to ASHRAE 72-
2018R are generally consistent with those required by the current DOE
test procedure, by reference to ASHRAE 72-2005, but with added
specificity to clarify the applicable requirements. Because the
measurement instructions in ASHRAE 72-2018R are generally consistent
with ASHRAE 72-2005 but with added specificity, DOE does not expect
that the updated requirements in appendix A would impact current CRE
ratings based on the current DOE test procedure.
ASHRAE 72-2018R also adds provisions for testing CRE used with
roll-in racks. Sections 5.4.1 and 5.4.5 of ASHRAE 72-2018R provide
loading instructions for CRE used with roll-in racks. These sections
are generally consistent with the existing test requirements for CRE,
but with additional clarification specific to roll-in racks to describe
the determination of net usable volume and loading of test simulators.
Whereas, ASHRAE 72-2005 includes roll-in racks within the scope of the
test standard (see section 9.1) but does not provide additional test
instructions for these models. Because the instructions for testing CRE
used with roll-in racks in ASHRAE 72-2018R are generally consistent
with ASHRAE 72-2005 but with added specificity, DOE does not expect
that the updated requirements in appendix A would impact current CRE
ratings based on the current DOE test procedure.
As discussed, the test procedure in ASHRAE 72-2018R is generally
consistent with the existing DOE test procedure, which references
ASHRAE 72-2005. The updates included in ASHRAE 72-2018R are generally
editorial, clarifying, or harmonizing revisions. Additionally, the
substantive revisions in ASHRAE 72-2018R provide additional specificity
to the existing test procedure requirements and would improve
repeatability, reproducibility, and representativeness of the test
procedure while limiting test burden. For these reasons, DOE is
proposing to incorporate by reference ASHRAE 72-2018R into the DOE test
procedure. For these same reasons, DOE has tentatively determined that
any test data for CRE currently available on the market are expected to
be consistent with the proposed test procedure.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate by reference
ASHRAE 72-2018R, including on whether the updates included in the
industry test standard would impact the measured energy consumption of
any CRE currently available.
In response to the June 2021 RFI, Hoshizaki recommended that the
ASHRAE 72 committee review the testing with drawers and determine the
requirements for loading of drawers, opening of drawers, and sequence
of such actions. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 3) DOE understands that the
ASHRAE 72 committee is reviewing test procedures for CRE with drawers
to consider whether additional direction is needed.
Section 1.3.16 of appendix B of the DOE test procedure specifies
that drawers are to be treated as identical to doors when conducting
the DOE test procedure, and that drawers should be configured with the
drawer pans that allow for the maximum packing of test simulators and
filler packages without the filler packages and test simulators
exceeding 90 percent of the refrigerated volume. Packing of test
simulators and filler packages must be in accordance with the
requirements for commercial refrigerators without shelves, as specified
in Section 6.2.3 of ASHRAE 72-2005. Section 1.3.16 of appendix B.
CRE with drawers are typically configured to hold standardized food
pans for food storage. Pans loaded into the drawers are not typically
filled with food above the top edge of the pan to prevent spilling or
interfering with other drawers. Additionally, these CRE may require the
space above the pans to be unloaded to allow for air circulation within
the cabinet.
The current DOE test procedure instructions do not specify any test
simulator or filler package load limits for the pans, other than not
exceeding 90 percent of the refrigerated volume. For other CRE tests,
ASHRAE 72-2005 and ASHRAE 72-2018R specify test simulator and filler
package loading based on net usable volume (i.e., the volume of
interior usable space intended for refrigerated storage or display,
specifically consisting of the usable interior volume within the
claimed load limit boundaries; see Section 3 of ASHRAE 72-2005) rather
than refrigerated volume. See Section 5.4.2 of ASHRAE 72-2018R and
Section 6.2.5 of ASHRAE 72-2005. Loading based on the net usable volume
accounts for load limits within the CRE and would prevent overloading a
CRE to the extent that could impact airflow circulation within the
cabinet.
To ensure consistent testing for CRE with drawers, and to allow for
testing that is most representative of typical use, DOE is proposing to
specify in appendix B that CRE with drawers be tested according to the
existing requirements with the additional instruction that, for the
purposes of loading pans in drawers, the net usable volume is the
storage volume of the pans up to the top edge of the pan.
The drawer loading instructions in appendix B reference Section
6.2.3 of ASHRAE 72-2005, which specifies instructions for loading
compartments without shelves. Specifically, section 6.2.3 requires
situating test simulators at the left and right ends (i.e., sides), at
the front and back, and top and bottom locations of the compartment. To
make explicit the application of this instruction to standardized food
pans, DOE is proposing to require that test simulators be placed at the
corner locations of each pan. For any pans not wide or deep enough to
allow for test simulators at each corner (i.e., less than 7.5 inches
wide or deep, based on the 3.75 inch test simulator width), DOE is
[[Page 39176]]
proposing that the test simulators would be centered along the width or
depth accordingly. Similarly, for any pans not tall enough to allow for
test simulators at the specified top and bottom locations (i.e., pans
less than 4 inches tall, based on the 2 inch test simulator height),
DOE is proposing that a test simulator only be loaded at the specified
top location within the standardized food pan.
DOE requests comment on the proposed additional instructions
regarding loading drawers. DOE requests information on whether the
proposed approach is consistent with any future industry standard
revisions to address this issue. DOE requests comment on whether other
instructions for CRE with drawers should be revised (e.g., fully open
definition for drawers) or if additional instructions are needed.
3. Secondary Coolants
Certain CRE are installed for use with a secondary coolant. In this
configuration, a remotely cooled fluid (e.g., a propylene glycol
solution) is supplied to the cabinet and absorbs heat from the cabinet
without the secondary coolant undergoing a phase change.
AHRI publishes a rating standard that is applicable to CRE that use
a secondary coolant or refrigerant, AHRI Standard 1320 (I-P), ``2011
Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial Refrigerated Display
Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets for Use With Secondary
Refrigerants,'' (``AHRI 1320-2011''), approved by ANSI on April 17,
2012. AHRI 1320-2011 is applicable to CRE that are equipped and
designed to work with electrically driven, medium-temperature, single-
phase secondary coolant systems, but excludes equipment used for low-
temperature applications, secondary coolants involving a phase change
(e.g., ice slurries or carbon dioxide), and self-contained CRE. AHRI
1320-2011 includes similar rating temperature conditions as those in
AHRI 1200-2013 and references ASHRAE 72-2005 and AHAM HRF-1-2008 for
the measurement of energy consumption and calculation of refrigerated
volume, respectively. The only substantive differences between AHRI
1200-2013 and AHRI 1320-2011 are the inclusion of secondary refrigerant
circulation pump energy consumption in the calculation of total daily
energy consumption and revised coefficients of performance to determine
compressor energy consumption.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether AHRI 1320-
2011 would be an appropriate test method to measure the total daily
energy consumption of CRE that use a secondary refrigerant circuit, and
whether it would provide representative measurements of energy use. 86
FR 31182, 31185. DOE also sought information and data on CRE designed
to work with electrically driven, medium-temperature, single-phase
secondary coolant systems, including the typical field installations
and operating conditions. Id.
AHRI and Hussmann commented that AHRI 1320-2011 is due to begin
revisions as soon as the updated AHRI 1200-202X completes the review
cycle, and that the updated AHRI 1320 standard will then cover the
applicable secondary coolant systems and would be an appropriate test
method to measure the total daily energy consumption of CRE that use a
secondary refrigerant circuit. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 4; Hussmann, No. 14, p.
5)
DOE also requested comment on whether manufacturers sell or plan to
sell CRE with secondary coolant that would be outside the stated
applicability of AHRI 1320-2011, including low-temperature equipment or
CRE using secondary coolants with a phase change (e.g., ice slurries or
carbon dioxide), and on whether any other existing test standards are
appropriate for rating such equipment. Id.
Hussmann commented that they are not aware of any equipment with
secondary coolant that would be outside the stated applicability of
AHRI 1320-2011. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 6)
IGSD commented in support of DOE considering AHRI 1320-2011 for
secondary coolant systems, stating that studies have found that these
systems can consume just as much or less energy than systems that do
not, with the added benefit of using low-global warming potential
(``GWP'') refrigerants. (IGSD, No. 7, p. 1)
AHRI and Arneg commented that the use of secondary coolants is
requested by few end users and diminishing in number sold on the
market, including for phase change systems using CO2. (AHRI,
No. 3, p. 4; Arneg, No. 12, p. 1) Arneg commented that regulatory
emphasis should be placed on other types of equipment. AHRI commented
that it is not aware of any standards that measure the energy use of
CO2 with pumped overfeed phase change systems. (Id.)
AHRI commented that regardless of the cooling medium, the display
case will generally require the same amount of cooling. (AHRI, No. 3,
p. 4)
While CRE cooled by secondary coolants are less common than self-
contained or remote CRE, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference
AHRI 1320-2011 to provide a method for testing and rating the energy
use of such CRE. As stated, the only substantive difference between
AHRI 1200-2013 and AHRI 1320-2011 is the inclusion of secondary
refrigerant circulation pump energy consumption in the calculation of
total daily energy consumption.
DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference AHRI 1320-2011 for
testing CRE used with secondary coolants and to reference only the
specific sections within the standard that apply to CRE tested with
secondary coolants (i.e., those referring to pump energy and coolant
flow) and to otherwise reference the applicable requirements in AHRI
1200-202X. DOE understands that AHRI 1320-2011 may be updated
consistent with the updates in AHRI 1200-202X. DOE would consider the
updated version of AHRI 1320-2011 if it is available at the time of any
subsequent final rule to establish amended DOE test procedures for CRE.
Because CRE cooled by secondary coolants are not currently subject
to DOE's test procedure, DOE is proposing that the test procedure
referencing AHRI 1320-2011 would not be required for use until the
compliance date of any amended energy conservation standards for CRE
that consider such testing. DOE is aware that direct-expansion remote
CRE may also be capable of being installed with a secondary coolant.
Under this proposal, such equipment would continue to be tested and
rated using the approach currently required for remote condensing CRE.
The test procedure for secondary coolants proposed in this NOPR would
be applicable to equipment only capable of being installed with
secondary coolants, should any such models become available.
DOE requests comment on the proposal to incorporate by reference
AHRI 1320-2011 for CRE used with secondary coolants, including the
proposal to only reference the industry standard for provisions
specific to secondary coolants and to otherwise reference AHRI 1200-
202X, as proposed for other CRE.
4. International Standards Development
IGSD commented that the United for Efficiency public private
partnership, under the leadership of the United Nations Environment
Program, developed model regulation guidelines for CRE,\11\ which IGSD
suggested may
[[Page 39177]]
contain information of interest to DOE. (IGSD, No. 7, p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Available at united4efficiency.org/resources/model-regulation-guidelines-for-energy-efficient-and-climate-friendly-commercial-refrigeration-equipment/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has reviewed the model regulation guidelines for CRE and
recognizes the potential benefit of international harmonization and of
providing an example framework for regulations to facilitate
establishing them for jurisdictions where they are not yet in place.
The model regulation guidelines include scope of coverage, definitions,
test procedures, energy consumption requirements, additional equipment
regulations, and verification guidelines. The definitions and test
procedures referenced in the guidelines are not consistent with the
scope, definitions, and test procedures established by DOE under EPCA.
DOE has tentatively determined that requiring the approach as specified
in the model regulation guidelines would represent a significant burden
to the CRE industry while not resulting in test procedures that are
more representative of average use of CRE.
DOE is additionally proposing to define certain CRE and applicable
test procedure provisions for equipment that is outside of the scope of
the model regulation guidelines--e.g., high-temperature refrigerators,
blast chillers and blast freezers. The model regulation guidelines do
not present an opportunity to harmonize test procedures with such CRE.
For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, DOE is not
proposing to adopt the model regulation guidelines.
DOE requests comment on the model regulation guidelines and on
whether there are opportunities for DOE to harmonize its regulations
with other regulations in place for CRE.
C. Test Conditions for Specific CRE Categories
DOE has identified specific categories of CRE that are not
currently subject to the DOE test procedure or that the current test
procedure may not produce results that are representative of their use.
Additionally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') ENERGY
STAR program considered three of these equipment categories for scope
expansion and test method development during the Version 5.0
Specification development process: Refrigerated preparation and buffet
tables; chef bases or griddle stands; and blast chillers and
freezers.\12\ DOE has considered information gathered through the
ENERGY STAR process when developing the proposals included in this
NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Information and materials for ENERGY STAR's Specification
Version 5.0 process are available at www.energystar.gov/products/spec/commercial_refrigerators_and_freezers_specification_version_5_0_pd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the June 2021 RFI, the Joint Commenters and CA IOUs
commented in support of developing test methods for salad bars, buffet
tables, and refrigerated preparation tables; blast chillers and blast
freezers; chef bases and griddle stands; and mobile refrigerated
cabinets. (Joint Commenters, No. 8, p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 1) The
Joint Commenters commented in support of the test methods to allow for
comparable efficiency information across models and to allow the
consideration of both DOE and ENERGY STAR specifications for this
equipment. (Joint Commenters, No. 8, p. 2) NEEA recommended that DOE
align CRE test methods for these categories with the ENERGY STAR
Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers Specification Version 5.0.\13\
(NEEA, No. 5, p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ EPA's ENERGY STAR program released a Final Draft Version
5.0 Eligibility Criteria for commercial refrigerators and freezers
on January 19, 2022. For information on the Version 5.0
specification development, see www.energystar.gov/products/spec/commercial_refrigerators_and_freezers_specification_version_5_0_pd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE discusses each of these categories in the following sections.
1. Salad Bars, Buffet Tables and Refrigerated Preparation Tables
Salad bars, buffet tables, and other refrigerated holding and
serving equipment, including refrigerated preparation tables,\14\ are
CRE that store and display perishable items temporarily during food
preparation or service. These units typically have design attributes,
such as easily accessible or open bins that allow convenient and
unimpeded access to the refrigerated products, which make them unique
from CRE designed for storage or retailing. In the April 2014 Final
Rule, DOE did not establish test procedures for this equipment, but
maintained that this equipment meets the definition of CRE and is
covered equipment that could be subject to future test procedures and
energy conservation standards. 79 FR 22277, 22281. In the June 2021
RFI, DOE considered definitions and test procedures applicable to salad
bars, buffet tables, and refrigerated preparation tables. DOE also
requested information on other refrigerated holding and serving
equipment, including definitions and appropriate test procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ While the April 2014 Final Rule did not specifically refer
to refrigerated preparation tables, DOE is including them in this
category because they have similar features to salad bars and buffet
tables. Each of these equipment categories includes an open top area
for holding refrigerated pans and is used during food preparation
and service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEEA and the CA IOUs commented generally in support of DOE
developing test procedures for refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables,
and preparation tables. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 3; CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 3)
a. Definitions
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE noted that ASTM International F2143-16
``Standard Test Method for Performance of Refrigerated Buffet and
Preparation Tables'' (``ASTM F2143-16'') provides the following
definitions for refrigerated buffet and preparation tables:
Refrigerated buffet and preparation table--equipment
designed with a refrigerated open top or open condiment rail.
Refrigerated buffet table or unit--equipment designed with
mechanical refrigeration that is intended to receive refrigerated food
and maintain food product temperatures and is intended for customer
service such as a salad bar. A unit may or may not be equipped with a
lower refrigerated compartment.
Refrigerated food preparation unit--equipment designed
with a refrigerated open top or open condiment rail such as
refrigerated sandwich units, pizza preparation tables, and similar
equipment. The unit may or may not be equipped with a lower
refrigerated compartment.
86 FR 31182, 31185-31186. DOE noted that certain terms used within
these definitions are undefined (e.g., condiment rails, food product
temperatures). Id. DOE additionally noted that it was not aware of any
other industry standard definitions for these equipment. Id.
DOE additionally notes that the California Code of Regulations
(``CCR'') \15\ defines ``buffet table'' and ``preparation table'' as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ California's regulations for buffet tables and preparation
tables refer to the 2001 version of ASTM F2143. DOE has reviewed
ASTM F2143-16 for this NOPR as it is the most current version of the
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Buffet table'' means a commercial refrigerator, such as
a salad bar, that is designed with mechanical refrigeration and that is
intended to receive refrigerated food, to maintain food product
temperatures, and for customer service; and
``Preparation table'' means a commercial refrigerator with
a countertop refrigerated compartment with or without cabinets below,
and with self-contained refrigeration equipment. 20 CCR Sec. 1602.
[[Page 39178]]
Furthermore, EPA's ENERGY STAR program's Final Draft Version 5.0
Eligibility Criteria for commercial refrigerators and freezers includes
a definition for ``preparation or buffet table'' as a commercial
refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-freezer with a food condiment
rail designed to hold open perishable food and may or may not be
equipped with a lower compartment that may or may not be refrigerated.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested information on the suitability
of the ASTM F2143-16 definitions for refrigerated buffet and
preparation tables (and also their applicability to salad bars) as
potential regulatory definitions for this equipment. 86 FR 31182,
31186. DOE also requested comment on whether any further delineation
would be necessary to account for the range of performance related
features available in this equipment (e.g., presence of pan covers,
refrigerated storage compartments, and any other unique configurations
or features that may require consideration for any potential test
procedures). DOE further requested comment on the specific features and
equipment capabilities that should be included in definitions for
refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and preparation tables. Id. For
example, DOE sought information on the factors that would differentiate
this equipment from other typical CRE. Id. DOE also requested comment
on whether potential definitions should specify temperature operating
ranges, and if so, what the appropriate ranges would be. Id.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE also noted that the configuration of
salad bars, buffet tables, and refrigerated preparation tables may
raise questions as to whether a unit is commercial hybrid refrigeration
equipment. Id. DOE defines ``commercial hybrid refrigeration
equipment'' as a unit of CRE (1) that consists of two or more thermally
separated refrigerated compartments that are in two or more different
equipment families, and (2) that is sold as a single unit. 10 CFR
431.62.
DOE discussed in the June 2021 RFI that additional detail may be
necessary to distinguish between a unit that is a salad bar, buffet
table, or refrigerated preparation table and a unit that is commercial
hybrid equipment that includes a salad bar, buffet table, or
refrigerated preparation table. 86 FR 31182, 31186. Refrigerated salad
bars, buffet tables, and preparation tables typically have removable
pans or bins that directly contact the chilled air in the refrigerated
compartment of the unit. With that configuration, the entirety of the
chilled compartment and surface pans would potentially be considered a
refrigerated salad bar, buffet table, or preparation table. In
contrast, if a unit includes solid partitions between the chilled
compartment and the pans or bins on top of the unit, such a
configuration would potentially be considered thermal separation and
the unit would be considered a commercial hybrid consisting of a
refrigerated salad bar, buffet table, or preparation table with a
refrigerator and/or freezer.
DOE requested comment on whether the presence of thermally
separating partitions should be considered as a factor to differentiate
between (a) refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and preparation
tables; and (b) commercial hybrid units consisting of a refrigerated
salad bar, buffet table, or preparation table with a refrigerator and/
or freezer. Id.
AHRI commented that salad bars and buffet tables are generally
self-service equipment, whereas preparation tables are store-service
equipment, stating that service could be either employee or customer
operated for salad bars, condiment rails, etc. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 5)
AHRI and Continental commented that buffet and preparation tables
often have upsized refrigeration systems with larger compressors,
larger evaporators, additional fans, and modified or specialized air
flow patterns to maintain food-safe temperatures in the open pans.
(AHRI, No. 3, p. 5; Continental, No. 6, p. 2) ITW commented that long-
term stability required by operators increases the demand for
refrigeration system capacity. (ITW, No. 2, p. 3)
AHRI and Hussmann commented that the definition for ``Refrigerated
Buffet and Preparation Table'' should be split to better define each
unique case type, with ``open top'' and ``open condiment rail'' also
being defined. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 4-5; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 6) AHRI and
Hussmann commented that the definition for ``refrigerated food
preparation unit'' should be clearly defined since the definition is
similar to ``refrigerated buffet and preparation table.'' (Id.)
AHRI and Hussmann further commented that the ASTM definition for
``refrigerated buffet table or unit'' states that the unit is intended
to receive refrigerated food and maintain food product temperatures and
is intended for customer service such as a salad bar, and that the
``refrigerated food'' temperature should be included in the definition
as well as the temperature at which the food must be maintained and for
an expected duration. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 4-5; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 6)
Hoshizaki commented that the ability to have cooled products in
pans on the top and a refrigerated section below the pans in one unit
is a feature of preparation tables. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 1) Hoshizaki
commented that refrigerated preparation tables are already defined in
NSF International (``NSF'') \16\/ANSI 7-2019, ``Commercial
Refrigerators and Freezers,'' (``NSF 7-2019'') and ASTM F2143-16 and
suggested that DOE utilize the current definitions of those
products.\17\ (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Founded in 1944 as the National Sanitation Foundation, the
organization changed its name to NSF International in 1990.
\17\ Hoshizaki did not include a specific version of NSF 7 in
their comments. DOE assumes Hoshizaki was referencing the latest
version available at the time of comment (i.e., the 2019 version).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
True, ITW, and Continental commented in support of using NSF 7-2019
(defined within NSF/ANSI 170-2019,\18\ ``Glossary of Food Equipment
Terminology,'' (``NSF 170-2019'')), ``Commercial Refrigerators and
Freezers'' definitions, which defines ``Refrigerated Buffet Units'' and
``Refrigerated Food Preparation Units'' with ``open display area'' and
also ``open-top refrigerated equipment.'' (True, No. 4, p 6-7; ITW, No.
2, p. 2-3; Continental, No. 6, p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ A specific version of NSF 170 was not referenced by
commenters. DOE assumed commenters referenced the 2019 version of
NSF 170 associated with NSF 7-2019. DOE notes there is an updated
2021 version that published September 1, 2021, after the June 2021
RFI comment period ended, but DOE determined there are no updates in
this version that would impact the comments received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITW recommended the definitions based on NSF 7-2019 for:
``refrigerated buffet units (salad bars),'' ``refrigerated food
preparation units (tables).'' (ITW, No. 2, p. 2-3) ITW commented that
refrigerated buffet units (salad bars) could be viewed as open-top
storage ``like'' cabinets with modifiable features, but that food
preparation units (tables) are designed around specific applications
(e.g., salads, pizzas, sandwiches, grilling, etc.), such that a single
overarching cabinet design cannot meet the specific needs of the end
user. (ITW, No. 2, p. 3) ITW questioned if there is any value in
regulating units without an integrated storage compartment, stating
that there is minimal power consumption, installation base, and shorter
daily operating hours for such units. (ITW, No. 2, p. 7)
Regarding whether potential definitions should specify temperature
operating ranges, and if so, what the appropriate ranges would be, ITW,
AHRI, True, and Continental
[[Page 39179]]
commented that the food safety temperature is between 33 [deg]F and 41
[deg]F (further specified for open pan versus lower refrigerated area
in NSF 7-2019) with the lids open and covers removed for a specified
period of time, which AHRI noted is 4 hours per NSF 7-2019. (ITW, No.
2, p. 3; AHRI, No. 3, p. 5; True, No. 4, p. 8; Continental, No. 6, p.
2)
Regarding whether the presence of thermally separated compartments
differentiates units that are refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables,
and preparation tables from units that are commercial hybrid units, the
CA IOUs commented that a single-compressor, self-contained condenser
product with top and bottom compartments that are not thermally
separated are the predominant configuration for refrigerated
preparation tables, as they can be used in a variety of kitchen and
food service environments. (CA IOUs No. 10, p. 3)
AHRI commented that some systems may share a coil between a prep or
buffet station and a display or storage case already covered by DOE
regulations. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 5) Hussmann commented that ``multi-zone''
units should be defined for a clear understanding of equipment that
may/may not share a coil between the prep/buffet section of a case and
another section of the case that is already covered under an existing
DOE category. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 7) Hussmann and AHRI commented that
the ``lower refrigerated compartment'' should be clearly defined as
having either the same or separate coil. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 6; AHRI,
No. 3, p. 4-5)
Hussmann, AHRI, True, and ITW commented that thermally separating
partitions should not be considered a factor in differentiating
equipment type. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 8; AHRI, No. 3, p. 5-6; True, No.
4, p. 8; ITW, No. 2, p. 3) ITW commented that thermally separating
partitions do improve temperature stability between two areas but do
not significantly change the heat load on the cabinet. (ITW, No. 2, p.
3)
True commented that a unit should contain a complete refrigeration
[unit] for each section for it to be considered ``commercial hybrid.''
(True, No. 4, p. 8) True commented that a unit containing two thermally
separated refrigerated compartments with one common condensing unit
should not be considered a hybrid unit. (Id.)
Regarding whether any further delineation is necessary to account
for the range of performance related features available in this
equipment, Hussmann commented that there should be definitions for
different types of hybrid equipment, including: refrigerated buffet or
prep table sharing a coil with a refrigerated compartment that is
already covered by the DOE; refrigerated equipment that may split a
single cooling zone between condiment rails, prep surfaces, pans with
lids, pans without lids, non-critical temperature wells, etc.;
equipment with wells that can switch from refrigerated to heated; and
equipment intended to be used with different sized pans on the same
rail. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 7)
Hussmann commented that the condiment and self-service zones may
not be thermally separated but should still be considered a hybrid
unit. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 8) AHRI commented that equipment can
incorporate frozen, cold, and hot food storage without thermally
separated compartments and these systems should be considered hybrid
refrigeration units. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 5-6) Hussmann commented that
further definition would be needed for refrigerated preparation tops
that require colder temperatures such as sushi or ice cream. (Hussmann,
No. 14, p. 6-7)
ITW commented that the thermal heat load of open-top refrigeration
equipment with an integral storage compartment is influenced by its
physical characteristics, including the following: (1) condiment pan
area (TDA) and configuration (slope vs flat, cold wall vs forced air vs
glycol), (2) lid or cover design, (3) storage cabinet volume, (4) door
or drawer design and configuration, and (5) the flow path of room air
entering and leaving the condenser coil. (ITW, No. 2, p. 3) ITW also
commented that refrigerated buffet tables and food preparation tables
require equipment categorization by how their contents are displayed,
either horizontal or semi-vertical. (Id.) ITW commented that this
presentation angle affects the stability of the chilled air blanket
above the product, with a greater angle causing a decrease in stability
and increase in energy consumption. (Id.) ITW further commented that
refrigerated food preparation units (tables) should be subcategorized
by end application use and their ability to hold potentially hazardous
food items at food safe temperatures. (Id.)
The comments from interested parties in response to the June 2021
RFI generally indicated support either for the definitions in the ASTM
F2143-16 standard, as presented earlier in this section, or based on
NSF 7-2019 (by reference to NSF 170-2019). Comments from interested
parties; existing industry, State, and Federal definitions; and DOE's
review of equipment available on the market indicate that the primary
characteristic that differentiates salad bars, buffet tables, and
refrigerated preparation tables from other types of CRE is the open-top
refrigerated area (with or without lids) that allows access to pans or
other removable containers that display or store merchandise and other
perishable materials for customers or food preparation staff during
food preparation or service. The merchandise and other perishable
materials are only displayed or stored in pans or other removable
containers when loaded into the open-top refrigerated area of this
equipment (i.e., the open-top refrigerated area does not provide for
any display or storage outside of the pans or other removable
containers). Additionally, the equipment can include other refrigerated
compartments, either as an integrated combined refrigerated space
(i.e., the pans or other removable containers loaded in the open-top
refrigerated area are in direct contact with the refrigerated
compartment), or with thermal separation between the open-top
refrigerated area and refrigerated compartments.
To delineate this equipment from other types of CRE, DOE is
proposing to define the term ``buffet table or preparation table''. DOE
is proposing a definition for this term that combines elements of the
existing industry and ENERGY STAR definitions, includes language for
consistency with DOE's existing CRE definitions, and includes further
specificity regarding the characteristics of this equipment.
Specifically, DOE is proposing to define this term as follows:
``Buffet table or preparation table'' means a commercial
refrigerator with an open-top refrigerated area, that may or may not
include a lid, for displaying or storing merchandise and other
perishable materials in pans or other removable containers for customer
self-service or food production and assembly. The unit may or may not
be equipped with a refrigerated storage compartment underneath the pans
or other removable containers that is not thermally separated from the
open-top refrigerated area.
DOE is not proposing to define the term ``salad bar,'' as this
equipment would be captured within the proposed definition of ``buffet
table or preparation table.'' DOE has tentatively determined that
additional equipment definitions are not necessary for the purposes of
testing buffet tables and preparation tables as proposed in this NOPR.
Additionally, DOE has not proposed any reference to temperature
storage temperature or duration in the proposed buffet table or
preparation table
[[Page 39180]]
definition. DOE recognizes that these are important aspects of the
equipment operation but has tentatively determined that they are not
necessary for the purpose of defining the equipment to establish test
procedures. By specifying that such units are commercial refrigerators,
buffet tables and preparation tables would be units capable of
operating at or above 32 [deg]F (2 [deg]F).
As discussed, CRE may include single refrigeration systems to
provide cooling to multiple compartments or areas within a unit.
Additionally, CRE may include multiple distinct refrigeration systems
or evaporator coils to individually cool separate compartments or
refrigerated areas. DOE's proposed definition would include units both
with and without a refrigerated storage compartment underneath the pans
or other removable containers. The proposed definition, however,
specifies that units including a refrigerated storage compartment
underneath the pans or other removable containers may not be thermally
separated from the open-top refrigerated area.
DOE notes that while industry may use the term ``hybrid'' to refer
to different combinations of equipment capabilities and configurations,
the term ``commercial hybrid'' is specifically defined by DOE in 10 CFR
431.62 as discussed earlier in this section. Currently, CRE with
refrigerated storage compartments thermally separated from the open-top
refrigerated area of the buffet table or preparation table are
``commercial hybrid'' CRE and must be tested in accordance with the
applicable test procedures and comply with the applicable standards.
Such equipment would continue to be tested as currently required to
determine compliance with the existing energy conservation standards
applicable to the non-buffet table or preparation table element. As
noted, DOE has not established energy conservation standards for CRE
covered under the proposed definition of buffet table or preparation
table. DOE discussed in the April 2014 Final Rule that because only the
refrigerated storage compartment is subject to current energy
conservation standards, the unit would be tested with the buffet table
or preparation table portion disabled and not included in the
determination of energy consumption. 79 FR 22277, 22289. If the same
refrigeration system serves both the refrigerated compartment and the
open-top refrigerated area and refrigeration of the open-top area
cannot be disabled, manufacturers may apply for a test procedure waiver
for such equipment if the measured energy use would not be
representative of the portion of the unit that is not a buffet table or
preparation table of the CRE basic model. Id.
Many of the comments received from interested parties reference the
impact on buffet table or preparation table design on overall measured
energy use. DOE acknowledges that the configuration, capability, and
operation of this equipment can vary depending on application. However,
for the purposes of proposing test procedures, DOE has initially
determined that additional equipment definitions are not necessary. The
definition for buffet table or preparation table as proposed in this
NOPR would identify the equipment subject to the proposed test
procedure, which, as discussed in the following section, would include
general instructions for test setup and conduct that would be
applicable to the equipment configurations identified in comments from
interested parties.
To the extent that the equipment configurations and capabilities of
buffet tables or preparation tables may impact measured energy use, DOE
would consider such impacts were it to consider energy conservation
standards for such equipment. Specifically, a rule prescribing an
energy conservation standard for a type (or class) of covered products
must specify a level of energy use or efficiency higher or lower than
that which applies (or would apply) for such type (or class) for any
group of covered products which have the same function or intended use,
if the Secretary determines that covered products within such group--
(A) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other
covered products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or
other performance-related feature which other products within such type
(or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower
standard from that which applies (or will apply) to other products
within such type (or class). (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
In making a determination concerning whether a performance-related
feature justifies the establishment of a higher or lower standard, the
Secretary must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of
such a feature, and such other factors as the Secretary deems
appropriate. (Id.)
DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for buffet table or
preparation table. DOE requests information on whether any additional
definitions are necessary for the purposes of testing this equipment,
or whether any additional equipment characteristics are necessary to
differentiate this equipment from other categories of CRE.
b. Test Methods
In considering potential test methods for buffet tables and
preparation tables, DOE reviewed ASTM F2143-16 and identified several
differences between this test method and DOE's current test procedure
for CRE, as discussed in the June 2021 RFI. 86 FR 31182, 31186-31188.
DOE requested comment on specific test procedure provisions in ASTM
F2143-16 and how they relate to other requirements in the current DOE
test procedure. 86 FR 31182, 31188. As discussed in the following
paragraphs, DOE received comments on the general test approaches that
may be appropriate for buffet tables and preparation tables.
NEEA and the CA IOUs commented that a report created by Southern
California Edison discussed testing on eight different refrigerated
preparation tables from six manufacturers using ASTM F2143-16 that
showed a range of performance, with the least efficient product tested
using twice as much energy per day per volume. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 3-4; CA
IOUs, No. 10, p. 3)
Hoshizaki commented that it has utilized ASTM F2143-16 for its
preparation tables to list with the California Energy Commission
(``CEC'') and support DOE adoption of this standard. (Hoshizaki, No.
13, p. 1)
AHRI commented that there are many customizable appurtenances for
this equipment, and that ASTM F2143-16 captures the base model
distinctions to some degree but does not clearly distinguish between
product categories and may lead to overlap between categories. (AHRI,
No. 3, p. 4-5) AHRI also commented that self-contained versus remote
applications would need to be considered. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 5)
Hussmann commented that ASTM F2143-16 includes only self-contained
products and seeks clarification from DOE whether remote cases are
intended to be covered as buffet tables and preparation tables.
(Hussmann, No. 14, p. 7)
True commented that ASTM F2143-16 is not the correct industry
standard to reference for buffet tables and preparation tables,
asserting that it is not used by the food service industry, would add
additional burden to overextended labs, and is not robust enough to
withstand scrutiny. (True, No. 4, p. 6-7) True commented that NSF 7-
2019 is the correct standard to be used instead of ASTM F2143-16
because, for at least the last 30 years, the three categories
(refrigerated buffet and preparation table, refrigerated buffet table
or unit, refrigerated food prep unit)
[[Page 39181]]
have been defined and tested according to NSF 7-2019 (defined within
NSF 170-2019) and it is the standard followed by the CRE industry.
(Id.) True commented that state and local health departments enforce
health codes based on NSF 7-2019 when they test for food safety. (Id.)
DOE reviewed both ASTM F2143-16 and NSF 7-2019 in considering test
methods for buffet tables and preparation tables. As described in
section 1 of ASTM F2143-16 (``Scope''), that test method covers
evaluation of the energy consumption of refrigerated buffet and
preparation tables and allows food service operators to use this
evaluation to select a refrigerated buffet and preparation table and
understand its energy performance. The foreword to NSF 7-2019 specifies
that the purpose of the industry testing standard is to establish
minimum food protection and sanitation requirements for the materials,
design, construction, and performance of commercial refrigerators and
freezers.
The general test approach in ASTM F2143-16 is to load the unit with
distilled water in pans and no load in any refrigerated compartment,
operate the unit to confirm stability, then conduct testing for 24
hours, with an eight hour ``active period'' with lid and door openings
followed by a 16 hour ``standby period'' with no door openings. DOE
understands that this test is intended to represent unit operation and
energy consumption over a day.
The NSF 7-2019 test approach requires loading the unit pans with
refrigerated food-simulating test media (a specified mixture of water,
salt, and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose) and no load in any
refrigerated compartment and operating the unit for four hours to
determine whether temperatures at all measured locations are within the
acceptable range. DOE understands that this test is intended to
evaluate the ability of a unit to maintain the temperature of
refrigerated pans (and any compartments) during a four-hour period.
While these two industry test methods contain certain
similarities--e.g., loading pans but not compartments, ambient
temperature conditions--DOE has initially determined that ASTM F2143-16
provides the more appropriate basis for an energy consumption test that
is representative of typical use. As discussed in more detail in the
following sub-sections, DOE has initially determined that 24-hours of
maintaining stable temperatures, as required in the ASTM F2143-16
method, is representative of average use for this equipment. DOE has
also tentatively determined that the stabilization and operating
periods specified in ASTM F2143-16 would ensure that units are
maintaining temperatures on a consistent basis during testing and would
allow for comparative energy use measurements across units. NSF 7-2019
provides a basis for determining whether a unit is capable of
maintaining certain temperatures over a shorter period, but without
additional instructions to ensure energy consumption testing on a
consistent basis--i.e., the temperatures maintained over the shorter
test period may not necessarily be stable.
For these reasons, DOE is proposing to reference ASTM F2134-16 as
the basis for testing buffet tables and preparation tables. Consistent
with the scope of ASTM F2134-16, DOE is proposing test procedures only
for self-contained buffet tables and preparation tables. While DOE is
proposing to base the test procedure for buffet tables and preparation
tables on ASTM F2134-16, DOE is also proposing certain additional and
different requirements for test conditions, setup, and conduct, to
ensure the representativeness of the test procedure, as discussed in
the following sections.
To avoid confusion regarding testing of other CRE, DOE is also
proposing to establish the test procedure for buffet tables and
preparation tables as a new appendix C to subpart C of 10 CFR part 431.
DOE is also proposing to refer to the proposed appendix C as the test
procedure for buffet tables and preparation tables in 10 CFR 431.64.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to adopt through reference
certain provisions of ASTM F2143-16 as the basis for testing buffet
tables and preparation tables. DOE also seeks comment on the proposal
to specify test procedures only for self-contained buffet tables and
preparation tables, consistent with ASTM F2143-16.
Test Conditions
ASTM F2143-16 specifies different rating conditions for test room
dry-bulb temperature and moisture content than the current DOE test
procedure. NSF 7-2019 also specifies test conditions similar to those
in ASTM F2143-16. Table III.1 summarizes these differences.
Table III.1--Test Room Dry-Bulb Temperature & Moisture Content Standards Comparison
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet bulb
Test room dry bulb temperature Moisture content (lb/
Equipment type Test standard temperature (relative lb dry air)
humidity)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Covered CRE........ ASHRAE 72 (2005 75.2 [deg]F 1.8 [deg]F.
1.8 [deg]F (49-
62 percent).
Buffet and Preparation Tables ASTM F2143-16... 86 [deg]F 2 [deg]F.
1.8 [deg]F (30-
40 percent).
Buffet and Preparation Tables NSF 7-2019...... 86 [deg]F 2 [deg]F. (based on max
50 percent).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment and supporting data on
test room dry-bulb temperature and moisture content typically
experienced by buffet tables and preparation tables operating in the
field. 86 FR 31182, 31186. DOE requested comment on whether these
conditions are significantly different from those encountered by
conventional CRE and would justify adopting separate rating conditions
for buffet tables and preparation tables. Id.
ITW and Hussmann commented in support of the current ASHRAE 72-2018
test condition. (ITW, No. 2, p. 4; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 8) Hussmann
commented that adopting ASTM F2143-16 would add burden on
manufacturers, who would be required to test at two different dry-bulb
temperatures for hybrid equipment. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 8) ITW
commented that manufacturers and test laboratories have invested
significant effort to assemble laboratories and environmental chambers
to hold tight tolerances around the ASHRAE 72-2018 test conditions.
(ITW, No. 2, p. 4)
The CA IOUs commented in support of DOE aligning with the higher
temperature and more humid ambient test conditions used in ASTM F2143-
16 for refrigerated preparation and buffet tables, stating that these
products are
[[Page 39182]]
often found in similar spaces as chef bases, including commercial
kitchens. (CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 3-4)
ITW commented that the performance requirements and installation
sites for refrigerated buffet (salad bars) and food preparation tables
are comparable to existing CRE and do not require different
environmental conditions for a representative energy evaluation. (ITW,
No. 2, p. 4) ITW commented that most units are in proximity to the
customer dining area, where ambient conditions are controlled at or
below the ASHRAE 72-2018 specification, stating that dew points
typically fall into the mid-40s [deg]F and dry bulb temperatures
average 72 [deg]F. (Id.)
Hoshizaki commented that ambient temperature, moisture content, and
elevation vary across the country, with ambient temperatures ranging
from 70 to 100 [deg]F and humidity ranging from 30 to 80 percent.
(Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 1) Arneg commented that field conditions vary
widely, but that restaurants and supermarkets consistently maintain the
75 [deg]F (dry bulb) and 55 [deg]F (wet bulb) condition; and
convenience stores usually have higher ambient conditions (i.e., 80
[deg]F dry bulb). (Arneg, No. 12, p. 1)
True and AHRI commented in support of the NSF 7-2019 test
conditions (86 [deg]F 2 [deg]F, maximum relative humidity
of 50 percent). (True, No. 4, p. 9; AHRI, No. 3, p. 6) True argued
there is no such thing as a ``real world'' energy test. (True, No. 4,
p. 13) True stated that they currently test vertical closed
refrigerators and freezers at ASHRAE 72-2005 test conditions (75 [deg]F
ambient temperature, 55 percent relative humidity), but that commercial
kitchens operate at 90-100 [deg]F with 60-70 percent relative humidity.
(Id.) True commented that in this case, the ASHRAE 72-2005 test works
as a ``baseline'' or ``marker'' comparison point between units. (Id.)
Continental suggested that the NSF 7-2019 test conditions should be
evaluated for the suitability of energy testing. (Continental, No. 6,
p. 2) AHRI and Continental commented that refrigerated preparation
tables in particular are often subject to high ambient temperatures and
additional loads, similar to other conventional reach-in CRE, since
they are used by kitchen staff and in close proximity to commercial
kitchens. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 6; Continental, No. 6, p. 2) AHRI commented
that salad bars and buffet tables have shorter operating windows but
are open to ambient conditions that can differ from conventional CRE
and commented that the NSF 7-2019 definition for these units state they
are intended for ``customer self-service.'' (AHRI, No. 3, p. 6)
Continental encouraged DOE to work with ASHRAE, AHRI, and ASTM to
develop suitable test procedures for any additional product categories.
(Continental, No. 6, p. 2)
NEEA and the CA IOUs commented in support of using ASTM F2143-16
for refrigerated buffet and preparation tables. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 4; CA
IOUs, No. 10, p. 3) NEEA commented that many of the factors DOE is
seeking information on are addressed in detail within the ASTM F2143-16
standard. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 4) The CA IOUs commented that DOE should
leverage the work completed by the ASTM Committee F26 on Food Service
equipment and related ASTM F2143-16 to serve as the starting point for
the test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 3) NEEA commented that DOE
should consider aligning test procedure with EPA ENERGY STAR to reduce
manufacturer burden and establish consistency in the industry. (Id.)
As previously described, the apparent purpose of the NSF 7-2019
test is to determine the capability of a unit to maintain refrigerated
temperature in the conditions specified by the industry testing
standard. The ASTM F2143-16 ambient conditions match those in NSF 7-
2019. However, DOE has initially determined that these conditions are
not necessarily the most representative of typical use. As indicated in
comments, buffet tables and preparation tables are typically installed
in locations similar to other CRE (e.g., food service areas,
supermarkets, commercial kitchens) and would be subject to the same
ambient conditions during typical use. DOE acknowledges that while the
ambient conditions at the point of installation may vary, DOE has
determined that the conditions in ASHRAE 72 (in both the currently
referenced 2005 version and the 2018R version proposed for use in this
NOPR) are appropriately representative of the average use of CRE. 79 FR
22277, 22283. For consistency with other CRE testing, DOE is proposing
that the ambient conditions specified in ASHRAE 72-2018R also apply for
testing buffet tables and preparation tables.
For measuring these ambient conditions, ASHRAE 72-2018 and ASTM
F2143-16 specify the same measurement locations; however, the locations
may require further specificity depending on the configuration of the
refrigerated buffet table or preparation table under test. For example,
the specified measurement location based on the highest point of the
unit under test as provided in ASTM F2143-16 could be based on the
height of the refrigerated table surface and pan openings or on the
height of any lid or cover over the pans, if included. Additionally,
the specified measurement location at the center of the unit as
provided in ASTM F2143-16 could be based on the geometric center of the
unit determined from the height of the open pan surfaces or on the
geometric center of any door openings (for those units with
refrigerated compartments below the pan area).
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on the appropriate
locations for recording ambient conditions when testing buffet tables
and preparation tables to ensure repeatable and reproducible testing
for a range of equipment configurations. 86 FR 31182, 31186.
Hussmann, AHRI, Arneg, and ITW commented in support of using ASHRAE
72-2018 for ambient temperature measurement locations. (Hussmann, No.
14, p. 8; AHRI, No. 3, p. 6; Arneg, No. 12, p. 1; ITW, No. 2, p. 4)
AHRI and Hussmann commented in support of consistency with testing of
other CRE categories wherever possible, and AHRI suggested that DOE
work with ASHRAE to incorporate measurement locations into ASHRAE 72-
2018 or a new method of test. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 6; Hussmann, No. 14, p.
8) ITW provided measurement location options for DOE consideration
based on the configuration and geometries of the test equipment. (ITW,
No. 2, p. 4)
Continental commented that ambient temperature locations are
prescribed in ASTM F2143-16 and ASHRAE 72-2018 and that DOE should work
with ASHRAE, AHRI, and ASTM to evaluate the suitability of testing
buffet tables and refrigerated preparation tables. (Continental, No. 6,
p. 2)
Hoshizaki commented that ASTM F2143-16 provides ambient measurement
locations and that no changes are needed to them. (Hoshizaki, No. 13,
p. 1)
True commented that ambient measurement locations should follow NSF
7-2019 because buffet tables and preparation tables are short-term
holding units, such that the NSF 7-2019 test procedure would best
capture the energy use of these units. (True, No. 4, p. 9)
As described, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference ASTM
F2143-16 rather than NSF 7-2019 as the basis of testing buffet tables
and preparation tables. The ASTM F2143-16 ambient measurement locations
are generally consistent with those in the current DOE test procedure
and the provisions
[[Page 39183]]
in ASHRAE 72-2018R proposed for adoption in this NOPR, but ASHRAE 72-
2018R includes additional specificity regarding ambient measurement
locations. To ensure appropriate measurement locations, DOE is
proposing to reference ASHAE 72-2018R rather than ASTM F2143-16 for
ambient condition measurement locations. To provide additional
specifications for thermocouple placement to accommodate different
buffet table and preparation table configurations, DOE is proposing to
add instruction that the ``highest point'' of the buffet table or
preparation table is determined as the highest point of the open-top
refrigerated area of the buffet table or preparation table, without
including the height of any lids or covers. DOE is also proposing to
specify that the geometric center of the buffet table or preparation
table is: for buffet tables or preparation tables without refrigerated
compartments, the geometric center of the top surface of the open-top
refrigerated area; and for buffet tables or preparation tables with
refrigerated compartments, the geometric center of the door opening
area for the refrigerated compartment. DOE is proposing this
specification because the geometric center of the unit is used to
measure ambient temperature gradient. For units with refrigerated
compartments, this instruction referencing the center of the door
opening area would ensure that the air entering the compartment during
door openings is within the allowable temperature range.
Regarding electrical supply requirements and measurements, appendix
A to ASHRAE 72-2018R provides greater specificity for testing as
compared to ASTM F2143-16. To improve test repeatability and
reproducibility, DOE is proposing to reference the electric supply and
measurement requirements specified in appendix A to ASHRAE 72-2018R for
testing buffet tables and preparation tables.
DOE is similarly proposing to adopt through reference certain
provisions in ASHRAE 72-2018R rather than ASTM F2143-16 for
instrumentation requirements for consistency with other CRE testing and
with the proposed test conditions (e.g., wet-bulb temperature as
specified in ASHRAE 72-2018R rather than relative humidity as specified
in ASTM F2143-16).
DOE requests comment on the proposal for testing buffet tables and
preparation tables with test conditions (i.e., test chamber conditions,
measurement location, and electric supply conditions) consistent with
ASHRAE 72-2018R, with additional detail specific to buffet tables and
preparation tables.
Test Setup
Section 9.1 of ASTM F2143-16 specifies installation of the buffet
table or preparation table for testing according to the manufacturer's
instructions, with 6 inches of rear clearance, at least 12 inches of
clearance to any side wall or partition, and at least 3 feet of
clearance from the front of the unit. Section 5.2 of ASHRAE 72-2018R
specifies that the test unit be installed next to a wall or vertical
partition in the direction of (a) the exhaust, (b) the intake, or (c)
both the exhaust and the intake at the minimum clearance, 0.5 inches, as specified in the installation instructions; if the
installation instructions do not provide a minimum clearance, the
vertical partition or wall shall be located 4 0.5 inches
from the sides or rear of the cabinet and extend at least 12 inches
beyond each side of the cabinet from the floor to at least 12 inches
above the top of the cabinet.
DOE has initially determined that the installation instructions in
ASHRAE 72-2018R are more representative of actual use, as they require
testing according to the minimum manufacturer-specified clearance in
the direction of air exhaust or intake rather than a constant 6 inches.
DOE expects that CRE are typically installed with minimum installation
clearances due to the space-constrained locations in which they operate
(e.g., commercial kitchens or food service areas). DOE is proposing to
reference the installation requirements in Section 5.2 of ASHRAE 72-
2018R for buffet table and preparation table testing to represent
typical use and to ensure consistency with appendix B test
requirements.
Sections 5.1 and 5.3 of ASHRAE 72-2018R also provide additional
instructions regarding test unit installation and setup that are not
addressed in ASTM F2143-16. Specifically, section 5.1 provides
instructions regarding test unit installation within the test facility
and section 5.3 specifies test requirements for components and
accessories. While these provisions were established for conventional
CRE, DOE has initially determined that they are also applicable to
buffet table and preparation table installation and use due to both
categories having similar installation locations and similar
accessories available for use. DOE is proposing to also reference these
Sections in ASHRAE 72-2018R for buffet table and preparation table
testing to ensure consistent testing that is representative of actual
use.
DOE requests comment on the proposal for testing buffet tables and
preparation tables with test setup instructions consistent with ASHRAE
72-2018R rather than ASTM F2143-16.
Test Load
ASTM F2143-16 specifies that temperature measurements for
preparation tables or buffet tables be taken from standardized pans
filled with distilled water. ASTM F2143-16 also specifies measuring the
temperature in any chilled compartments for refrigerated buffet and
preparation tables using three thermocouples in an empty, unloaded
compartment. DOE's current test procedure for CRE requires that
integrated average temperature measurements be taken from test
simulators consisting of a plastic container filled with a sponge
saturated with a 2-percent mixture of propylene glycol and distilled
water. See ASHRAE 72-2005, section 6.2.1. Additionally, the DOE test
procedure requires 70 to 90 percent of the compartment net usable
volume to be loaded with filler material and test simulators for
testing (60 to 80 percent as proposed in this NOPR by referencing
Section 5.4.8 of ASHRAE 72-2018R). See ASHRAE 72-2005, section 6.2.5.
Buffet tables and preparation tables may not typically be loaded to 70
percent of their net usable volume due to their use for service rather
than long-term storage, but testing with the refrigerated compartment
entirely empty also may not be representative of average use.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on the appropriateness
of using only distilled water as the test medium to represent thermo-
physical properties of foods that are typically stored in the surface
pans of buffet tables and preparation tables. 86 FR 31182, 31187.
AHRI commented that DOE should work with the ASHRAE committee to
consider revisions to ASHRAE 72 to incorporate appropriate requirements
if they are unique enough to warrant a separate ASHRAE method of test.
(AHRI, No. 3, p. 6)
ITW, Hussmann, and Hoshizaki commented in support of DOE using
distilled water as the test medium because it is cost effective and
easy to replicate. (ITW, No. 2, p. 5; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 9;
Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2) Hoshizaki commented that they tested
preparation tables with the glycol mixture and distilled water and did
not see a difference of pan temperature. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2) ITW
[[Page 39184]]
commented that open-top refrigeration equipment is designed to hold
foods of all types (liquids, solids, loosely filled combinations of
both, etc.) with varying thermo-physical properties, but that in
general all variations are composed of mostly water. (ITW, No. 2, p. 5)
ITW commented that distilled water has the advantages of providing a
consistent and readily available medium that closely approximates the
properties of most food types under the specified test conditions;
allowing for bulk containers to be filled and pre-chilled; and allowing
for food pans regardless of shape or dimensions to be ``quickly'' and
evenly filled. (ITW, No. 2, p. 5) ITW also stated that pre-marking each
pan one half inch below the top rim minimizes the total pan loading
time as compared to the ``balance scale'' method outlined in the ASTM
F2143-16 standard, sections 10.4.3.5 through 10.4.3.7. (Id.)
Arneg and True commented that distilled water should not be used as
the test medium. (Arneg, No. 12, p. 1; True, No. 4, p. 9) Arneg
commented that although food temperatures are typically above 32
[deg]F, depending on the type of food, the intended product temperature
could be below 32 [deg]F. (Arneg, No. 12, p. 1) True commented that the
test media in NSF 7-2019 (methocel) should be used to represent foods.
(True, No. 4, p. 9, 11) True commented that using distilled water is a
problem because the pan temperature cannot be properly measured if
testing below 32 [deg]F since the water temperature will only change
once completely solidified into ice. (Id.) CA IOUs commented that a
2014 study from Pacific Gas and Electric (``PG&E'') showed some units
periodically dropping below 32 [deg]F and suggested DOE explore
alternatives to distilled water to validate if any alternatives would
be warranted when weighing the added test complexity and costs. (CA
IOUs, No. 10, p. 3)
Hussmann commented that DOE should allow the use of methocel as an
alternative to align with NSF 7-2019. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 9)
DOE has initially determined that the distilled water pan loading
as specified in ASM F2143-16 provides a representative test load for
the open-top refrigerated areas of buffet tables and preparation table,
while limiting test burden, and is consistent with the filler material
specified in both ASHRAE 72-2005 and ASHRAE 72-2018R (i.e., filler
material that consists of water, a 50/50 mixture (2%) of
distilled water and propylene glycol, or wood blocks with an overall
density not less than 480 kg/m\3\ (30 lb/ft\3\). As stated in the ITW
comment, typical food loads are composed mostly of water, such that
water is a representative test medium. Additionally, distilled water
does not require any additional preparation by the test laboratory,
limiting test burden and ensuring a consistent test medium across
different test facilities.
DOE acknowledges that using water would not accommodate testing at
conditions at and below 32 [deg]F. However, ASTM F2143-16 specifies pan
temperature to be within 33 [deg]F and 41 [deg]F for a valid test. As
discussed later in this section, DOE is proposing that the integrated
average pan temperature be 38 [deg]F 2 [deg]F for buffet
table and preparation table testing. At these temperatures, the
distilled water would be liquid and would not result in the testing
issues associated with freezing. Additionally, DOE observed during
investigative testing that individual pans filled with distilled water
did not reach temperatures lower than 33 [deg]F when tested with an
integrated average pan temperature of 38 [deg]F 2 [deg]F.
In addition to proposing the water test load, DOE is proposing that
pans for testing be loaded to within one half inch of the top of the
pan. For pans that are not configured in a horizontal orientation, DOE
is proposing that only the lowest side of the pan be loaded to within
one half inch of the top of the pan. ASTM F2143-16 specifies a pan
loading procedure based on the weight of water needed to load pans to
one half inch of the top of the pan. DOE expects a loading method based
on marking pans or measuring distance from the water to the top of the
pan would limit test burden as compared to the weight-based method in
ASTM F2143-16 and that both the loads and loading methods would be
substantively the same.
ASTM F2143-16 specifies the pans for holding water to be standard
4-inch deep \1/6\-size metal steam table pans with a weight of 0.70
0.07 lb. ASTM F2143-16 allows for manufacturer-specified
pans if the unit is designed specifically for such pans. DOE notes that
manufacturers typically specify pan dimensions or provide pans for
their units, but some manufacturers do not provide a pan depth or may
specify a range of possible pan depths. DOE also notes that pan
materials can vary and are not always specified by the manufacturer.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether pan
dimensions should be standardized if testing buffet tables and
preparation tables is required, or whether these units should be tested
with pans meeting manufacturer-recommended pan dimensions. 86 FR 31182,
31187. If pans were standardized, DOE requested comment on whether the
dimensions described in ASTM F2143-16 are appropriately representative
of what is used, or whether another set of dimensions or materials
would be more appropriate. Id. DOE also requested information on
whether the pan material should be defined in greater detail,
recognizing that ASTM F2143-16 specifies only that the pans be
``metal.'' Id.
True commented that the \1/6\ metal steam table pans have a larger
surface area (to product or media) than the \1/2\ size metal steam
table pans in NSF 7-2019, and suggested the following based on NSF 7-
2019: ``standard half-size hotel (4 in [102 mm]) shall be used unless
the equipment being evaluated is specifically and permanently designed
to hold alternate size pans,'' ``stainless steel pans shall be used
unless otherwise specified by the manufacturer.'' (True, No. 4, p. 10)
ITW, AHRI, Hussmann, Hoshizaki, Arneg, and Continental commented
that a standardized pan size should not be used due to the variety of
pan sizes and configurations across different manufacturers. (ITW, No.
2, p. 5; AHRI, No. 3, p. 7; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 9; Hoshizaki, No. 13,
p. 2; Arneg, No. 12, p. 1; Continental, No. 6, p. 2) Hoshizaki
commented that manufacturers should specify what pan size they require
for testing their unit as part of their test setup instructions.
(Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2) AHRI and Hussmann commented that the pan(s)
size should only be required to fill the pan opening in the unit and of
a material offered by the manufacturer. (AHRI, No. 3. p. 7; Hussmann,
No. 14, p. 9) ITW commented that a standardized food pan/pan
configuration should only be used if the manufacturer does not supply
food pans with their equipment or provide a list of acceptable pans
with specifications to be used with their equipment. (ITW, No. 2, p. 5)
Based on a review of buffet tables and preparation tables available
on the market, manufacturers typically allow for a range of pan
configurations in the open top refrigerated area. These configurations
can nearly always accommodate the \1/6\ size steam table pans
referenced in ASTM F2143-16. To ensure consistent testing for units
that offer multiple pan configurations, DOE is proposing to reference
the pan instructions in ASTM F2143-16. If a buffet table or preparation
table cannot be loaded with the specified standard pans, DOE is
proposing to test with the pans that are consistent with the
manufacturer installation instructions and with the dimensions as close
to the standard pans as is available, consistent
[[Page 39185]]
with the ASTM F2143-16 loading instructions.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on the feasibility of
requiring temperature measurements in closed refrigerated compartments
of buffet tables and preparation tables using test packages as
specified in ASHRAE 72 (specified in the 2005, 2018, and 2018R
versions), and whether the compartments should be loaded with any
filler packages (and to what percent of the net usable volume) for
testing. 86 FR 31182, 31187. DOE requested comment on alternatives that
should be used if the test packages are not appropriate for measuring
compartment temperatures (e.g., thermocouples located in pans filled
with distilled water, thermocouples as specified in ASTM F2143-16, or
weighted thermocouples \19\). Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ ASHRAE 72-2018R describes a weighted thermocouple as a
thermocouple in thermal contact with the center of a 45 g (1.6 oz)
cylindrical brass slug with a diameter and height of 19 mm (0.75
in).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in section III.C.1 of this document, under the current
test procedure a thermal separation would be required between the
buffet table or preparation table and a refrigerated compartment for
the refrigerated compartment to be subject to the testing requirements,
which include test simulators and loading requirements. Buffet tables
and preparation tables may include refrigerated compartments that are
not thermally separated from the open-top refrigerated area, and DOE
considered whether different loads (or no load) would be appropriate
for testing such compartments.
AHRI commented that DOE should work with ASHRAE SSPC 72 to
incorporate appropriate requirements for these units or determine if
they are unique enough to warrant a separate ASHRAE method of test.
(AHRI, No. 3, p. 6)
Hussmann and Hoshizaki commented that the method to measure
compartment temperature should follow the locations specified in ASTM
F2143-16. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 9; Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2) Hussmann
commented that the thermocouples could be as stated in ASTM F2143-16 or
brass slugs, as specified in NSF 7-2019. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 9)
Hoshizaki commented that this measurement of the refrigerated cabinet
is the same as the NSF 7-2019 test in which three slugs are positioned
at different parts of the cabinet. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2) Hoshizaki
recommended testing with only slugs, as currently shown in ASTM F2143-
16. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2)
True and Continental commented in support of using weighted
thermocouples, as prescribed in NSF 7-2019, for air temperature
measurements in closed refrigerated compartments. (True, No. 4, p. 10;
Continental, No. 6, p. 2) Continental commented that requiring filler
packages in the storage compartment would add significant unnecessary
testing burden on manufacturers. (Continental, No. 6, p. 2)
True and Hoshizaki commented that the addition of filler packages
would add a thermal mass that will decrease the cooling requirements by
helping to stabilize the temperature once stabilization temperature is
reached for the closed refrigeration compartment, such that NSF 7-2019
would offer the worst case for energy use and would decrease test and
stabilization time. (True, No. 4, p. 10; Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2)
DOE is proposing that any refrigerated compartment of a buffet
table or preparation table (i.e., any refrigerated compartment that is
not thermally separated from the open-top refrigerated area) be tested
with no load. DOE is proposing to reference the ASTM F2143-16
requirements, which specifies placing three thermocouples in specific
locations within the empty refrigerated compartment. DOE has
tentatively determined that this approach would limit test burden by
not requiring additional test simulator preparation or loading of
filler materials. Additionally, DOE expects that the refrigerated
compartments of buffet tables and preparation tables are typically used
for short-term storage of items used during food service and food
preparation (i.e., with additional pans of prepared food or ingredients
for food preparation) rather than long-term storage, and that therefore
an unloaded cabinet would be more representative of typical usage. This
is also consistent with the DOE test procedures for consumer
refrigeration products, which measure internal compartment temperatures
with no load. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart b, appendix A and appendix
B.
ASTM F2143-16 does not specify whether the internal compartment
thermocouples are weighted or unweighted. For consistency with the NSF
7-2019 approach, DOE is proposing that the thermocouples be weighted--
i.e., in thermal contact with the center of a 1.6-oz (45-g) cylindrical
brass slug with a diameter and height of 0.75 in. The brass slugs shall
be placed at least 0.5 in from any heat-conducting surface. While
ASHRAE 72-2018R requires internal compartment temperatures to be
measured using test simulators, ambient temperature measurements are
similarly made by thermocouples in contact with cylindrical brass slugs
with the same specifications.
DOE requests comment on the proposed test loads and temperature
measurement locations for buffet tables and preparation tables--i.e.,
distilled water in pans for the open-top refrigerated area and no load
in any refrigerated compartment--consistent with the approach in ASTM
F2143-16.
Test Conduct--Defrosts
ASTM F2143-16 does not provide specific instructions for addressing
defrost cycles when testing buffet tables and preparation tables, other
than indicating in the test report whether a defrost cycle occurred.
Section 7.3 of ASHRAE 72-2018R directs that the test period begins with
a defrost cycle. This section also requires that for refrigerators with
manual defrost or off-cycle defrost, the test is started at the
beginning of a refrigeration system off cycle (if the off-cycle defrost
is not identifiable); or, if the refrigeration system never cycles off,
the test is started at any point during refrigeration system operation.
Defrost cycles can increase the energy consumption of refrigeration
equipment as compared to stable operation; however, DOE has observed
that most buffet tables and preparation tables often incorporate off-
cycle defrosts, which melt frost accumulation by running the evaporator
fan during a compressor off-cycle. This method of defrost does not
actively introduce heat to melt the accumulated frost and may occur
during the compressor's normal cycling operation. With this defrost
approach, there may not be an identifiable defrost occurrence in the
measured test data.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether a possible
test procedure should consider defrost cycles for buffet tables and
preparation tables, and if so, how. 86 FR 31182, 31188.
Hussmann, AHRI, Hoshizaki, and True commented that the test
procedure should not include defrost cycles. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 12;
AHRI, No. 3, p. 9; Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 3; True, No. 4, p. 13) AHRI
commented these units have shorter operating windows than typical CRE,
with manual defrost often conducted overnight outside the operating
window. (AHRI, No. 3, p.9) Hussmann commented that if the defrost
interval is less than 4 hours, then it could be considered. (Hussmann,
No. 14, p. 12) Hoshizaki commented that a truncated test should not
address defrost cycles if the goal is to test for a given time because
designing a test around defrost cycles, as done in the
[[Page 39186]]
ASHRAE 72-2018 24-hour test, would be time consuming and would provide
negligible insight to actual energy use. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 3)
ITW commented that refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and
preparation tables that include an integrated storage compartment
typically operate on a 24-hour daily cycle and should have their
defrost cycles considered, but units without this storage compartment
do not need to include the defrost cycle in the energy evaluation since
they typically operate on shorter schedules. (ITW, No. 2, p. 7)
ITW commented that for units with a refrigerated storage
compartment, the start of the defrost cycle should initiate the testing
cycle in order to have a consistent methodology and to provide
information on the characteristics of different defrost types. (ITW,
No. 2, p. 7)
DOE has initially determined that to the extent that buffet tables
or preparation tables incorporate automatic electric or hot gas
defrosts (i.e., heating the evaporator to melt frost accumulation), or
any automatic extended off-cycle defrost (i.e., off-cycle defrost with
a duration longer than a compressor off-cycle), the energy consumption
of these defrosts should be captured in the test period to measure
energy use representative of typical use. DOE observed during
investigative testing that automatic extended off-cycle defrost is used
in both buffet tables and preparation tables. To incorporate this
energy use and ensure consistent testing of buffet tables and
preparation tables, DOE is proposing to require that test periods for
buffet tables and preparation tables account for any defrosts
consistent with the requirements in ASHRAE 72-2018R. This would require
capturing a defrost at the start of the test period or starting the
test period at the beginning of a refrigeration off-cycle if there is
no identifiable defrost (or at any point during refrigeration system
operation if the refrigeration system never cycles off).
DOE requests comment on the proposal to account for defrosts when
testing buffet tables and preparation tables, consistent with the
approach in ASHRAE 72-2018R.
Test Conduct--Moving Pans
Section 10.5.6 of ASTM F2143-16 specifies that if it is possible to
control cooling to the display area independently of the refrigerated
cabinet, the cooling to the display area is turned off and all pans are
to be moved from the display area to the refrigerated cabinet
underneath after the active period. The ability to control cooling in
both the display area and the refrigerated cabinet independently of
each other suggests that this language applies to units with thermally-
separated compartments and pan areas.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether moving pans
from the display area to the refrigerated compartment as specified in
Section 10.5.6 of ASTM F2143-16 is appropriate for testing buffet
tables and preparation tables. 86 FR 31182, 31187. DOE further
requested feedback on whether storing pans in a refrigerated
compartment is typical only for those units with certain
configurations--e.g., thermal separation between the compartment and
refrigerated pan area or closable covers for the pan area. Id.
AHRI and Hussmann commented that the open pan area testing in NSF
7-2019 should be considered for possible incorporation into industry
test standards, and that ASHRAE 72-2018 has provisions for storage
compartment testing methods. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 7; Hussmann, No. 14, p.
10)
Hoshizaki and True commented that requiring the movement of pans to
refrigerated sections during the test should not be considered as part
of an energy test standard. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2; True, No. 4, p.
11) Hoshizaki commented that the movement of pans is only a suggestion
in ASTM F2143-16 and suggested that manufacturers specify that as part
of their test setup instructions. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2)
Continental, AHRI, and Hussmann commented that equipment with the
ability to turn off the open-top refrigeration system should have pans
moved to the refrigerated storage compartment if it conforms with the
manufacturer's instructions for unloading the display area at night.
(Continental, No. 6, p. 2; AHRI, No. 3, p. 7; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 10)
ITW commented that equipment with the ability to turn off the open-
top refrigeration system should not move the food pans to the storage
compartment. (ITW, No. 2, p. 5-6) ITW commented that food pans should
not be removed during the evaluation period because it would introduce
variations or inconsistencies between test laboratories and
manufacturers because the time to complete the activity would be
inconsistent. (Id.)
ITW commented that removing food pans from the open-top ``rail''
after 8 hours changes the thermodynamic load placed on the
refrigeration system, and movement to the integral storage compartment
is dependent on the unit's ability to switch off the cooling for the
``rail.'' (ITW, No. 2, p. 5-6) ITW commented that DOE has consistently
indicated that all manually operated on/off switches that increase
energy consumption should be in the on position throughout the
evaluation period, such that switching off the ``rail'' refrigeration
system after 8 hours would be inconsistent with DOE's previous
position. (Id.)
AHRI and Hussmann commented that the open pan area testing in NSF
7-2019 should be considered for possible incorporation into industry
test standards, and that ASHRAE 72-2018 has provisions for storage
compartment testing methods. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 7; Hussmann, No. 14, p.
10)
DOE currently provides test procedures for any refrigerated
compartments that are combined with buffet tables and preparation
tables and that are thermally separate from the open-top refrigerated
area. DOE is not proposing to amend the test requirements for such
thermally separate refrigerated compartments.
As discussed earlier in this section, DOE is proposing to reference
ASTM F2143-16 rather than NSF 7-2019 as the basis for buffet table and
preparation table testing. Section 10.5.6 of ASTM F2143-16 specifies
moving pans from the display area to the refrigerated cabinet
underneath after the active period if it is possible to control cooling
to the display area independently of the refrigerated cabinet. As
stated, the separate cooling control suggests thermal separation
between the open-top area and the refrigerated cabinet. Because DOE is
not proposing changes to the current test requirements for any
thermally separated refrigerated cabinets, DOE is proposing that all
buffet tables and preparation tables be tested with the pans in the
display area for the entire test, including the ``standby period''
specified in Section 10.5.6 of ASTM F2143-16.
DOE has initially determined that this proposed approach would
limit test burden and variability by avoiding moving pans during the
test period, which could introduce varying heat loads depending on how
the movement is conducted. Additionally, DOE expects that the proposed
test procedure is representative of typical buffet table and
preparation table use. As previously discussed, DOE expects that buffet
tables and preparation tables are used for short-term storage during
food service and food preparation. Therefore, it is unlikely that these
units would be used for storage in the refrigerated compartment without
any pans loaded in the open-top pan area.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to require loading pans in the
open-top refrigerated area and not
[[Page 39187]]
moving them to a refrigerated compartment, if applicable, during
testing.
Test Conduct--Operating Periods and Door/Lid Openings
As described, buffet tables and preparation tables temporarily
store and display perishable items during food preparation or service.
Because buffet tables and preparation tables are used only during food
preparation or service, these equipment types may not be used for the
same 24-hour duration used to characterize performance for other
categories of CRE. Sections 10.5.5 and 10.5.6 of ASTM F2143-16 specify
a 24-hour test, with an active period of 8 hours and a standby period
of 16 hours. The active period specified in section 10.5.5 contains
instructions for a cover, if equipped (open for 2 hours, then closed
for 4 hours, then open for 2 hours), and a door opening sequence for
any refrigerated compartments (every 30 minutes, each cabinet door or
drawer, or both, shall be fully opened sequentially, one at a time, for
6 consecutive seconds; for units with pass-thru doors, only the doors
on one side of the unit are opened).
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on the typical daily
usage of buffet tables and preparation tables. 86 FR 31182, 31187.
Additionally, DOE requested feedback on whether these CRE are used for
long-term storage of food or only short-term storage during food
preparation or service periods. Id. DOE also requested comment on
whether the daily use of this equipment varies depending on
configuration or other technical characteristics. Id.
AHRI, Hussmann, Arneg, and True commented that the typical use is
only during service operating hours (approximately 8-12 hours), such
that the typical use is short-term during food preparation or service
periods rather than long-term food storage. (AHRI No. 3, p. 8;
Hussmann, No. 14, p. 10-11; Arneg, No. 12, p. 1; True, No. 4, p. 11)
Hoshizaki commented that preparation table units are typically used for
a period of 11 hours for restaurants with active food prep areas.
(Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2) Arneg and True commented that it is common to
store foods in salad bars and buffet tables for short periods of time
during ``rush periods'' (i.e., breakfast, lunch, dinner, bar closing
time). (Arneg, No. 12, p. 1; True, No. 4, p. 11) Arneg commented that
if food safety time-temperature relations are used, depending on how
long the food is displayed, the cabinets may not need to be
refrigerated. (Arneg, No. 12, p. 1) True commented that most food
service operators use walk-in coolers for overnight storage, not the
storage section of these CRE models. (True, No. 4, p. 11) True
commented the NSF 7-2019 test procedure provides the worst case for
energy use during a four-hour period with the covers open. (True, No.
4, p. 11) True commented that ASTM F2143-16 is not appropriate for food
safety nor performance testing and suggests the use of NSF 7-2019,
which covers the performance requirements for these types of units and
encompasses food safety. (True, No. 4, p. 13) True suggested
multiplying the four-hour NSF 7-2019 test for energy consumption by six
to get a 24-hour energy consumption ``baseline'' number that could be
used as a comparison. (True, No, 4, p. 7)
Continental commented that refrigerated preparation tables are
designed and utilized for continued storage of products whenever the
facility is operating, which can be 24 hours a day. (Continental, No.
6, p. 2)
ITW, AHRI, Hussmann, and Hoshizaki commented that there is no
typical daily use of this equipment and that it will vary based on the
configuration of the equipment and design characteristics (e.g., if the
equipment is provided with a storage compartment), and that usage
applications can vary from small sandwich shops to high volume 24-hour
fast food chains. (ITW, No. 2, p. 6; AHRI, No. 3, p. 8; Hussmann, No.
14, p. 10-11; Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2)
ITW provided common operational characteristics among all
applications depending on equipment configurations, including 24-hour
unit operation and various pan/lid operating durations. (ITW, No. 2, p.
6)
Based on comments from interested parties, DOE has tentatively
determined that buffet tables and preparation tables are typically used
for food service and food preparation rather than longer term food
storage. As described earlier in this section, DOE is proposing to test
this equipment with pans loaded into the open-top display areas for the
duration of the test, which DOE has tentatively determined represents
typical use during food service and food preparation.
DOE recognizes that the duration of use per day varies based on
application and installation location for this equipment. Based on
comments from interested parties, buffet tables and preparation tables
can be used for up to 24 hours per day. DOE has initially determined
that a 24-hour test period as specified in ASTM F2143-16 incorporates
the likely aspects of buffet table and preparation table operation--
i.e., an active door-opening period and a period of stable operation.
While the actual durations of use may vary based on end use
application, the measured energy use in kWh/day is representative of
the energy use of a unit operated in 24 hours and allows for consistent
energy use comparisons among models. DOE is proposing to require a 24-
hour test period for buffet tables and preparation tables as specified
in ASTM F2143-16. The proposed 24-hour test period is consistent with
the industry test procedure, the test procedure for other CRE, limits
test burden and variability by allowing for stable operation over a
longer period, and incorporates the door openings and stable operation
expected during typical usage.
DOE requests comment on the proposed 24-hour test period, which is
consistent with the approach in ASTM F2143-16.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on the applicability of
the ASTM F2143-16 door and cover opening specifications. 86 FR 31182,
31187. DOE requested comment on whether the door-opening requirements
specified in ASHRAE 72-2018 are appropriate for buffet tables and
preparation tables. Id.
The CA IOUs commented that the door opening methodology in ASTM
F2143-16 was developed specifically for units that have an open-top
refrigerated area connected to a refrigerated bottom compartment, and
that they understand this to be the most common configuration for these
products. (CA IOUs, No. 8, p. 3) The CA IOUs commented that this
methodology implements product loading and door opening that mirrors
field observations from a 2014 PG&E study. (Id.) AHRI and Hussmann
commented that further evaluation is needed for door opening
provisions. (ASTM F2143-16 methods and target IATs). (AHRI, No. 3, p.
8; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 11)
Hoshizaki commented in support of a longer cover opening time,
stating that 2 hours up, 4 hours down, and 2 hours up is adequate but
unrealistic. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2) Hoshizaki suggested running a
modified NSF 7-2019 test in which the lids are up for 4 hours and then
closed for 4 hours, with the 8 hour energy consumption test scaled to
get a daily usage value. (Id.)
ITW commented that due to variability in end use, the cover opening
period should reflect usage time and pattern claimed by the
manufacturer. (ITW, No. 2, p. 6)
True and ITW commented that there is no typical use case for door
openings, and True stated that no door openings should occur during
testing. (True, No.
[[Page 39188]]
4, p. 11-12; ITW, No. 2, p. 6) ITW commented that if DOE were to adopt
the door opening period, frequency, and length specified in ASHRAE 72-
2018 (for the storage compartment), the simulated product loading
requirements specified in the standard should also be adopted. (ITW,
No. 2, p. 6)
As discussed, ASTM F2143-16 includes an eight hour ``active
period'' which includes instructions for any open-top display area
covers (two hours open, four hours closed, and two hours open) and any
refrigerated compartment doors and/or drawers (fully opened
sequentially for six seconds every 30 minutes). DOE recognizes that the
actual use of buffet tables and preparation tables can vary depending
on application. The cover and door opening requirements in ASTM F2143-
16 were developed by an industry committee with the intent of
evaluating energy performance. While the door-openings specified in
ASTM F2143-16 are less frequent than those required in ASHRAE 72-2018R,
DOE expects that any refrigerated compartments in buffet tables or
preparation tables are accessed less frequently than in other CRE
because maintaining the refrigerated temperature of food items held in
the open-top pan area is the primary function of buffet tables or
preparation tables during operation. Additionally, the eight-hour
``active period'' during which door openings occur is consistent with
the eight-hour period of door openings required in ASHRAE 72-2018R.
Based on the foregoing, DOE has tentatively determined that the cover
and door opening provisions of ASTM F2143-16 are appropriately
representative.
Accordingly, DOE is proposing to incorporate the ``active period''
requirements for cover and door and/or drawer openings as specified in
Section 10.5.5 of ASTM F2143-16.
DOE requests comment on the proposed door and cover opening
procedures, which are consistent with the approach specified in ASTM
F2143-16. DOE requests data and information on representative usage of
buffet tables and preparation tables, including door and cover
openings.
Test Conduct--Stabilization
Sections 10.3 and 10.4 of ASTM F2143-16 require that the unit be
operated with empty pans and open covers for at least 24 hours, that
the unit operate with empty pans for at least 2 hours, that water be
pre-cooled before being loaded into the pans, and, once the water has
been loaded into the pans, that the thermostat be calibrated until the
pan temperatures are never outside of 33 [deg]F to 41 [deg]F for any
15-minute period over a 4-hour measurement period. In contrast, the
current CRE test procedure, by reference to ASHRAE 72-2005, generally
provides that the unit be loaded with test simulators and filler
packages prior to pre-cooling, operated to establish steady-state
conditions over consecutive 24-hour periods or refrigeration cycles,
and, once steady-state conditions have been achieved, continue to
operate for at least 12 hours without any adjustment to the controls.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on the appropriate
stabilization method to use when testing buffet tables and preparation
tables. 86 FR 31182, 31187.
AHRI and Hussmann commented that further evaluation is needed
regarding stabilization provisions. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 11; Hussmann, No.
14, p. 8)
AHRI, Hussmann, Continental, and True commented that covers should
be closed during the stabilization period, as prescribed in NSF 7-2019.
(AHRI, No. 3, p. 11; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 8; Continental, No. 6, p. 2;
True, No. 4, p. 12) Continental commented that ASTM F2143-16 Section
10.3.3 prescribes placing pans in the open top area and leaving covers
open for a 24-hour stabilization period, which Continental stated is
not representative of typical use. (Continental, No. 6, p. 2) True
commented that deviation from the NSF 7-2019 standard for loading and
stabilization requirements of product and filler pans would cause
additional test burden since handling of pans and probes can lead to
errors and the need to repeat tests. (True, No. 4, p. 11-12)
Hoshizaki commented that the 24-hour stabilization period specified
in ASTM F2143-16 is appropriate for their units, as they observe
temperatures stabilizing in that period, and the 24-hour period helps
with scheduling. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2) Hoshizaki commented that the
ASTM F2143-16 requirement for the unit to operate with empty pans for
at least 2 hours poses an access challenge, since most manufacturers
prefer to use a door opener mechanism, which would prevent clear access
to the pans and front of the machine. (Id.)
As discussed, DOE is proposing generally to reference ASTM F2143-16
rather than NSF 7-2019 for buffet table and preparation table testing.
However, the stabilization and thermostat calibration requirements in
Sections 10.3 and 10.4 of ASTM F2143-16 may require an iterative
process of thermostat adjustment and recalibration to achieve stability
and then to ensure that appropriate conditions are maintained during
the test period. The recent update to ASHRAE 72-2018R specifies
provisions for other CRE that require stability to be confirmed over
two test periods with identical operation in order to avoid the need
for an iterative process. DOE is proposing to reference sections 7.1
through 7.5 (excluding sections 7.2.1, 7.2.2, 7.3.1, 7.3.2, 7.3.3, and
7.3.4, as those sections would not be applicable to self-contained
buffet tables or preparation tables because those sections are intended
for CRE with remote condensing units, CRE without doors, CRE with
different door opening sequences, and CRE with lighting occupancy
sensors and controls) of ASHRAE 72-2018R for determining stabilization
and specifying the testing sequence for testing buffet tables and
preparation tables. The preparation period under Section 7.2 of ASHRAE
72-2018R would include loading the pans with water and adjusting the
necessary controls to maintain the specified temperatures. For the
purposes of determining stability as specified in Section 7.5 of ASHRAE
72-2018R, the average temperatures of measured pans would be used to
compare Test A and Test B rather than the temperatures of test
simulators. DOE has tentatively determined that this approach would
ensure stability over the test period and limit test burden by avoiding
an iterative approach to determine stability and test conditions. This
approach would also maintain consistency with the procedures used for
testing other CRE.
DOE requests comment on the proposed stabilization approach for
buffet table and preparation table testing, which would reference the
approach specified in ASHRAE 72-2018R.
Test Conduct--Target Temperatures
ASTM F2143-16 instructs that if a buffet table or preparation table
is equipped with a refrigerated compartment, the compartment air
temperature is to be between 33 [deg]F and 41 [deg]F. Likewise, the
water temperature in each of the pans placed in the display area also
is to be between 33 [deg]F and 41 [deg]F. The DOE test procedure for
other CRE requires IATs of 38 [deg]F 2.0 [deg]F for medium
temperature applications.
Through preliminary research, DOE has found that buffet and
preparation tables use a variety of refrigeration methods for cooling
the pans in the display area and the refrigerated compartment. In some
configurations, units might not be able to maintain all pans and the
refrigerated compartment within the specified temperature range. For
example, units with a single
[[Page 39189]]
refrigeration system and thermostat control for temperatures in either
the refrigerated compartment or in the pan area would control for
temperature in either the pan area or refrigerated compartment, and
both may not be within the target range. As a result, certain equipment
may maintain only the refrigerated compartment or the pan area, but not
both, within a specified temperature range during operation.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on appropriate
temperature ranges for all pans and compartments during testing, and
whether the test temperature should be specified as an allowable range
or as a target IAT with a specified tolerance. 86 FR 31182, 31188.
Additionally, if a target IAT is appropriate, the pans and any
refrigerated compartment IAT could be measured separately from each
other, or all temperature measurement locations within the refrigerated
compartment and pans could be averaged together to determine a single
IAT. If separate IATs of the pans and the compartment should be used,
DOE requested comment on which IAT should be used to determine the
appropriate thermostat control (if the unit has only one overall
temperature control). Id.
AHRI commented that further evaluation is needed to incorporate the
appropriate IAT provisions into industry test standards. (AHRI, No. 3,
p. 8) AHRI also commented that preparation or service of cold
temperature foods (e.g., sushi or ice cream) would need to be
considered. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 5)
True, Hoshizaki, and Continental commented in support of the NSF 7-
2019 standard. (True, No. 4, p. 12; Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2;
Continental, No. 6, p. 3) True commented that during the NSF 7-2019
test, the product is moved from a separate holding cabinet (e.g., a
reach in refrigerator or walk in cooler). (True, No. 4, p. 12)
Hoshizaki and Continental commented in support of the moving box car
average temperature (i.e., a data treatment method that replaces a
group of consecutive data points with its average) for open-top pans,
along with the maximum and minimum temperature range for thermocouples,
stating that this approach would provide a good indicator of
maintaining temperatures over an extended period of time. (Hoshizaki,
No. 13, p. 2; Continental, No. 6, p. 3)
Hussmann and Continental commented in support of an IAT of below 41
[deg]F with a specified tolerance for the storage compartment.
(Hussmann, No. 14, p. 11; Continental, No. 6, p. 3)
ITW commented in support of a target temperature range of 35 [deg]F
in the open-top for consistency and repeatability. (ITW, No. 2, p. 7)
ITW commented that this would represent the best approach, assuming
that distilled water pre-cooled to 35 [deg]F in bulk is used in filling
empty food pans already placed in the open-top pans at the initiation
of the evaluation, that the environmental conditions for the evaluation
match those found in the ASHRAE 72-2018 standard, and that the
temperatures of the simulated product held within the storage
compartment are recorded but not specified. (Id.)
As discussed, ASTM F2143-16 and NSF 7-2019 both specify a pan and
compartment temperature range of 33 [deg]F to 41 [deg]F for testing.
The current DOE test procedure for CRE requires testing to an IAT
within 2 [deg]F of the specified target temperature. DOE expects that
this smaller allowable temperature range would limit test variability
as compared to the 8 [deg]F allowable range specified in ASTM F2143-16
and NSF 7-2019.
The ASTM F2143-16 and NSF 7-2019 temperature ranges apply to all
measured pan and compartment temperatures, whereas DOE's current
temperature specifications apply to the IAT--i.e., the average of all
test simulator temperature measurements over the test period. DOE has
tentatively determined that the temperature specification based on an
average temperature rather than individual temperature measurements
would limit test burden by limiting the need for re-tests in the case
of individual temperature measurements being outside of the required
range. Additionally, DOE has initially determined that the average
temperature approach would allow for testing buffet tables and
preparation tables with configurations not capable of maintaining all
temperature measurements within the required range. For example, if the
refrigerated compartment provides cooling to the open-top pan area, the
refrigerated compartment temperature measurements may be colder than
the pan temperatures and not necessarily within a specified range.
Additionally, certain temperature measurement locations may be warmer
or colder than others depending on proximity to the evaporator or
refrigerated areas, resulting in ``hot'' or ``cold'' spots. Testing to
a specified average temperature would consider the overall average
measured temperature and would allow for testing such configurations.
Based on these initial determinations, DOE is proposing to require
testing buffet tables and preparation tables to a specified average
temperature rather than an allowable range. DOE is proposing that the
average temperature be calculated over the test period separately for
the pan temperature measurements (i.e., the average of temperatures
measured throughout the test period at each pan measurement location
specified in ASTM F2143-16) and the temperature measurements in any
refrigerated compartment (i.e., the average of temperatures measured
throughout the test period at each of the three compartment measurement
locations specified in ASTM F2143-16). DOE is proposing that the
average temperature of all refrigerated pans be 38 [deg]F
2 [deg]F. This temperature is consistent with the current DOE test
procedure for medium temperature CRE and is within the allowable range
specified in ASTM F2143-16 and NSF 7-2019. Testing to a lower average
temperature, such as 35 [deg]F as recommended in the ITW comment, could
increase the likelihood of refrigerated pans freezing during the test
period. DOE is similarly proposing that the average temperature of any
refrigerated compartment also be 38 [deg]F 2 [deg]F. If
the buffet table or preparation table configuration does not allow
independent control of the refrigerated compartment and both the pan
average temperature and refrigerated compartment average temperature
cannot be maintained within 38 [deg]F 2 [deg]F over the
test period, DOE is proposing that the refrigerated compartment be
tested to the average temperature necessary to maintain the pan average
temperature within the specified range. Similar to the existing LAPT
provision in section 2.2 of appendix B, DOE also proposes that if a
unit is not capable of maintaining average pan temperatures within the
specified range, the unit would be tested at the LAPT.
DOE requests comment on the proposed approach for testing buffet
tables and preparation tables based on separate pan and compartment
average temperatures. DOE also requests feedback on the proposed target
temperature of 38 [deg]F 2 [deg]F for each average
temperature.
Test Conduct--Capacity Metrics
ASTM F2143-16 specifies the reporting of ``production capacity,''
which is defined as the total volume of the pans when each pan is
filled within one-half inch of the rim. Energy consumption of
refrigerated buffet and preparation tables likely varies with pan
volume as well as the volume of any closed refrigerated compartments.
Therefore, both values are of interest
[[Page 39190]]
when considering metrics that define energy performance. Pan surface
area could be another possible metric for evaluating energy
performance, similar to TDA for horizontal open equipment classes.
Reliance on pan surface area may eliminate the variability with
different test pan dimensions.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on the potential
methodologies for determining pan volume, pan surface area, and pan
TDA, as well as refrigerated compartment volume for buffet tables and
preparation tables in a potential test procedure for this equipment. 86
FR 31182, 31188. DOE additionally requested comment on which
parameter(s) (e.g., total pan volume, pan surface area, TDA, or a
combined metric), may best represent the useful ``capacity'' of this
equipment. Id.
AHRI and Hussmann commented that because these units are highly
customizable, the volume, surface area, and TDA should be used as
specified by the manufacturer. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 9; Hussmann, No. 14, p.
12)
ITW commented that DOE has already specified measuring storage
compartment volume in accordance with AHAM HRF-1-2008 for units for
which the open-top refrigeration system can be turned off, and that
this should be applied to all units regardless of the on/off feature or
the existence of a thermally separating barrier. (ITW, No. 2, p. 7)
Hoshizaki commented that computer-aided design (``CAD'') is a good way
to calculate compartment volume. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2)
ITW commented that the pan surface area or TDA provides a more
accurate representation of the heat load placed on open-top
refrigeration units than total food pan volume because the
environmental energy introduced into the system crosses the horizontal
plane at the pan surface, not along the vertical sides or bottom
representing the pan volume. (ITW, No. 2, p. 7) Hoshizaki commented
that pans come in standard sizes with designated volumes, such that it
would make for an easy calculation of total pan volume by selecting the
number and size of pans. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2)
DOE has tentatively determined that pan storage volume, pan display
area, and refrigerated volume may all contribute to the capacity and
energy consumption of a buffet table or preparation table; therefore,
DOE is proposing that the test procedure include measures of these
three metrics. DOE is proposing to define and measure ``pan volume''
consistent with the production capacity specified in ASTM F2143-16. DOE
is proposing to refer to pan volume rather than production capacity to
avoid confusion with the other relevant capacity metrics.
DOE is proposing that the refrigerated volume of buffet table and
preparation table refrigerated compartments be tested in accordance
with AHRI 1200-202X, consistent with the method proposed for use with
other CRE. To avoid double counting of refrigerated pan volumes, DOE is
proposing that the refrigerated compartment volume would not include
any volume occupied by the pans loaded in the open-top display area for
testing. DOE discusses volume measurements based on CAD drawings in
section III.H of this NOPR.
DOE is proposing that pan display area be defined and measured as
the surface area of the test pan when filled to within one half inch of
the rim. This surface area measurement would ensure that the pan
display area would be consistent with the pan storage volume (i.e.,
both measurements would be based on the pans as filled for testing).
Additionally, the measurement based on the surface area of the water as
loaded for testing would ensure that the surface area measurement
accounts for the actual food storage area and excludes any areas not
providing refrigerated storage for food service or food preparation.
DOE requests comment on the proposed capacity metrics of pan
storage volume, compartment volume, and pan display area. DOE requests
feedback on the proposed methods for measuring each and the extent to
which these metrics are relevant capacity metrics for buffet tables and
preparation tables.
2. Pull-Down Temperature Applications
As defined, CRE is equipment that is designed for holding
temperature applications \20\ or pull-down temperature applications. 10
CFR 431.62 (see also 42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(A)(vi)). ``Pull-down temperature
application'' is a commercial refrigerator with doors that, when fully
loaded with 12-ounce beverage cans at 90 [deg]F, can cool those
beverages to an average stable temperature of 38 [deg]F in 12 hours or
less. 10 CFR 431.62 (42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(D)). CRE within this definition
are typically known as beverage merchandisers or beverage coolers
because of their use in displaying individually packaged beverages for
sale, and their ability to pull-down temperatures of such beverages.
Pull-down temperature applications with transparent doors and a self-
contained condensing unit are the only pull-down temperature
applications currently subject to DOE's energy conservation standards
specified at 10 CFR 431.66(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ ``Holding temperature application'' means a use of
commercial refrigeration equipment other than a pull-down
temperature application, except a blast chiller or freezer. 10 CFR
431.62 (see also 42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(B)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's current CRE test procedure does not include specific
provisions related to the performance criteria in the pull-down
temperature application definition. For example, the test procedure
does not provide instructions for the starting conditions of the
equipment (e.g., whether the equipment begins the test in a pre-cooled
state or at ambient temperature conditions), loading of the cans (e.g.,
whether the equipment must be loaded to full within a certain amount of
time), or a method to measure the temperature of the cans to confirm
cooling to 38 [deg]F. The current CRE test procedure specifies that
commercial refrigerators designed for pull-down applications be tested
at steady state (see 10 CFR 431.64(b), and appendix B section 2.1),
consistent with testing other covered CRE categories.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE sought information on whether CRE that
provides pull-down temperature applications is sufficiently
differentiated from other types of CRE. 86 FR 31182, 31188. If not, DOE
sought comment on how manufacturers currently determine whether a model
meets the pull-down temperature application criteria. Id. DOE also
requested comment on appropriate starting conditions, loading methods,
and other necessary specifications for a potential test method to
verify the pull-down performance of a commercial refrigerator. Id.
Additionally, DOE requested comment and data on the energy consumption
associated with pull-down operation and steady-state operation for CRE
designed for pull-down temperature applications, and on whether a
modified test method would be appropriate to represent the energy
consumption of such equipment. Id.
AHRI commented that AHRI members and working group participants
discussed pull down applications during AHRI 1200-202X revisions.
(AHRI, No. 3, p. 9-10) AHRI commented that requirements for pull down
temperatures vary greatly based on product, end use, and stocking, and
that the industry does not have a test method for these systems. (Id.)
AHRI commented that based on the varied conditions, customized nature,
and small market segment, the working group determined not to address
pull down units at this time, and suggested this may need to be
addressed separately from CRE or alongside blast
[[Page 39191]]
chillers and freezers given the unique application. (Id.)
True commented that 75 [deg]F ambient temperature, 55 percent
relative humidity, and pull down of 90 [deg]F products is typical.
(True, No. 4, p. 14) True commented that this category is irrelevant if
the models meet the DOE energy conservation standards for holding
temperature applications, and that this category should not exist.
(Id.)
The Joint Commenters expressed support for DOE developing a test
procedure to verify pull-down performance. (Joint Commenters, No. 8, p.
2) The Joint Commenters stated that the test procedure contains a
definition for ``pull-down temperature application,'' but that there is
no procedure to verify whether a unit meets that definition, such that
it would make sense to develop a pull-down test procedure to verify
performance so that a manufacturer, DOE, or third party can determine
if a unit meets the ``pull-down temperature application'' definition.
(Id.)
While DOE defines ``pull-down temperature application'' and has
established energy conservation standards for self-contained commercial
refrigerators with transparent doors for pull-down temperature
applications, no models are currently certified to DOE in this
equipment class.\21\ DOE has not established energy conservation
standards for other categories of CRE for pull-down temperature
applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Based on DOE's Compliance Certification Database (accessed
January 23, 2022), available at www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/#q=Product_Group_s%3A*.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE recognizes that manufacturers may represent their models as for
use in pull-down temperature applications rather than holding
temperature applications. To ensure appropriate application of DOE's
definitions, DOE is proposing a method to determine whether a model
meets the definition of ``pull-down temperature application.''
Specifically, DOE is proposing to include product-specific enforcement
provisions for CRE, as discussed further in section III.J of this NOPR,
and proposes to include a section to specify how DOE would confirm
whether a commercial refrigerator meets the definition of pull-down
temperature application.
As stated, the pull-down temperature application definition
requires that a model be capable of cooling a full load of 12 ounce
beverage cans from 90 [deg]F to an average stable temperature of 38
[deg]F in 12 hours or less. To confirm this capability, DOE is
proposing to specify in 10 CFR 429.134 that a classification as pull-
down temperature application is valid based on meeting the pull-down
temperature application definition by:
(1) measuring the temperatures of 12-ounce beverage cans loaded
into the commercial refrigerator at locations consistent with those
specified in ASHRAE 72-2018R (i.e., those temperature measurement
locations required for test simulators during DOE testing of other
commercial refrigerators);
(2) operating the commercial refrigerator under the required
commercial refrigerator test conditions (e.g., 75.2 [deg]F
1.8 [deg]F dry-bulb temperature) and at the control setting necessary
to achieve a stable integrated average temperature of 38 [deg]F, prior
to loading;
(3) fully loading the commercial refrigerator with 12-ounce
beverage cans maintained at 90 [deg]F 2 [deg]F;
(4) determining the duration of pull-down (which must be 12 hours
or less) starting from closing the commercial refrigerator door after
completing the 12-ounce beverage can loading until the integrated
average temperature reaches 38 [deg]F 2 [deg]F; and
(5) determining an average stable temperature of 38 [deg]F by
operating the commercial refrigerator for an additional 12 hours after
initially reaching 38 [deg]F 2 [deg]F with no changes to
control settings, and determining an integrated average temperature of
38 [deg]F 2 [deg]F at the end of the 12 hour stability
period.
The proposed product-specific enforcement provisions are consistent
with the existing definition of pull-down temperature application, but
would provide additional clarity regarding how DOE would determine
whether a commercial refrigerator could be classified as such.
DOE requests comment on the proposed product-specific enforcement
provisions regarding how DOE would determine whether a model meets the
pull-down temperature application definition. DOE also requests data
and comment on whether the proposed product-specific enforcement
provisions sufficiently differentiate pull-down temperature
applications from holding temperature applications.
3. Blast Chillers and Blast Freezers
As stated, CRE is equipment that, in part, is designed for holding
temperature applications. (42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(A)(vi)) EPCA defines
``holding temperature application'' as use of commercial refrigeration
equipment other than a pull-down temperature application, except a
blast chiller or freezer. (42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(B)) Per the definition,
``holding temperature application'' includes blast chillers and blast
freezers, even if such equipment meets the criteria of ``pull down
temperature application.''
In general, blast chillers and blast freezers are commercial
refrigeration equipment with solid doors intended for the rapid
temperature pull-down of hot-food products.
Blast chiller and blast freezer operation is typically
characterized by three cycles. The first cycle pulls the air
temperature within the unit down until it reaches a target air
temperature set by the manufacturer (e.g., 0 [deg]F for blast chillers
and -28 [deg]F for blast freezers). This target air temperature within
the unit is maintained until the food reaches a certain temperature,
set by the manufacturer, as measured by the unit's temperature probe.
Once the food reaches a certain temperature, the second cycle begins by
allowing the air temperature within the unit to drift up until it
reaches the same temperature as the target food temperature (e.g., 38
[deg]F for blast chillers and 0 [deg]F for blast freezers). Once the
food reaches the target food temperature, the last cycle begins by
proceeding to a holding pattern during which the blast chiller or blast
freezer behaves similar to a typical CRE--i.e., cycling the
refrigeration system to maintain a target temperature.
Within the general sequence of operations, many blast chillers and
blast freezers provide users options to alter the specific pull down
profile based on the food load. For example, a ``soft chill'' mode may
provide a slower temperature pull-down intended for more delicate food,
as compared to a ``hard chill'' mode that cools food as quickly as
possible.
ASHRAE has established a standard project committee (``SPC'') to
consider the development of an industry test standard for this
equipment: SPC 220P, Method of Testing for Rating Small Commercial
Blast Chillers, Chiller-Freezers, and Freezers (``ASHRAE 220'').\22\
DOE is participating in this process and is aware of a draft test
standard underway that contains certain definitions, requirements, and
procedure. DOE will consider referencing the final version of the SPC
220P standard when it is made publicly available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/standards-and-guidelines/project-committee-interim-meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Definitions
DOE does not define blast chiller or blast freezer. The California
Code of
[[Page 39192]]
Regulations provides the following definition for a blast chiller:
Blast chiller--a refrigerator designed to cool food
products from 140 [deg]F to 40 [deg]F within four hours. (CCR, Title
20, section 1602)
The SPC for ASHRAE 220 has provided the following tentative
definitions for blast chiller and blast freezer, and a related term:
Blast chiller--a rapid pull down cooler designed to cool
food to a safe refrigerated temperature (typically between 32 [deg]F
and 41 [deg]F), but not freeze it.
Blast freezer--a rapid pull down cooler designed to freeze
food.
Rapid pull down cooler--commercial refrigeration equipment
intended for the rapid intermediate chilling or freezing of hot food
products within a specified time period and holding the food at a safe
temperature when not engaged in the chilling or freezing process.
NSF 7-2019 provides the following performance specification for
rapid pull-down refrigerators and freezers:
Rapid pull-down refrigerators and freezers--capable of
reducing the internal temperature of their contents from 135 [deg]F to
40 [deg]F within a period of 4 hours or in the time specified by the
manufacturer, whichever is less.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether definitions
are needed for blast chillers and blast freezers to further delineate
the equipment subject to the DOE test procedures and standards. 86 FR
31182, 31188. If definitions are needed, DOE requested comment on the
appropriate definitions for blast chillers and blast freezers,
including how to differentiate such equipment from CRE currently
subject to testing and compliance with DOE's energy conservation
standards. 86 FR 31182, 31188-31189.
NEEA commented in support of DOE establishing a definition for
blast chillers and blast freezers. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 3) NEEA commented
that the scope of the pull-down temperature application definition is
better suited to focus exclusively on beverage merchandisers and
coolers, due to the differences in intended operation of blast chillers
and freezers. Id. NEEA commented that delineating both the definition
and test procedure to highlight the different use cases of pull-down
equipment and blast chillers will lead to more representative energy
use projections. Id.
The Joint Commenters stated that blast chillers and blast freezers
have oversized refrigeration systems compared to other CRE, such that
blast chillers and freezers use more energy compared to other equipment
with similar volumes. (Joint Commenters, No. 8, p. 2)
Based on the comments from interested parties and DOE's review of
existing State definitions, tentative and established industry
definitions, and equipment available on the market, DOE has tentatively
determined that the characteristic of blast chillers and blast freezers
that differentiate this equipment from other categories of CRE are the
oversized refrigeration systems that allow for the rapid temperature
pull-down of hot food products within a specified time period. Blast
chillers and blast freezers specifically differ from other types of CRE
intended for pull-down temperature applications because of the intended
product (hot food product for blast chillers and blast freezers versus
12 ounce beverage cans for pull-down temperature applications), initial
product temperature (minimum 135 [deg]F \23\ for blast chillers and
blast freezers versus 90 [deg]F for pull-down temperature
applications), and intended product storage duration (minimal storage
duration for blast chillers and blast freezers versus long-term storage
duration for pull-down temperature applications).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See NSF/ANSI 7--2019, ``Commercial Refrigerators and
Freezers''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed, blast chillers and blast freezers provide rapid
cooling to ensure hot food is quickly pulled down to safe refrigerated
storage temperatures. DOE tentatively identified the capability to pull
down hot food from 135 [deg]F to 40 [deg]F within four hours as the
primary operating characteristic of blast chillers and blast freezers.
This is consistent with the performance specification for rapid pull-
down refrigerators and freezers specified in NSF 7-2019, the California
definition, and tentative definitions provided by the SPC for ASHRAE
220. Although DOE is not proposing to test blast chillers and blast
freezers according to NSF 7-2019, as discussed in the following
section, DOE expects that any blast chiller or blast freezer meeting
the NSF 7-2019 performance specification would be capable of pulling
down hot food from 135 [deg]F to 40 [deg]F within four hours when
tested as proposed in this NOPR. As discussed in section III.C.1.b, DOE
is proposing a lower ambient temperature condition than the ambient
temperature condition specified in NSF 7-2019.
To delineate blast chillers and blast freezers from other
categories of CRE, including from CRE designed for pull-down
temperature applications, DOE is proposing to define the terms ``blast
chiller'' and ``blast freezer.'' DOE is proposing definitions for these
terms that combine parts of existing definitions, add language for
consistency with DOE's existing CRE definitions, and include further
specificity regarding the characteristics of this equipment.
Specifically, DOE is proposing to add the following definitions to 10
CFR 431.62:
``Blast chiller'' means commercial refrigeration equipment, other
than a blast freezer, that is capable of the rapid temperature pull-
down of hot food products from 135 [deg]F to 40 [deg]F within a period
of four hours, when measured according to the DOE test procedure.
``Blast freezer'' means commercial refrigeration equipment that is
capable of the rapid temperature pull-down of hot food products from
135 [deg]F to 40 [deg]F within a period of four hours and capable of
achieving a final product temperature of less than 32 [deg]F, when
measured according to the DOE test procedure.
DOE seeks comment on the proposed definitions of ``blast chiller''
and ``blast freezer.''
b. Test Methods
DOE has reviewed the ASHRAE 220 test method in development to
determine the suitability of the test method for a DOE test procedure.
The draft ASHRAE 220 test method determines the pull-down energy
consumption per pound of food product, hot food product temperature
pull-down performance, and other performance factors for self-contained
commercial blast chillers and blast freezers that have a refrigerated
volume of up to 500 ft\3\. DOE understands that the ASHRAE 220 test
method has certain deviations from DOE's current CRE test procedures
and ASHRAE 72-2018R.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE stated that it was not aware of any
existing test methods for assessing the energy performance of blast
chillers and blast freezers but acknowledged the ongoing industry work
to develop ASHRAE 220. 86 FR 31182, 31189. DOE requested information on
typical blast chiller and blast freezer operation to evaluate any
eventual test methods available for this equipment. Id.
NEEA commented in support of collaboration between DOE and EPA
regarding test procedures for blast chillers and freezers. (NEEA, No.
5, p. 3) The CA IOUs commented that DOE should work with the ASHRAE 220
committee to finalize an approach for evaluating the performance of
blast chillers and freezers that will be consistent with DOE's
statutory
[[Page 39193]]
requirements for a test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 4) The CA IOUs
commented that ASHRAE 220 was expected to be published in late 2021,
and that International Organization for Standardization (``ISO'')
22042:2021, (``ISO 22042:2021''), ``Blast chiller and freezer cabinets
for professional use--Classification, requirements and test conditions
was published in March 2021. Id. The CA IOUs provided a comparison of
the two standards. Id.
NEEA commented that DOE's test procedure for pull-down temperature
application is only reflective of steady state operation and does not
account for energy usage in pull-down mode or percentage of time in
each of the two modes. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 3) NEEA commented that DOE
should study pull-down conditions of blast chillers and blast freezers
to ensure the test procedure represents actual usage. (Id.)
The CA IOUs commented that DOE should focus on self-contained blast
chillers and freezers, stating that the ASHRAE 220 test method is
geared toward this equipment configuration, and that this is the
predominant configuration in terms of market share in food service
applications. (CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 5)
DOE has tentatively determined that test procedures that account
for the pull-down operation of blast chillers and blast freezers are
appropriate. As discussed in section III.C.3.a, the primary function of
blast chillers and blast freezers is the rapid cooling of hot food
product and minimal storage duration rather than long-term storage
duration. Consistent with comments from interested parties, DOE has
considered the draft ASHRAE 220 standard as the basis for many of the
test procedure proposals.
DOE has also reviewed the ISO 22042:2021 test standard. Many of the
provisions in the ISO 22042:2021 method are similar to those included
in the draft ASHRAE 220 (e.g., ambient temperature, starting food load
temperature, final blast freezer temperature). DOE has tentatively
determined that the provisions in draft ASHRAE 220 provide a more
representative basis for testing (e.g., blast chiller target
temperature of 38 [deg]F rather than 50 [deg]F) and would limit test
variability as compared to ISO 22042:2021 (e.g., using a well-defined
food simulator test load rather than actual food and defining door
openings for pan loading).
DOE has also participated in EPA's specification review process to
establish version 5.0 Eligibility Criteria for commercial refrigerators
and freezers. EPA considered including blast chillers and blast
freezers as part of the version 5.0 Eligibility Criteria,\24\ but did
not include them in the specification due to the lack of a standardized
test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See the Version 5.0 Specification and Test Method
Discussion Guide, December 2020, at www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/ENERGY%20STAR%20Commercial%20Refrigerators%20and%20Freezers%20V5.0%20Discussion%20Guide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the tentative scope of ASHRAE 220, DOE is proposing
test procedures for self-contained commercial blast chillers and blast
freezers that have a refrigerated volume of up to 500 ft\3\. DOE is
proposing to incorporate certain provisions from draft ASHRAE 220 and
certain deviations, as discussed in the following sections. DOE
understands that, to the extent feasible, ASHRAE 220 will likely
harmonize with requirements included in ASHRAE 72-2018R. For this
reason, DOE is proposing to refer to ASHRAE 72-2018R for certain test
requirements rather than using the approach in the ongoing draft ASHRAE
220. The intent of these proposals is to harmonize with the eventual
ASHRAE 220 final test standard approach.
To avoid confusion regarding testing of other CRE, DOE is also
proposing to establish the test procedure for blast chillers and blast
freezers as a new appendix D to subpart C of 10 CFR part 431. DOE is
also proposing to refer to the proposed appendix D as the test
procedure for blast chillers and blast freezers in 10 CFR 431.64.
DOE seeks comment on the proposal to establish test procedures for
self-contained commercial blast chillers and blast freezers that have a
refrigerated volume of up to 500 ft\3\.
DOE seeks comment on the proposal to incorporate certain provisions
from the draft ASHRAE 220 and certain deviations for the blast chillers
and blast freezers test procedures.
Instruments
DOE reviewed the latest version of the draft ASHRAE 220 standard
and compared it to ASHRAE 72-2018R, as shown in Table III.2, to
determine appropriate instrument requirements for blast chiller and
blast freezer testing.
Table III.2--Instrumentation Requirements Comparison Between ASHRAE 220
and ASHRAE 72-2018R
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHRAE 220 ASHRAE 72-2018R
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calibration................. Instruments shall be Measurements from
calibrated the instruments
traceable to shall be traceable
National Institute to primary or
of Standards and secondary standards
Technology calibrated by NIST
(``NIST'') (or other rating
standards annually. standards).
Instruments shall
be recalibrated on
regular intervals
that do not exceed
the intervals
prescribed by the
instrument
manufacturer, and
with an interval no
longer than 1 year.
Temperature................. Accuracy of Required Accuracy:
temperature 1.4
measurements shall [deg]F. Temperature
be within 1.4 [deg]F. and instruments
Accuracy of shall be applied
temperature- and used in
difference accordance with
measurements shall ASHRAE Standard
be within 0.2 [deg]F.
Temperature
measurements not
specified shall be
made per ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard
41.1.2.
Time........................ Time measurements Required Accuracy:
shall be made with 0.5% of
an accuracy of time period
0.5% of measured.
the time period
being measured.
Energy...................... Electrical energy Required Accuracy:
measurements shall must be measured
be made with with an integrating
instruments watt-hour meter
accurate to 2% of the minus>2.0% of the
quantity measured. quantity measured
and graduated to
0.01 kWh.
Electrical supply potential None specified...... Required Accuracy:
and supply frequency. 2.0% of
the quantity
measured.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally, ASHRAE 72-2018R has the same instrumentation
requirements as draft ASHRAE 220. DOE understands that ASHRAE 220
intends to harmonize with ASHRAE 72-2018R to the extent possible to
maintain consistent test
[[Page 39194]]
requirements across similar equipment types. Because ASHRAE 72-2018R
provides greater detail on the instrumentation requirements, and DOE
expects that the final ASHRAE 220 standard will likely adopt the ASHRAE
72-2018R requirements, DOE is proposing to reference section 4 and the
relevant portions of Appendix A of ASHRAE 72-2018R for blast chiller
and blast freezer instrumentation requirements. ASHRAE 72-2018R
provides additional requirements for instruments that are not necessary
for testing blast chillers and blast freezers (e.g., air velocity,
radiant heat, dry-bulb temperature gradient, and test chamber
illuminance). DOE is proposing to incorporate requirements only for
instruments necessary to test blast chillers and blast freezers (i.e.,
those listed in Table III.2).
DOE seeks comment on the proposal to reference section 4 and the
relevant portions of Appendix A of ASHRAE 72-2018R for instrumentation
requirements for the blast chiller and blast freezer test procedures.
Test Conditions
Blast chillers and blast freezers are typically intended for use
only in commercial kitchens, as compared to other categories of CRE,
which are typically used in either commercial kitchens or in customer-
facing environments.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment and supporting data on
the typical ambient conditions experienced by blast chillers and blast
freezers. 86 FR 31182, 31189.
NEEA commented that ASHRAE 220 is working to answer some of the
questions posed by DOE, including establishing starting food
temperatures, blast chiller temperatures, and ambient temperatures.
(NEEA, No. 5, p. 3)
ASHRAE 220 specifies different test conditions for testing blast
chillers and blast freezers compared to the current DOE CRE test
procedures, as illustrated in Table III.3.
Table III.3--Ambient Temperature and Humidity Test Conditions Comparison
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's current CRE
ASHRAE 220 test procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dry Bulb.................... Measured at point Measured at point TA
TA; Average: 86.0 for open; CRE and
[deg]F TB for closed CRE;
1.8 [deg]F; Average: 75.2
Individual: 86.0 [deg]F
[deg]F 1.8 [deg]F;
3.6 [deg]F. Individual: 75.2
[deg]F
3.6 [deg]F.
Humidity.................... No test condition Wet Bulb measured at
specified. point TA for open
CRE and TB for
closed CRE;
Average: 64.4
[deg]F
1.8 [deg]F;
Individual: 64.4
[deg]F
3.6 [deg]F.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dry-bulb is required to be measured in ASHRAE 220 at the same
point (TA) as specified in Section 6.1 of ASHRAE 72-2018R.
ASHRAE 220 does not specify the type of thermocouple to be used when
taking dry-bulb measurements. ASHRAE 72-2018R specifies that the
thermocouples used to measure dry-bulb temperatures shall be in thermal
contact with the center of 1.6 ounces cylindrical brass slug with a
diameter and height of 0.75 inches. The brass slugs shall be placed at
least 0.50 inches from any heat-conducting surface.
DOE has tentatively determined that the test conditions specified
in ASHRAE 220 are more representative of actual blast chiller and blast
freezer operation as compared to the existing CRE test procedure
conditions. As stated, blast chillers are typically only used in
commercial kitchens, whereas other conventional CRE are used in a range
of environments.
In response to the June 2021 RFI, the CA IOUs referenced a 2012
ASHRAE research project \25\ benchmarking the thermal conditions in 100
commercial kitchens in the United States that found the average
temperature in preparation areas ranged from 72 [deg]F to 79 [deg]F,
while the average temperature in cooking areas ranged from 79 [deg]F to
93 [deg]F. (CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 2-3) The conditions specified in ASHRAE
220 are consistent with the commercial kitchen data in the ASHRAE
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ ASHRAE RP-1469, ``Thermal Comfort in Commercial Kitchens,''
Final Report, January 6, 2012, page 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE recognizes that harmonizing test conditions across different
CRE categories may provide users with measures of energy use that can
be compared on a consistent basis. However, given the particular
application of blast chillers and blast freezers in rapidly lowering
the temperature of hot food products, it is not expected that other CRE
would serve as a substitute for blast chillers and blast freezers (and
vice versa). Moreover, as indicated by the 2012 ASHRAE report, the test
conditions in the draft ASHRAE 220 are more representative for blast
chillers and blast freezers than the test conditions applicable to CRE
generally.
Because blast chillers and blast freezers experience different
ambient conditions than other types of CRE, and because the proposed
test procedures for blast chillers and blast freezers would use a
different energy use and capacity metric, DOE is proposing to require
the representative dry-bulb temperatures specified in the tentative
ASHRAE 220 draft. DOE is also proposing to incorporate section 6.1 and
Figure 6 of ASHRAE 72-2018R to specify the point TA where
the dry-bulb temperatures are to be measured and to specify the dry-
bulb thermocouple setup.
DOE seeks comment on the proposal to require the dry-bulb
temperatures specified in the tentative ASHRAE 220 draft and
incorporate section 6.1 and Figure 6 of ASHRAE 72-2018R to specify the
point TA where the dry-bulb temperatures are to be measured
and the type of thermocouple to use when measuring dry-bulb in the
blast chillers and blast freezers test procedures.
ASHRAE 220 specifies the same requirements for the power supply,
voltage and frequency, as ASHRAE 72-2018R. Specifically, ASHRAE 220
specifies that the rated voltage be maintained at an average of 2.0 percent over the duration of the test and individual
recorded voltages be within 4.0 percent of the rated
voltage. ASHRAE 220 specifies that the rated frequency be maintained
within 1 percent. Because ASHRAE 72-2018R specifies the
same requirements for voltage and frequency, DOE is proposing to
incorporate the portions of Appendix A in ASHRAE 72-2018R, which
specify the requirements for voltage and frequency.
DOE seeks comment on the proposal to incorporate the portions of
Appendix A in ASHRAE 72-2018R which specify the requirements for
voltage and frequency in the blast chillers and blast freezers test
procedures.
ASHRAE 72-2018R specifies additional test conditions that ASHRAE
220 does not specify. These include requirements for air currents,
radiant
[[Page 39195]]
heat, dry-bulb temperature gradient, and test chamber illuminance. DOE
expects that these requirements in ASHRAE 72-2018R are primarily
intended to limit variability of testing for CRE without doors or with
transparent doors. DOE is only aware of blast chillers and blast
freezers with solid doors, and therefore has tentatively determined
that the additional test conditions in ASHRAE 72-2018R are not
necessary for blast chiller and blast freezer testing, consistent with
the draft of ASHRAE 220.
DOE seeks comment on whether any additional test conditions are
appropriate for blast chiller and blast freezer testing, including
those specified in sections 6.2, 6.3, and Appendix A in ASHRAE 72-
2018R.
Test Setup, Capacity, and Loading
The ASHRAE 220 draft specifies certain test unit setup instructions
for components and accessories, electrical loads, condensate pan
heaters and pumps, and crankcase heaters which are based on Sections
5.3, 5.3.1, 5.3.5, and 5.3.15 in ASHRAE 72-2018R. DOE notes that
Sections 5.3 and 5.3.5 of ASHRAE 72-2018R contain minor differences
from the draft ASHRAE 220. Section 5.3 of ASHRAE 72-2018R refers to
installing all necessary components and accessories prior to loading
the storage and display areas with test simulators and filler material,
whereas ASHRAE 220 does not use test simulators and filler material.
Section 5.3.5 of ASHRAE 72-2018R refers to a self-contained
refrigerator instead of a blast chiller or blast freezer and does not
specify that the condensate pan shall be emptied before testing (this
instruction is provided in Section 7.2.3 of ASRHAE 72-2018R) and that
if a condensate heater is used during the test, it shall be recorded.
ASHRAE 220 specifies that the manufacturer's recommendation on
clearances shall be followed on all sides with a minimum of 3 feet on
the door(s) opening sides. The current DOE CRE test procedures do not
specify any clearance requirements. Section 5.2 and Appendix A of
ASHRAE 72-2018R specify that there must be greater than or equal to
59.1 inches 1 inch of clearance from the front of the unit
under test and a vertical partition or wall shall be located at the
minimum clearance, 0.5 inches, as specified in the
installation instructions. Section 5.2 also provides that if the
installation instructions do not provide a minimum clearance, the
vertical partition or wall shall be located 4 0.5 inches
from the sides or rear of the cabinet and extend at least 12 0.5 inches beyond each side of the cabinet from the floor to not
less than 12 0.5 inches above the top of the cabinet.
DOE has tentatively determined that because ASHRAE 72-2018R
provides similar, equal, or greater detail on the installation and
settings, clearance, and components and accessories requirements as
compared to the draft of ASHRAE 220, the ASHRAE 72-2018R instructions
are appropriate for DOE testing. DOE also understands that, to the
extent feasible, ASHRAE 220 intends to harmonize with ASHRAE 72-2018R
requirements, and therefore will likely adopt similar instructions in
the final version of the standard. DOE is proposing to incorporate
Sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 (including sub-Sections 5.3.1 to 5.3.17), and
the relevant portions of Appendix A of ASHRAE 72-2018R for testing
blast chillers and blast freezers with the following deviations:
The term ``refrigerator'' shall instead refer to ``blast
chiller'' or ``blast freezer,'' as applicable.
For Section 5.3 of ASHRAE 72-2018R, replace ``all
necessary components and accessories shall be installed prior to
loading the storage and display areas with test simulators and filler
material'' with ``all necessary components and accessories shall be
installed prior to precooling the unit under test.''
Section 5.3.5 would be included with the additional
requirement that the condensate pan be emptied before precooling the
unit under test.
DOE seeks comment on the proposal to incorporate Sections 5.1, 5.2,
5.3 (including sub-sections 5.3.1 to 5.3.17), and the relevant portions
of Appendix A of ASHRAE 72-2018R, with the proposed deviations, for the
blast chillers and blast freezers test procedures.
Appendix A of ASHRAE 72-2018R specifies electrical measurements at
the equipment terminals. ASHRAE 220 specifies the following electrical
measurement locations: at the plug-in location for units with a
standard wall plug, or at the terminal box for units that are hard
wired to the building electrical system. Because the electrical
measurement location in Appendix A of ASHRAE 72-2018R is similar to
ASHRAE 220, DOE expects that the ASHRAE 72-2018R approach is the likely
final approach to be used in the eventual final ASHRAE 220 standard.
For that reason, DOE is proposing to incorporate the relevant portions
of Appendix A of ASHRAE 72-2018R for the electrical measurement
locations.
DOE seeks comment on the proposal to incorporate the relevant
portions of Appendix A of ASHRAE 72-2018R for the electrical
measurement locations for the blast chillers and blast freezers test
procedures.
ASHRAE 220 provides instructions for measuring the gross
refrigerated volume of blast chillers and blast freezers. The gross
refrigerated volume is calculated by multiplying the internal length,
width, and height of the cabinet excluding panels and space occupied by
the evaporator or evaporator fan. Appendix C of AHRI 1200-202X
specifies instructions for determining the refrigerated volume of
display merchandisers and storage cabinets. DOE has reviewed the
instructions in AHRI 1200-202X for determining refrigerated volume and
has initially determined that the instructions can be applied to blast
chillers and blast freezers because of the similar construction of
these CRE. Based on this initial determination, DOE is proposing to
refer to AHRI 1200-202X for measuring the refrigerated volume of blast
chillers and blast freezers.
DOE seeks comment on the proposal to reference AHRI 1200-202X for
measuring the refrigerated volume of blast chillers and blast freezers.
ASHRAE 220 specifies that the standard product vessel shall be a 12
inch by 20 inch by 2.5 inch 22 gauge or heavier and 300 series
stainless steel pan. ASHRAE 220 states that if the test unit is not
capable of holding the standard product pan, the manufacturer's
recommended pan size is used, conforming as closely as possible to the
standard product load. Based on a review of blast chillers and blast
freezers available on the market, DOE observed that all units are
intended for use with food pans, and nearly all units available can
accommodate the specified standard pan sizes. DOE has tentatively
determined that the pans as specified in ASHRAE 220 are representative
of typical use and is proposing to incorporate the standard product pan
specifications included in the draft of ASHRAE 220.
DOE seeks comment on the proposal to incorporate the standard
product pan specifications in ASHRAE 220 for the blast chillers and
blast freezers test procedures.
ASHRAE 220 specifies that the manufacturer's recommended maximum 12
inch by 20 inch by 2.5 inch pan capacity should be used for testing.
DOE has reviewed the ASHRAE 220 specifications and equipment available
on the market. Based on DOE's review, additional specifications may be
needed to determine how many standard product pans are used in the test
unit. The number of standard product pans that would be used for
testing is
[[Page 39196]]
dependent on the specified product capacity of the test unit based on
food weight. The ASHRAE 220 committee tentatively determined that
having a uniform food simulator thickness across all standard product
pans is important for repeatable and comparable results, manufacturer
design parameters, and consistency with European blast chiller and
blast freezer testing requirements.\26\ The ASHRAE 220 committee
tentatively concluded that a uniform food simulator thickness of 2
inches in the standard product pan (i.e., filled to within 0.5 inch of
the top of the pan) is appropriate. Based on this conclusion, the
number of pans required for testing blast chillers and blast freezers
would be determined by the number of standard product pans filled with
the standard food simulator load to 2 inches deep that can fit in the
blast chiller or blast freezer without exceeding the manufacturer's
recommended capacity. Because this approach could potentially require
the tested capacity to be smaller than the manufacturer's stated
capacity, if the stated capacity is not evenly divisible by the number
of pans, the ASHRAE 220 committee considered allowing for one
additional pan that has a thickness less than 2 inches which would make
up the difference to meet the manufacturer's rated capacity but that
this additional pan would not require temperature measurement. Based on
the discussion from the ASHRAE 220 committee, DOE proposes that the
number of pans required for testing blast chillers and blast freezers
be determined by the number of standard product pans filled to 2 inches
deep with food simulator product that can be loaded into the blast
chiller or blast freezer without exceeding the manufacturer's stated
food load capacity by weight, plus one additional standard product pan,
if needed, to meet the manufacturer's stated food load capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See ISO 22042:2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comment on the proposed method to determine the number of
pans required for testing blast chillers and blast freezers.
ASHRAE 220 specifies that the tested product capacity is determined
based on loading the test unit with the maximum number of pans with
food product up to the manufacturer's recommended maximum food product
weight capacity. The food product weight does not include the weight of
the pans.
Consistent with the comment from the CA IOUs, the ASHRAE 220
committee determined that blast chiller and blast freezer capacity
based on food product weight is relevant in addition to refrigerated
volume because the throughput of food product by weight is the primary
function provided to users, as compared to long-term refrigerated
storage volume for typical CRE. Blast chillers and blast freezers with
the same volume may have different pull-down capacities by weight
depending on the design of the cooling system.
Based on participation in the ASHRAE 220 committee, DOE expects
that manufacturers specify capacity by food weight based on the maximum
food load that can be loaded into the blast chiller or blast freezer
while meeting the performance requirement of NSF 7-2019. DOE has
reviewed the ASHRAE 220 specifications and equipment available on the
market and tentatively determines that additional specifications may be
needed to determine the product capacity used during the test. DOE is
proposing that when determining the product capacity, all manufacturer
literature that is included with the unit would be reviewed, and the
largest product capacity stated in the literature would be used. If the
unit is able to operate as both a blast chiller and a blast freezer in
different operating modes and the literature specifies different
product capacities for blast chilling and blast freezing, the largest
capacity stated for the respective operating mode during the test would
be used.
If no product capacity is stated in the manufacturer literature,
DOE is proposing that the product capacity be represented by the
maximum number of 12 inch by 20 inch by 2.5 inch pans that can fit in
the test unit with each pan filled 2 inches deep with product,
consistent with the ASHRAE 220 approach, with capacity determined as
the sum of the food weights within the individual pans loaded for
testing. As discussed further in a subsequent section, DOE is proposing
use of a food simulator. The tested capacity would not include the
weight of the pans, temperature sensors, or wires. If upon testing a
blast chiller or blast freezer with no stated product capacity is not
capable of pulling down temperatures from 135 [deg]F to 40 [deg]F
within a period of four hours with the load specified in the proposed
test procedure, DOE proposes that one pan be removed until the unit
achieves the specified pull-down operation.
To ensure repeatability of testing, DOE is proposing that the
tested capacity (determined as the sum of the food weights for
individual pans loaded for testing) be within 5 percent or
2 pounds of the rated capacity, whichever is less. DOE
acknowledges that the actual weight of food simulator may be slightly
different in each pan because each pan may not be loaded with food
simulator to the exact same specified thickness. Specifying a tolerance
on the overall tested capacity would ensure that the total food load by
weight is consistent from test to test.
DOE seeks comment on the proposal to determine the tested product
capacity for the blast chillers and blast freezers test procedures.
ASHRAE 220 specifies where to place the standard product pans in
the blast chiller or blast freezer if a full load of pans is not needed
to meet the manufacturer's stated capacity. ASHRAE 220 specifies that
if there are fewer pans than there are rack spaces in the unit, the
pans shall be placed evenly in the unit with top and bottom shelves
occupied. If not all shelves are occupied by pans, the pan locations
shall be recorded. The ASHRAE 220 committee has also discussed
specifying that pans would be loaded without pans nesting on each other
and without touching the top and the bottom of the cabinet. DOE has
reviewed the ASHRAE 220 specifications, ASHRAE 220 committee
discussions, and equipment available on the market. Based on DOE's
review, additional specifications may be needed to determine where to
place the standard product pans. DOE proposes that once the number of
standard product pans needed for the test has been determined, the pans
should be spaced evenly throughout each vertical column of rack
positions in the test unit without the pans touching any other pans and
without the pans touching the top and the bottom of the cabinet. For
test units that have an additional pan with a product thickness of less
than 2 inches, DOE proposes to require placing the additional pan as
close to the middle rack position as possible while maintaining an even
distribution of all pans. DOE also proposes that if not all rack
positions are occupied by pans, the pan locations shall be recorded.
DOE seeks comment on the proposed method for distributing the pans
within the test unit's cabinet for testing blast chillers and blast
freezers.
ASHRAE 220 specifies that if multiple pans are used per level
(i.e., pans can be loaded side-by-side at the same level), only one pan
needs to be measured with product temperature sensors per level. ASHRAE
220 provides a figure illustrating an example for test units with
multiple pans per level, indicating which pans would include
thermocouples. In the figure, each level includes two side-by-side
pans, and the thermocouple location is staggered such that it
alternates between the left and right pan at each level, and such that
[[Page 39197]]
each vertical column does not have two measured pans in sequential
levels.
DOE has reviewed the draft ASHRAE 220 pan loading approach and has
tentatively determined that it provides a representative measure of
food load temperature within the blast chiller or blast freezer while
limiting test burden. DOE acknowledges that food temperatures within
the cabinet may vary depending on proximity to the evaporator or
airflow pathway through the cabinet but expects that measuring one pan
per level and staggering the measured pans would ensure a
representative food temperature average would be measured during
testing. DOE has also initially determined that this approach would
limit test burden by avoiding the need for every pan to include a
thermocouple, thereby avoiding the setup of the thermocouple within the
pan and the routing of additional thermocouple wires from inside the
cabinet.
Based on the review of ASHRAE 220, DOE proposes to incorporate the
ASHRAE 220 approach with additional instructions. DOE proposes that if
multiple standard product pans are used per level, only one pan per
level be measured with a temperature sensor. DOE proposes to specify
that the pan measured should alternate vertical columns so that each
vertical column does not have two measured pans in sequential levels
and that if a test unit uses an additional pan that has a thickness
less than 2 inches, this additional pan would not be measured for
product temperature.
DOE seeks comment on the proposed method to determine which
standard product pans would include temperature measurement sensors for
the blast chillers and blast freezers test procedures.
ASHRAE 220 specifies measuring the product temperature in the
geometric center of any measured pans and provides an example figure
illustrating the temperature sensor location in a measured pan and, in
particular, showing the unweighted thermocouple as being placed \5/8\
inch above the bottom of the pan. ASHRAE 220 provides that temperature
sensor leads must allow for the transfer of pans from the heating
compartment to the test unit cabinet.
DOE proposes to incorporate this approach with additional
instruction to specify explicitly details that are shown visually in
the example figure in ASHRAE 220. DOE proposes that product temperature
shall be measured in the geometric center of the product pan, \5/8\
inches above the bottom of the pan, that the temperature sensor shall
be unweighted, and that the temperature sensor leads shall be secured
to the bottom of the pan while also allowing for the transfer of the
pan from the heating source into the test unit's cabinet.
DOE seeks comment on the proposed method of measuring the product
temperature in the measured pans for the blast chillers and blast
freezers test procedures.
ASHRAE 220 specifies instructions to prepare the product medium
mixture to be placed in the standard product pans as follows:
(a) Determine the manufacturer's recommended maximum food product
weight capacity.
(b) Prepare a 20 percent by volume propylene glycol (1,2-
Propanediol) mixture in water.
(c) In each pan, pour the propylene glycol mixture over #20 mesh
southern yellow pine sawdust to create a 22 percent to 78 percent by
mass slurry. Mixture must be pre-portioned for each individual pan to
avoid large batch component separation.
(d) Mix until the sawdust becomes completely saturated and leave
uncovered in the pan. The weight of the mixture shall correspond with
the determined weight. Record the weight of each pan, weight of the
mixture, and number of pans to be loaded. Weight of the thermocouples
shall be omitted.
Note: Acceptable Sawdust Specification Example: American Wood
Fibers brand, #20 Mesh Pine Sawdust (50 lbs bags), Item #
30020205018
(e) Verify that the pan thermocouple is fully submerged in the
mixture, reposition the thermocouple in the geometric center of the
mixture if it is not.
The ASHRAE 220 committee developed the food simulator
specifications based on the food load specified in NSF 7-2019 for rapid
pull-down refrigerators and freezers. Because this test load is already
in use for this equipment, and because its heat transfer
characteristics are similar to actual food loads, DOE has tentatively
determined that the food simulator load specified in the ASHRAE 220
draft is representative for testing blast chillers and blast freezers.
DOE proposes to incorporate the ASHRAE 220 approach with additional
specifications to ensure repeatability. As stated, each pan would be
loaded to 2 inches of food load thickness (i.e., depth) within the pan
and an additional pan would be loaded as needed to meet the
manufacturer's stated capacity. DOE is proposing that each pan shall be
weighed prior to heating, before and after the food product simulator
is added. A cumulative total of the product weight shall be calculated
and the pans shall continue to be loaded with the product mixture until
the cumulative total reaches the manufacturer's stated capacity (the
total product weight shall be within 5 percent or 2 pounds of the manufacturer's stated capacity, whichever is
less).
DOE seeks comment on the proposed method for preparing the product
medium mixture to be placed in the standard product pans for the blast
chillers and blast freezers test procedures.
Test Conduct
In response to the June 2021 RFI, DOE received a comment from the
CA IOUs stating that test engineers at Southern California Edison's
Foodservice Technology Center indicated that production kitchens that
use blast chillers or blast freezers are often designed to maximize
throughput of hot food products (usually cooked in combination ovens or
rack ovens) through the blast chiller or blast freezer, and then once
the food is cooled it is typically placed in standard refrigerators or
freezers for long term storage. (CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 5)
The overall test approach in the ASHRAE 220 draft includes pre-
cooling the blast chiller's or blast freezer's cabinet to a pre-set or
controlled operating temperature, loading of hot food pans into the
blast chiller or blast freezer, and pull-down of the hot food pans to
the target temperature. The ASHRAE 220 committee also considered
including an operating period in which the blast chiller or blast
freezer would maintain the food load at the target temperature (i.e., a
``holding period''). However, consistent with the comment from the CA
IOUs, the ASHRAE 220 committee determined that the primary function of
the blast chiller or blast freezer is to pull-down hot food
temperatures and that the prioritization of throughput through the
blast chiller or blast freezer would result in less operation in
holding periods. DOE has tentatively determined that the ASHRAE 220
approach is appropriate for blast chiller and blast freezer testing and
is proposing to only include pre-cooling and pull-down operation within
the test.
DOE seeks comment on the proposal to include pre-cooling and pull-
down operating in the blast chiller and blast freezer test procedure
and to not include any holding periods during testing.
ASHRAE 220 specifies that all measurements shall be continuously
[[Page 39198]]
recorded during the test in intervals no greater than 10 seconds. The
current DOE CRE test procedures require that measurement intervals do
not exceed three minutes and ASHRAE 72-2018R requires certain
measurements at one-minute intervals. Because the blast chiller and
blast freezer test procedure is not conducted at stable cabinet
temperature conditions, as is the case for other CRE testing, DOE has
tentatively determined that a shorter measurement interval is
appropriate to accurately identify unit performance (e.g., determining
when all pans reach the target temperatures). Therefore, DOE proposes
to incorporate the ASHRAE 220 approach requiring data acquisition at 10
second intervals.
DOE seeks comment on the proposed data recording rate for the blast
chillers and blast freezers test procedures.
ASHRAE 220 specifies that data would be recorded once a steady-
state condition is established. ASHRAE 220 specifies that the test unit
stabilize at ambient temperatures for at least 24 hours before pre-
cooling and that the prepared product be heated for a minimum of 8
hours in the standard product pans at the required temperature prior to
loading into the blast chiller or blast freezer. Consistent with these
requirements, DOE proposes that the test unit stabilize at ambient
temperatures for at least 24 hours, and then data acquisition would be
recorded prior to the pre-cool period. For the prepared product in the
standard product pans, DOE proposes that data acquisition begin prior
to the minimum 8 hour heating period.
DOE seeks comment on the proposed data collection periods for the
blast chillers and blast freezers test procedures.
ASHRAE 220 specifies a procedure for pre-cooling the test unit from
ambient conditions prior to pull-down operation. The test unit is to
remain in the required ambient conditions for at least 24 hours before
pre-cooling. The test unit's pre-cooling cycle is used, if available.
For test units with more than one pre-cool cycle, the cycle used is
recorded. For units without a pre-cooling cycle, an empty blast cycle
should be run in its entirety. During the pre-cool cycle, the test
unit's sensing probe will remain in its default or holstered position.
Pre-cool is deemed complete when the test unit's pre-cool notification
reports. If the test unit does not have a pre-cool cycle or pre-cool
completion notification, the pre-cool is deemed complete when the
compressor first cycles off. The pre-cool data to be recorded is the
selected cycle name, pre-cool duration, temperature, and energy
consumed.
Because the main function of a blast chiller or blast freezer is to
pull down the product temperature of hot food, DOE has tentatively
determined that measuring performance during the pre-cool period is not
necessary, other than to determine when pre-cooling is complete.
However, because pull-down testing is initiated after the completion of
pre-cooling, operation during pre-cooling may impact pull-down
performance. Based on DOE's review of ASHRAE 220, additional
specifications regarding pre-cooling may be needed.
DOE proposes that the pre-cool cycle may be initiated on blast
chillers and blast freezers once the test unit has been maintained at
ambient temperatures without operating for at least 24 hours. Rather
than selecting and recording any pre-cooling cycle, DOE is proposing
that the fastest pre-cooling cycle be selected. DOE proposes to specify
that the pre-cool cycle is complete when the test unit notifies the
user that the pre-cool is complete, consistent with ASHRAE 220, but
that if the test unit does not notify the user that the pre-cool cycle
is complete, the pre-cool will be deemed complete when the test unit
reaches 40 [deg]F or 2 [deg]F based on the test unit's sensing probe
for blast chillers and blast freezers, respectively. DOE has
tentatively determined that this approach would ensure a consistent
starting point for pull-down testing from unit to unit rather than the
first compressor off cycle.
For test units without any defined pre-cooling cycles, DOE is
proposing that the fastest blast chilling or blast freezing cycle shall
be run with an empty cabinet until the test unit reaches 40 [deg]F or 2
[deg]F based on the test unit's sensing probe. Consistent with ASHRAE
220, during the pre-cool cycle, the test unit's sensing probe will
remain in its default or holstered position. The pre-cool test data to
be recorded are the ambient conditions, pre-cool cycle selected, pre-
cool duration, and final pre-cool cabinet temperature based on the test
unit's sensing probe.
As stated, DOE is proposing that test procedures for blast chillers
and blast freezers are to measure the energy consumed by the product
temperature pull-down operation. Additionally, blast chillers and blast
freezers may run multiple pull-down cycles consecutively without the
need for individual pre-cooling cycles. However, DOE acknowledges that
the energy consumed during the pre-cool period may be relevant to the
overall energy consumption of blast chillers and blast freezers and
requests comment on whether pre-cooling energy use should be measured
and considered in the overall energy consumption metric for blast
chillers and blast freezers.
DOE seeks comment on the proposed method to conduct the pre-cool
cycle for the blast chillers and blast freezers test procedures.
ASHRAE 220 specifies instructions for loading the prepared standard
product pans into the test unit. Measured standard product pans are
maintained at an average temperature of 160.0 1.8 [deg]F
and an individual pan temperature tolerance of 160 10
[deg]F for a minimum of 8 hours prior to being loaded into the test
unit. Non-measured pans are also required to be heated for a minimum of
8 hours. The test unit door is opened for loading at 4 1
minutes after the test unit completes its pre-cool cycle. ASHRAE 220
specifies that the door remain open to load all of the standard product
pans for the entirety of the loading procedure. ASHRAE 220 further
specifies that the door is open for 20 seconds per roll-in rack and 15
seconds per pan for roll-in and standard test units, respectively. The
test unit's sensing probe is inserted into the geometric center of a
standard product pan in the center level of the cabinet. If the center
level has capacity for multiple pans, the probed pan should be furthest
away from the evaporator. The probe must not touch the bottom of the
pan or be exposed to the air. The location of the pan with the probe is
recorded. The factory probe is placed so that it does not interfere
with the test thermocouple measurement. The door remains closed for the
remainder of the test.
DOE proposes to adopt ASHRAE 220's approach with additional
specifications and certain deviations to ensure consistent testing. DOE
proposes that while maintaining the temperature of the measured
standard product pans prior to loading into the blast chiller or blast
freezer, the non-measured standard product pans shall be placed in
alternating positions with the measured standard product pans in the
heating device for a minimum of 8 hours prior to being loaded into the
test unit to ensure consistent product temperatures. The test unit door
would be opened for loading at the specified time in ASHRAE 220, but
DOE is proposing to specify more precise values, i.e., 4.0
1.0 minutes. DOE is proposing that the total door open period for
loading pans would have a tolerance of 5 seconds to
account for different test lab operation. DOE is proposing that the
door would be fully open, based on the definition of ``fully open'' in
ASHRAE 72-2018R, for the duration specified in
[[Page 39199]]
ASHRAE 220 to ensure test repeatability. DOE is proposing that the test
unit's sensing probe would be inserted into the geometric center of the
standard product pan approximately 1 inch deep in the product mixture
at the median pan level in the test unit, which adds greater
specificity for test repeatability. If the standard product pan at the
median level is the additional pan with less than 2 inches of product
thickness, DOE is proposing to specify that the closest pan or pan
level that is farthest away from the evaporator fan would be used to
insert the test unit's sensing probe, consistent with the ASHRAE 220
approach. DOE is proposing to add that the product temperature sensor
wiring not affect energy performance, consistent with section 5.4.9 of
ASHRAE 72-2018R.
DOE seeks comment on the proposed method to load the prepared
standard product pans into the test unit for the blast chillers and
blast freezers test procedures.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment and supporting data on
the typical usage settings for blast chillers and blast freezers and
how different set-point modes affect energy performance. 86 FR 31182,
31189. For units with multiple temperature settings within the
refrigerator or freezer temperature range, DOE requested comment on
which setting is appropriate for testing. Id. Additionally, for units
with settings that affect the pull-down duration, DOE requested comment
on whether the fastest or slowest setting (or any other setting if more
than two settings are provided) should be used for testing. Id.
NEEA commented that ASHRAE 220 is working to answer some of the
questions posed by DOE, including establishing starting food
temperatures, blast chiller temperatures, and ambient temperatures.
(NEEA, No. 5, p. 3)
ASHRAE 220 specifies instructions to operate the blast chilling or
blast freezing cycle. A blast chilling or blast freezing cycle is
selected for blast chilling and blast freezing tests, respectively.
ASHRAE 220 specifies that the cycle selected should provide the most
rapid product cooldown designed for the densest food product as stated
in manufacturer literature. ASHRAE 220 provides that a manufacturer may
provide additional clarification on cycle selection. ASHRAE 220
specifies that the selected cycle name and settings are recorded.
ASHRAE 220 further specifies the following: Temperature and energy
measurement starts once the first pan is loaded in the unit; the
selected cycle continues until all individual measured pan temperatures
are below the final temperatures of 40 [deg]F and 2 [deg]F for blast
chilling and blast freezing tests, respectively; if the selected cycle
program terminates prior to all product temperatures reaching below the
test's prescribed final temperature, the standard product pans remain
in the unit until it does so; if the temperature does not reach below
the test's prescribed temperature after two additional hours, unit
temperature settings are adjusted to achieve the desired final
temperature; temperature and energy measurements end once the door is
opened to remove the standard product pans; and energy consumption,
temperature, and time is reported starting with the first pan loaded in
the unit and ending with the final pan reaching the prescribed final
temperature.
Based on DOE's review of ASHRAE 220, DOE has initially determined
that additional specifications and certain deviations may be needed to
improve test repeatability and reproducibility. Consistent with the
integrated average temperature requirements from the current DOE CRE
test procedures, DOE proposes that a blast chilling cycle with a target
temperature of 38 [deg]F and a blast freezing cycle with a target
temperature of 0 [deg]F be selected for blast chilling and blast
freezing tests, respectively. Consistent with ASHRAE 220, the cycle
selected would be the cycle with the most rapid product temperature
pulldown that is designed for the densest food product, as stated in
the test unit's manufacturer literature. Ambient conditions and time
measurements would be recorded from the pre-cool cycle. Product
temperature measurements from the measured standard product pans would
be recorded from the 8-hour period of heating prior to being loaded
into the test unit to ensure that pull-down performance data is
recorded. Voltage, frequency, and energy consumed would start to be
recorded as soon as the test unit door is opened to load the standard
product pans so that blast chiller and blast freezer tests are started
at a consistent point across all tests. Once the test unit door is
closed, the blast chilling or blast freezing cycle would be selected
and initiated as soon as is practicable. The blast chilling or blast
freezing cycle selected would be recorded. The blast chilling or blast
freezing test period would continue from the door opening until all
individual measured pan temperatures are at or below 40.0 [deg]F or 2.0
[deg]F for blast chiller and blast freezer tests, respectively,
regardless of whether the selected cycle program has terminated. If all
individual measured pan temperatures do not reach 40.0 [deg]F or 2.0
[deg]F for blast chiller and blast freezer tests, respectively, two
hours after the selected cycle program has terminated, the test would
be repeated and the target temperature would be lowered by 1 [deg]F
until all individual measured pan temperatures are at or below 40.0
[deg]F or 2.0 [deg]F for blast chiller and blast freezer tests,
respectively, at the conclusion of the test. The duration of the blast
chiller or blast freezer test would be recorded.
DOE seeks comment on the proposed method to conduct the blast
chilling or blast freezing test.
Calculations
In response to the June 2021 RFI, the CA IOUs commented that the
primary factors for energy use are the weight of the food to be
chilled, starting temperature, and ending temperatures of the food;
therefore, the CA IOUs suggested that DOE choose an energy use metric
based on energy use per weight of food and degrees cooled (i.e., the
active pull-down mode). (CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 4)
ASHRAE 220 specifies calculations used to report the energy
consumed during the test. The measured energy consumption is divided by
the test product capacity in pounds, averaged for 3 repeated tests. DOE
proposes to incorporate the ASHRAE 220 approach (and to specify that
the measured energy consumption is reported in kilowatt-hours) except
that only one test would be needed in order to limit test burden.
ASHRAE test standards do not generally provide requirements for
multiple tests, as sampling plans are typically established by the
rating programs that reference the ASHRAE test standard. However, DOE
already provides sampling plans for the determination of CRE
represented energy or efficiency values at 10 CFR 429.42(a).
Accordingly, DOE has initially determined that the three tests
considered for the ASHRAE 220 standard are not necessary for
representations, and DOE is not planning to incorporate ASHRAE's method
of averaging over three tests.
DOE seeks comment on the proposed method for calculating the
reported energy use metric for blast chillers and blast freezers.
4. Chef Bases and Griddle Stands
DOE defines ``chef base or griddle stand'' as CRE that is designed
and marketed for the express purpose of having a griddle or other
cooking appliance placed on top of it that is capable of reaching
temperatures hot enough to cook food. 10 CFR 431.62.
[[Page 39200]]
As discussed in the April 2014 Final Rule, the explicit
categorization of griddle stands covers equipment that experiences
temperatures exceeding 200 [deg]F. 79 FR 22277, 22282. As explained,
this was to distinguish between equipment that experience cooking
temperatures and equipment that experiences temperatures at which food
is kept warm. Id. However, DOE notes that the current definition for
chef bases and griddle stands does not specify a quantitative
temperature and instead states ``hot enough to cook food.''
DOE stated in the April 2014 Final Rule that chef bases and griddle
stands are able to be tested according to the DOE test procedure, but
that their refrigeration systems require larger compressors to provide
more cooling capacity per storage volume than equipment with
compressors that are appropriately sized for conventional CRE and more
typical room temperature conditions. 79 FR 22277, 22281-22282. However,
the definition does not include specifications for the refrigeration
systems to differentiate this equipment from typical CRE.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether the
definition for chef bases and griddle stands should be modified to
include a specific temperature requirement for cooking appliances
placed on top of chef bases and griddle stands, or other such
specification. 86 FR 31182, 31189. DOE requested feedback on
quantifiable characteristics of chef bases and griddle stands that
differentiate this equipment from other CRE, including information on
appropriate temperature ranges and refrigeration system characteristics
that could be used to classify equipment as chef bases and griddle
stands. Id.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE also requested comment on whether
modifications to the current CRE test procedure would be appropriate
for testing chef bases and griddle stands to better represent real-
world use conditions. Id. DOE specifically requested supporting data on
the time per day that top-mounted cooking equipment is active, as well
as typical temperatures of the cooking equipment when active, to gain
an understanding of the magnitude of the resulting thermal loads. Id.
DOE also requested comment on whether the existing DOE test procedure
is appropriate for measuring the energy use of this equipment. Id.
True, Hoshizaki, NEEA, and the CA IOUs commented in support of
using the ASHRAE 72-2018 test procedure for chef bases and griddle
stands to prevent additional burden of a new test procedure. (True, No.
4, p. 15; Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 3; NEEA, No. 5, p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 10,
p. 1-2) The CA IOUs commented that utility programs for this equipment
would benefit from uniform test procedures and definitions to document
the rated energy performance for both baseline and efficient products.
(CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 1-2) NEEA commented in support of collaboration
with EPA to ensure market consistency. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 2)
Hoshizaki commented that the ASHRAE 72 committee should be given
the chance to review whether a heat load should be added to the top of
the units to represent heating equipment (e.g., fryers, griddles, hot
pads, etc.). (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 3) NEEA commented that an ASHRAE
investigation added an electric griddle to the top of chef bases to
emulate real world conditions; however, that version of ASHRAE 72 was
abandoned when there was insufficient variation in the data to
demonstrate the effectiveness of thermal breaks between the surface and
refrigerated compartments beneath. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 2) The CA IOUs
commented that PG&E and Southern California Edison (``SCE'')
commissioned and conducted testing including a griddle at 350 [deg]F
and a broiler at 600 [deg]F to evaluate heat loads typically found near
chef bases and found negligible impact on the daily energy consumption
of the chef base.\27\ (CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 2) The CA IOUs commented
that the six door openings per day in ASHRAE 72-2018 may not be
representative of field use and encouraged DOE to work with industry
stakeholders to establish a more representative door opening schedule.
(CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See www.caetrm.com/media/reference-documents/ET15SCE1010_Chef_Bases_Report_final2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Joint Commenters stated that preliminary EPA research found
significant variation in energy performance between preparation tables
and work top tables, which have similar designs to chef bases. (Joint
Commenters, No. 8, p. 2) NEEA commented that SCE tested six different
chef bases using ASHRAE 72-2014 without modification and that results
indicated wide variation in energy performance in the market,
suggesting chef bases could be tested using ASHRAE 72-2014. (NEEA, No.
5, p. 2)
ITW commented that UL Standard 197, ``Commercial Electric Cooking
Appliances'' generally covers the cooking appliances and does not refer
to any minimum cooking or appliance surface temperature, such that
DOE's definition appears correct. (ITW, No. 2, p. 8)
AHRI commented that chef bases and griddle stands are highly
customizable, with the following characteristics that may differ from
typical CRE: additional insulation below the high temperature surface,
modified temperature operation for easily spoilable product, shortened
operating windows for loading only during business hours, drawer
configurations, and attributes for the high ambient conditions. (AHRI,
No. 3, p. 15) AHRI commented that none of these characteristics are
distinguishing features and can be custom built based on the end user's
needs. (Id.)
True commented that DOE should not regulate food safety and should
limit its regulations to energy consumption. (True, No. 4, p. 15) True
commented that chef bases and griddle stands are known to operate with
higher heat loads due to cook tops, grills, etc. (Id.) True commented
that their reach-in equipment within the VCS.SC.M/L equipment classes
(used to hold frozen fries or refrigerated meat, poultry, or fish) are
commonly installed next to fryers and grills in hot kitchens, but that
they perform ASHRAE 72-2018 for energy consumption and NSF 7-2019 for
food safety and performance testing. (Id.)
AHRI commented that the current test procedure does not account for
the high ambient conditions, added thermal load from the cook top, or
customized operating windows. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 10) AHRI commented that
the time per day that top mounted equipment is active varies based on
the application (e.g., breakfast diner operating a griddle during
breakfast hours only versus a 24-hour diner using the grill
continuously). (Id.)
The CA IOUs and Joint Commenters commented that DOE should
establish higher ambient temperature and relative humidity conditions
for evaluating the performance of chef bases. (CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 2-3;
Joint Commenters, No. 8, p. 2) The CA IOUs recommended adopting
conditions from ASTM F2143-16 or the emerging ASHRAE Standard 220,
which have an ambient temperature of 86 [deg]F 2 [deg]F
and relative humidity of 35 percent 5 percent. (CA IOUs,
No. 10, p. 2-3) The CA IOUs commented that these elevated kitchen
temperatures are supported by a 2012 ASHRAE research project
benchmarking the thermal conditions in 100 commercial kitchens in the
United States, which found that the average temperature in preparation
areas ranged from 72 [deg]F to 79 [deg]F, while the average temperature
in cooking areas ranged from 79 [deg]F to 93 [deg]F. (Id.) The CA IOUs
[[Page 39201]]
commented that a 2014 PG&E study investigated refrigerated prep tables
at eleven different sites in California, finding that the ambient
temperatures over a two-week period ranged from 70 [deg]F to 78 [deg]F
during a cold month in February and between 82 [deg]F and 84 [deg]F
during a two-week period during a warmer fall season, and that both
studies found consistently elevated ambient temperatures in kitchens
compared to the existing 75 [deg]F ambient temperature requirement in
ASHRAE 72-2018. (Id.)
ITW and True commented that the test procedure should not change
and would create an unnecessary burden. (ITW, No. 2, p. 8; True, No. 4,
p. 16)
ITW commented that UL 197 Section 50.1.3, ``Normal Temperature
Test,'' assumes an ambient temperature of 77 [deg]F, which is within
the ASHRAE 72-2018 temperature specification, such that no change is
needed. (ITW, No. 2, p. 8) ITW commented that a radiant panel could be
added or held above (at a 4 foot to 6 foot clearance) the top surface
to simulate a ``worst case'' cooking appliance, but that the panel
would need to evenly raise the surface temperature to a maximum of 194
[deg]F (see UL 197, Table 50.1). (Id.)
Since publication of the June 2021 RFI, EPA has published a Final
Draft Version 5.0 Eligibility Criteria for the ENERGY STAR program for
commercial refrigerators and freezers.\28\ This final draft
specification includes a definition for ``chef base or griddle stand''
consistent with DOE's current definition and would require testing
according to the existing DOE test procedure in place for CRE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ For information on the Version 5.0 specification
development, see www.energystar.gov/products/spec/commercial_refrigerators_and_freezers_specification_version_5_0_pd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has considered whether additional detail regarding the
characteristics of chef bases or griddle stands would better
differentiate it from other CRE. As discussed, chef bases or griddle
stands are designed for use with cooking equipment placed on top of the
unit. Typical chef bases or griddle stands may include oversized
refrigeration systems and additional cabinet insulation to ensure the
unit can maintain cold storage temperatures with the additional heat
load from the cooking equipment. However, these characteristics may not
be readily identifiable in a given chef base or griddle stand. For
example, manufacturers may not offer CRE in the a different CRE
equipment class with similar designs to any chef base or griddle stand,
in which case there would not be a point of comparison available to
determine whether the chef base or griddle stand includes more
insulation or an oversized refrigeration system.
While EPA's Final Draft Version 5.0 Eligibility Criteria includes a
definition of chef base or griddle stand consistent with DOE's
definition, it also includes definitions for similar equipment types;
i.e., worktop and undercounter \29\ CRE. Both of these definitions
include a minimum height requirement of 32 inches. Chef bases or
griddle stands have similar construction to worktop and undercounter
equipment but are typically shorter to allow for installing cooking
equipment above the refrigerated cabinet at a normal working height.
Consistent with the ENERGY STAR definitions for worktop and
undercounter, DOE is proposing to amend the definition for chef base or
griddle stand to specify that the equipment has a maximum height of 32
inches, including any legs or casters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Undercounter: A vertical closed commercial refrigerator or
freezer that has no surface intended for food preparation. The
equipment is intended for installation under a separate counter or
workspace. This equipment may have doors or drawers and shall have a
minimum height of 32-inches, including legs or casters.
Worktop: A vertical closed commercial refrigerator or freezer
that has a surface intended for food preparation that is incapable
of supporting cooking equipment. This equipment may have doors or
drawers and shall have a minimum height of 32-inches, including legs
or casters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment on the proposed amendment to the definition
for chef base or griddle stand, which specifies a maximum height of 32
inches for this equipment. DOE requests information on any other
identifiable equipment characteristics that may differentiate chef
bases and griddle stands from other similar CRE.
Regarding testing for chef bases or griddle stands, DOE has
initially determined that the existing DOE test procedure provides an
appropriate basis for measuring the energy consumption of this
equipment. DOE recognizes that chef bases or griddle stands can be
installed and used in ambient environments that are different from
other CRE, but DOE proposes to test this equipment in the same
conditions because DOE has tentatively determined that the additional
heat loads of cooking equipment do not affect measured energy use.
Additionally, this proposal would maintain a consistent testing basis
for similar equipment. Specifically, testing chef bases or griddle
stands according to the same test procedure as other CRE would allow
end users to compare energy consumptions among chef bases or griddle
stands and other currently covered equipment.
Additionally, DOE conducted testing similar to the PG&E and SCE
testing to investigate whether cooking equipment operation would impact
chef base or griddle stand energy use during typical operation, as
illustrated in Table III.4. DOE tested chef base or griddle stand
refrigerators and freezers to the current DOE CRE test procedure with
and without an active griddle installed on top of the test unit. During
the tests with an active griddle installed, the griddle was turned on
three hours after the start of the defrost period and maintained a
target griddle surface temperature of 185 [deg]F for 8 hours,
concurrent with the door opening period. After the 8-hour period of
griddle operation, the griddle was turned off for the remainder of the
test.
Table III.4--Chef Base or Griddle Stand Energy Consumption Comparison With and Without an Active Griddle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy
Energy consumption
Refrigerated consumption without Energy
Test unit volume (ft\3\) with griddle griddle consumption
installed (kWh/ installed (kWh/ difference
day) day) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigerator #1................................. 5.21 0.97 0.96 -0.5
Refrigerator #2................................. 9.17 1.04 1.03 -0.5
Refrigerator #3................................. 9.72 1.59 1.58 -0.1
Freezer #1...................................... 6.56 7.28 7.29 +0.2
[[Page 39202]]
Freezer #2...................................... 11.31 8.58 8.70 +1.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE tested an additional freezer that is not shown in the table due to inconsistent issues with the evaporator
icing during testing.
Consistent with the findings in the PG&E and SCE report, DOE
observed that chef bases or griddle stands consumed similar amounts of
energy with and without cooking equipment operating above the unit. DOE
has been unable to determine why Freezer #2 consumed slightly more
energy without a griddle installed. For these reasons, DOE is proposing
to maintain the existing CRE test procedure for testing chef bases or
griddle stands (with the additional proposals as discussed in this
NOPR). DOE has tentatively determined that this approach would allow
for measuring energy consumption representative of typical use, provide
a consistent basis for comparing energy consumption across similar
equipment types, and would limit test burden.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to test chef bases and griddle
stands according to the test procedure used for other CRE.
5. Mobile Refrigerated Cabinets
DOE does not currently define or specify test procedure provisions
specific to other categories of refrigerated holding and serving
equipment, such as certain mobile refrigerated cabinets. Specifically,
mobile refrigerated cabinets chill the refrigerated compartment before
being unplugged from power and taken to a remote location to hold food
products while maintaining cooling. Such equipment meets the definition
of CRE as defined at 10 CFR 431.62; however, unlike typical CRE, mobile
refrigerated cabinets are not continuously connected to a power supply.
As discussed in the April 2014 Final Rule, DOE determined that such
other categories of refrigerated holding and serving equipment meet the
definition of CRE and could be subject to future test procedures and
energy conservation standards. 79 FR 22277, 22281. To better
distinguish mobile refrigerated cabinets from other defined categories
of CRE, DOE is considering developing a definition for this equipment.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE sought information on the design features
and operating characteristics of mobile refrigerated cabinets that
would differentiate this equipment from other CRE or buffet tables and
preparation tables. 86 FR 31182, 31189. DOE also requested comment on
appropriate test conditions (e.g., temperature, moisture content) and
conduct (e.g., stabilization, door openings, duration connected and
disconnected from power supply) for such equipment. 86 FR 31182, 31189-
31190.
AHRI requested further clarification on what DOE considers to be a
mobile refrigerated cabinet, stating that it is unclear how this
product category differs from the others discussed in the previous
rulemaking and the June 2021 RFI. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 11) The Joint
Commenters commented that mobile refrigeration cabinets are often
placed outdoors and often exposed to higher ambient temperatures than
other CRE. (Joint Commenters, No. 8, p. 2)
The CA IOUs commented that these products should be referred to as
``refrigerated storage lockers'' and supported a method of test using a
modified version of ASHRAE 72-2018. (CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 6-7) The CA
IOUs commented that several petitions for test procedure waivers have
been submitted by manufactures. The CA IOUs supported the door opening
methodology granted in those waivers, asserting that an 8-second door
opening cycle once every 2 hours for 10 hours seems more representative
of real-world operation than door opening cycles once every 10 minutes
for eight hours, as specified in ASHRAE 72-2018). (Id.)
The focus of the request for information regarding mobile cabinets
was CRE that that typically operate without a continuous connection to
a power supply. Examples of this equipment include refrigerated
cabinets used to hold cold merchandise for vending outdoors during the
day without connection to a power supply while outdoors, or storage
cabinets to hold food at temperature while being delivered for service
(e.g., delivered to hospital rooms).
The CA IOUs' comment in response to the June 2021 RFI appears to
refer to customer order storage cabinets, discussed further in section
III.C.5 of this NOPR, and not mobile refrigerated cabinets. It is not
clear whether the Joint Commenters also intended to refer to customer
order storage cabinets or mobile refrigerated cabinets. DOE recognizes
that mobile refrigerated cabinets can be used outdoors, as in the case
of vending refrigerated merchandise, but are often used indoors, as in
the case of refrigerated storage for food service.
Based on a review of mobile refrigerated cabinets available on the
market, the operation and use of this equipment is subject to varied
end-use applications, which may be specific to individual models. DOE
did not identify data or information that would inform development of
representative test conditions for such equipment. As such, DOE is not
proposing to establish test procedures for mobile refrigerated cabinets
in this NOPR.
To better distinguish mobile refrigerated cabinets from other
defined categories of CRE, DOE proposes to add the following definition
to 10 CFR 431.62 for mobile refrigerated cabinets:
A ``mobile refrigerated cabinet'' means commercial refrigeration
equipment that is designed and marketed to operate only without a
continuous power supply.
CRE that allow the user to choose whether to operate with or
without a continuous power supply do not meet the definition of a
mobile refrigerated cabinet.
Although DOE is not proposing to establish test procedure
provisions specific to mobile refrigerated cabinets, CRE that do not
meet the definition of a mobile refrigerated cabinet are subject to
DOE's test procedure at appendix B and energy conservation standards
under the applicable CRE equipment class.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for mobile
refrigerated cabinet. DOE also requests comment on the proposal to not
[[Page 39203]]
establish test procedures for mobile refrigerated cabinets.
6. Additional Covered Equipment
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested feedback on other CRE that may
be available on the market and that may warrant separate equipment
category definitions and test procedures. 86 FR 31182, 31190.
Specifically, DOE sought information on the relevant equipment features
and utilities that would require separate equipment categories, as well
as the impact of those features and utilities on energy use and whether
the current test procedure would provide results of those impacts. Id.
DOE also requested any available information on potential definitions,
test procedures, and usage data (specifically, how the typical daily
energy use of the unique design compares to energy use of a unit of the
most similar CRE equipment class) for these equipment categories. Id.
DOE also requested comment on whether it should establish a definition
for ``other refrigerated holding and serving equipment'' to clearly
delineate equipment not currently subject to DOE's test procedure. Id.
DOE sought feedback on an appropriate definition, and on the types of
equipment it should cover. Id.
AHRI commented that there is not a need for additional equipment
classes at this time. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 11)
AHRI and Hussmann commented that creating additional definitions
for niche models not currently subject to the DOE test procedure would
create confusion in the regulated community that outweighs any
potential benefits. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 11-12; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 12)
AHRI and Hussmann commented that models outside the scope or unable to
achieve the efficiency standards should use the test procedure waiver
process, asserting that there will always be gaps between covered
equipment and the list of ``other refrigerated holding and serving
equipment.'' (AHRI, No. 3, p. 11-12; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 12) True
commented that the existing test procedure should be used for these
additional equipment categories. (True, No. 4, p. 17)
AHRI and Hussmann commented that any alternate testing should be
handled through waiver requests or specific supplemental instructions
on a case-by-case basis. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 12; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 13)
DOE provided examples of potential CRE that may require additional
test procedure provisions in the June 2021 RFI. 86 FR 31182, 31190. DOE
has initially determined that additional test procedure provisions to
account for what is likely unique equipment operation or usage are not
needed at this time. The existing DOE test procedure is reasonably
designed to produce test results which reflect energy efficiency and
energy use of the CRE subject to the test procedure during a
representative average use cycle, and is not be unduly burdensome to
conduct. In that the test procedure provides a representative average
use cycle, DOE is unable to account for every combination of operating
conditions and usage without the resulting test procedures being unduly
burdensome. If the test procedure cannot be conducted for certain
equipment, or if the test procedure results in measures of energy
consumption so unrepresentative of the equipment's true energy
consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate
comparative data, manufacturers may petition DOE for a test procedure
waiver under the provisions of 10 CFR 431.401. Section III.I of this
NOPR discusses waivers currently in place for CRE, including for
equipment with typical usage patterns different from the current test
procedure approach.
D. Harmonization of Efficiency Standards and Testing With NSF 7-2019
Food Safety
NSF 7-2019 establishes minimum food protection and sanitation
specifications for the materials, design, manufacture, and performance
of commercial refrigerators and freezers and their related components.
Section 2.3 of appendix B in the CRE test procedure provides that for
CRE that is also tested in accordance with NSF test procedures (Type I
and Type II),\30\ integrated average temperatures and ambient
conditions used for NSF testing may be used in place of the DOE-
prescribed integrated average temperatures and ambient conditions
provided they result in a more stringent test. To that end, the ambient
temperature may be higher, but not lower than the DOE test condition;
and the IAT may be lower, but not higher, than that measured at the DOE
ambient test condition. Id. The test conditions, and possible different
thermostat settings, under NSF 7-2019 may result in measured energy use
that is more representative of average use in applications for which
users prioritize food safety over energy efficiency. Permitting the use
of the NSF 7-2019 test conditions may also reduce testing burden for
manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Type I equipment is designed to operate in 75 [deg]F
ambient conditions and Type II equipment is designed to operate in
80 [deg]F ambient conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on ways in which the
DOE test procedure may be modified to better harmonize with NSF 7-2019,
if appropriate. 86 FR 31182, 31190. DOE specifically requested comment
on potential test requirements related to food safety that could be
specified to ensure that equipment is tested as it would operate in the
field. Id.
ITW, AHRI, Arneg, and True commented that the DOE test procedure is
appropriate and that test procedures changes are not needed to
harmonize with NSF 7-2019. (ITW, No. 2, p. 9; AHRI, No. 3, p. 12;
Arneg, No. 12, p. 2; True, No. 4, p. 18) ITW commented that the typical
restaurant, kitchen, and dining area all have air conditioning set to
temperatures lower than those specified in the ASHRAE 72-2018 standard,
and that DOE should make no changes or introduce any new environmental
conditions. (ITW, No. 2, p. 9) AHRI commented that NSF 7-2019 applies
only to self-contained medium temperature units. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 12)
Hussmann commented that rather than referring to NSF 7-2019 (which
only applies to SC.M units), Hussmann would support DOE standardizing
testing for energy efficiency using product temperatures that better
resemble the temperatures that a display case must run to preserve
perishable food product for all equipment classes. (Hussmann, No. 14,
p. 13-14)
DOE is not proposing any additional amendments to the test
procedures to further reference or harmonize with NSF 7-2019 testing.
The existing test procedure instructions in section 2.3 of appendix B
allow for the use of NSF 7-2019 test data, subject to certain
requirements, to be used for DOE testing. DOE recognizes that NSF 7-
2019 testing is not applicable or appropriate for all equipment types.
For those equipment types, the DOE test procedure provides the required
test instructions, including additional IAT rating temperatures, and
reference to NSF 7-2019 is not needed. DOE maintains that the DOE test
procedure (and proposed in this NOPR), by reference to AHRI 1200-202X
and ASHRAE 72-2018R for conventional CRE, provides a measure of energy
use of CRE during a representative average use cycle and is not unduly
burdensome to conduct. The optional NSF 7-2019 test provides a means to
further reduce test burden in certain instances, but it not required
for DOE testing.
E. Dedicated Remote Condensing Units
DOE is aware of remote condensing CRE models for which specific
dedicated condensing units are
[[Page 39204]]
intended for use with specific refrigerated cases. For certain of these
models, the remote condensing units are intended to be installed on or
near the refrigerated case within the same conditioned space. For other
models, the remote condensing units are intended to be installed
outdoors, but the refrigerated case is intended to be used specifically
with the designated remote condensing unit.
For this equipment, the combined refrigerated case and condensing
unit refrigeration system would effectively operate as if it were a CRE
with a self-contained condensing unit. Under the current DOE test
procedure, remote CRE energy consumption is determined from the energy
use of components in the refrigerated case plus a calculated compressor
energy consumption based on the enthalpy change of refrigerant supplied
to the case at specified conditions. The compressor energy use
calculation is based on typical reciprocating compressor energy
efficiency ratios (``EERs'') at a range of operating conditions. See
Table 1 in AHRI 1200-2010. For CRE used with dedicated condensing
units, the actual compressor used during normal operation is known
(i.e., the compressor in the dedicated condensing unit). Accordingly,
testing the whole system using the same approach as required for a
self-contained CRE may produce energy use results that are more
representative of how this equipment actually operates in the field.
Additionally, testing such a system as a complete system rather than
using the test procedures for remote condensing units may be less
burdensome because it would not require use of a test facility capable
of maintaining the required liquid and suction line refrigerant
conditions as currently required for testing remote CRE (i.e., the
refrigerant conditions consistent with the ASHRAE 72-2005 requirements
and at the conditions necessary to maintain the appropriate case
temperature for testing).
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE sought feedback on whether CRE with
dedicated remote condensing units should be tested to evaluate the
performance of the paired condensing unit and refrigerated case, rather
than assuming a condensing unit EER as specified in the AHRI 1200
standards. 86 FR 31182, 31191. DOE also requested information on how to
identify whether testing with a dedicated remote condensing unit is
appropriate for a particular system (rather than the typical remote CRE
testing under the existing approach). Id.
ITW commented that testing the paired condensing unit and
refrigerated case is an excellent option or alternative. (ITW, No. 2,
p. 9)
Arneg commented that display case manufacturers are not necessarily
the same as the condensing unit manufacturers, and that condensing
units and refrigerated cases are installed by a third party and there
is no control over the installation, such that evaluating the
performance of the paired unit would not be practical. (Arneg, No. 12,
p. 2) Arneg commented that dedicated condensing units are selected
based on the product temperature requirements, ambient temperature,
elevation, and the distance between the display case and condensing
unit. (Arneg, No. 12, p. 2)
AHRI and Hussmann commented that the use of refrigeration racks and
condensing units are determined by application specific factors, and
that there are no significant model characteristics that differentiate
between whether the system should be used with a rack condensing system
or a dedicated remote condensing unit. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 13; Hussmann,
No. 14, p. 14) AHRI and Hussmann commented that most remote units are
designed to accommodate either a condenser rack or dedicated condensing
unit because units are dependent on user constraints, and manufacturers
are not involved in the discussion (i.e., distributors typically work
with customers). (Id.) AHRI and Hussmann commented that multiple cases
can often use a single condensing unit. (Id.)
AHRI and Hussmann requested further clarification from DOE on when
a condensing unit would be considered specifically dedicated in order
to further evaluate if there are unique situations where the outlined
approach should be considered. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 13; Hussmann, No. 14,
p. 14) AHRI and Hussmann do not believe the term ``dedicated remote
condensing unit'' is applicable. (Id.)
The Joint Commenters stated that if DOE pursued the approach of
testing complete systems only when a complete system is specified by
the manufacturer, it could potentially create market distortions (e.g.
a manufacturer of a display case who currently specifies a specific
dedicated remote condensing unit may choose to discontinue that
practice, depending on the implications for their equipment). (Id.)
NEEA commented that CRE models exist connected to remote multi-
compressor rack systems and remote dedicated condensing units, and
recommended that DOE test CRE with dedicated remote condensing units as
self-contained units to enhance the representativeness of testing.
(NEEA, No. 5, p. 6) NEEA commented that testing, instead of using the
AHRI 1200-2013 EER table, would encourage increased efficiency of the
entire unit and not default to assumptions about the remote equipment.
(NEEA, No. 5, p. 6) NEEA commented that units designed and sold with a
dedicated remote condensing unit may already experience increased test
burden due to required changes at the testing facility to accommodate
that CRE. (Id.) NEEA commented that in these instances, testing remote
CRE with a dedicated condensing unit would be more representative of
daily energy consumption, less burdensome to test, and increase the
scope of products subject to efficiency standards. (Id.)
The CA IOUs commented in support of testing CRE dedicated remote
condensing units together as a matched pair, asserting that it would be
more representative of actual energy use as well as being comparable to
self-contained units. (CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 7-8)
AHRI and Hussmann commented that they do not believe that strictly
``dedicated'' condensing units are applicable. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 13;
Hussmann, No. 14, p. 15) AHRI and Hussmann commented that remote cases
are already held to energy requirements and are paired with condensing
units based on end-user requirements. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 13; Hussmann,
No. 14, p. 15)
Arneg commented that the role of an application engineer is to do
the performance comparison and make a professional judgement for the
most practical solution, such that there is no need for standards for
this process. (Arneg, No. 12, p. 2)
AHRI and Hussmann commented that dedicated remote condensing units
should be further discussed at the industry test standard level. (AHRI,
No. 3, p. 13-14; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 15) AHRI and Hussmann commented
that some units may be designed as packaged pairs, when installation
conditions differ, but that an end user may choose only one side of the
system to pair with another manufacturer's condensing unit. (AHRI, No.
3, p. 13-14; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 15)
Through participation in the industry test standard committees to
consider updates to AHRI 1200 and ASHRAE 72, DOE understands that
remote CRE are most commonly installed with rack condensing systems and
that installations with dedicated condensing units represent a very
small portion of the remote CRE market. Additionally,
[[Page 39205]]
DOE has not identified a method to determine whether a remote CRE unit
would be installed with a dedicated condensing unit rather than a rack
condensing system. DOE is not aware of any remote CRE that are capable
of installations only with a dedicated remote condensing unit (i.e.,
DOE expects that all remote CRE may be installed with rack condensing
systems).
DOE has tentatively determined that an amended test procedure to
account for remote CRE installed with dedicated remote condensing units
is not appropriate. While remote CRE can be installed with dedicated
remote condensing units, the existing test procedure is representative
of the most common installations (i.e., installations with a rack
condensing system) for remote CRE and therefore measures the energy use
of this equipment during a representative average use cycle.
Additionally, DOE has not identified any remote CRE capable of use only
with dedicated remote condensing units, and therefore has tentatively
determined that the existing test procedure is applicable to all remote
CRE.
For remote CRE that can be installed with dedicated condensing
units, manufacturers do not always specify dedicated remote condensing
units to match with the remote cabinet. Having performance information
for both the refrigerated cases and separate dedicated remote
condensing units would allow users to compare the performance of both
parts of the system when matched.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether, and if so
how, users of CRE consider the energy performance of the system in
instances in which a specific dedicated remote condensing unit is not
identified for a refrigerated case. 86 FR 31182, 31191. DOE also
requested comment on potential approaches to evaluate the energy
performance of dedicated remote condensing units independent of their
use with specific refrigerated cases. Id.
Arneg commented that every condensing unit would have a specific
EER based on design condition. (Arneg, No. 12, p. 2) AHRI and Hussmann
commented that appropriate EER values can be obtained from the
condensing unit manufacturer if the matched pair needs to be calculated
separately from the specified condensing unit. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 13-14;
Hussmann, No. 14, p. 15)
The Joint Commenters stated that manufacturers often do not specify
a specific dedicated remote condensing unit for use with a specific
refrigerated case and that it would be preferable to develop an
approach to allow for independently measuring the performance of all
dedicated remote condensing units, regardless of how they are sold.
(Joint Commenters, No. 8, p. 3) The Joint Commenters stated that DOE
should consider an approach for treating dedicated remote condensing
units similar to the approach for walk-in coolers and freezers, which
allows for rating both a matched pair (i.e., unit cooler and dedicated
remote condensing unit) and either a unit cooler or a dedicated remote
condensing unit by itself (with assumptions for the performance of the
other piece of equipment). (Id.) The Joint Commenters stated that this
approach could be applied to CRE to allow for rating both a complete
system (e.g., display case and dedicated remote condensing unit) and
either a display case or dedicated remote condensing unit by itself.
(Id.)
The CA IOUs commented that DOE should consider using a test
methodology similar to AHRI Standard 1250-2020 to serve as the starting
point for developing a test method for dedicated remote condensing
units, and specifically that the ``Room Calorimeter Method'' in AHRI
1250 could serve as a starting point with representative outdoor
temperatures of 35 [deg]F, 59 [deg]F, and 95 [deg]F. (Id.)
DOE is not aware of dedicated condensing units that are intended
for use only with CRE. Many of the dedicated condensing units available
for use with remote CRE are also used with other equipment and subject
to DOE testing and energy conservation standards, such as walk-in
coolers and walk-in freezers and automatic commercial ice makers.
Because of the relatively small portion of the remote CRE market that
is installed connected to a dedicated remote condensing unit, the
applicability of other DOE test procedures and energy conservation
standards to condensing units that may be used with CRE, and because
DOE is not aware of any dedicated condensing units intended for use
specifically with CRE, DOE is not proposing definitions or test
procedures that would directly assess performance of CRE dedicated
condensing units.
In summary, DOE is not proposing to amend the existing approach for
testing remote CRE, which represents the performance of remote CRE as
installed with a remote compressor rack condensing system.
DOE requests comment on its tentative determination to not propose
amended test procedures for dedicated remote condensing units.
F. Test Procedure Clarifications and Modifications
1. Defrost Cycles
The test period requirements in ASHRAE 72-2005, incorporated by
reference in the current CRE test procedure, and in ASHRAE 72-2018
require a 24-hour test period, which begins with a defrost after
steady-state conditions are achieved.\31\ Use of a fixed 24-hour test
period can provide for a degree of variability in the measured energy
consumption, depending on when additional defrost cycles occur after
the initial defrost cycle. (e.g., the test period may capture only a
portion of a defrost cycle at the end of the test period rather than a
complete number of defrost cycles). Typically, if multiple complete
defrost cycles occur within the 24-hour period, the impact of capturing
partial defrost cycles would be small. Similarly, if the defrost cycle
duration is slightly greater than 24-hours, the impact of capturing a
partial defrost cycle would be small. However, the impact may be more
substantial if the defrost cycle duration is very long (i.e., multiple
days between defrost) or if the defrost cycle is slightly less than 24
hours (i.e., the test period would capture two defrost occurrences but
only one period of ``normal'' operation between defrosts). DOE also
notes that ASHRAE 72-2005 does not have any specific provisions for CRE
with variable defrost control schemes (i.e., defrosts that may be
triggered based on conditions or other parameters rather than only a
timer) and does not account for CRE with no automatic defrost (i.e.,
manual defrost).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ ASHRAE 72-2005 and ASHRAE 72-2018 define steady state as
the condition in which the average temperature of all test
simulators changes less than 0.4 [deg]F from one 24-hour period or
refrigeration cycle to the next.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has addressed similar issues in the test procedures for
consumer refrigeration products. The test procedures for those products
apply a two-part test period (one period for steady-state operation and
one period to capture events related to the defrost cycle) to account
for defrost energy consumption for products with long defrost cycle
durations or with variable defrost control. The energy use calculations
then weight the performance from each test period based on the known
compressor runtime between defrosts or based on a calculated average
time between defrosts in field operation that is based on the control
parameters for variable defrosts. See appendices A and B to subpart B
of 10 CFR part 430.
[[Page 39206]]
Additionally, DOE has addressed testing of certain CRE models that
do not have automatic defrost in a waiver granted to AHT published on
October 30, 2018. 83 FR 54581 (``October 2018 Waiver''). For the basic
models subject to the waiver, the test period begins after steady state
conditions occur (instead of beginning with a defrost cycle) and the
door-opening period begins 3 hours after the start of the test (instead
of 3 hours after a defrost cycle). 83 FR 54581, 54583. DOE also granted
AHT an interim waiver for testing certain models with defrost cycles
longer than 24 hours. 82 FR 24330 (May 26, 2017; ``May 2017 Interim
Waiver'').\32\ The interim waiver required that AHT test the specified
models using a two-part test method similar to the method for consumer
refrigerators, with the first part capturing normal compressor
operation between defrosts, including an 8-hour period of door
openings, and the second part capturing all operation associated with a
defrost, including any pre-cooling or temperature recovery following
the defrost. 82 FR 24330, 24332-24333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ On June 2, 2021, AHT sent a letter to DOE requesting that
this interim waiver be withdrawn. See www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-WAV-0027-0015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on the impact of the
potential defrost cycle variability and whether the test period should
be revised to minimize the effects of defrost cycle duration for
certain equipment. 86 FR 31182, 31191. DOE additionally requested
comment and supporting data on how incorporating a two-part test
procedure may impact measured energy consumption, test burden, and
repeatability and reproducibility. Id. Additionally, DOE requested
information on the availability of equipment with variable defrost
control and the control schemes employed in those models, if any are
available. Id. DOE requested comment on whether the approach granted to
AHT in the May 2017 Interim Waiver may better measure the
representative energy use of CRE over complete defrost cycles compared
to the current 24-hour test period. Id.
AHRI and Hussmann commented that the ASHRAE SSPC 72 committee has
discussed defrost cycles and is considering changes to the test
procedure to address variability in future revisions, and suggested
that DOE bring this topic to the industry test standard discussions for
further considerations. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 14; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 16)
True and ITW commented in support of the current DOE test procedure
length of 24 hours, which they stated captures the defrosts by starting
the test at the beginning of a defrost cycle such that all energy
evaluations experience at least one defrost cycle. (True, No. 4, p. 20;
ITW, No. 2, p. 10) ITW commented that if DOE finds it necessary to
restructure the test procedure, the evaluation period should be
increased in steps of 24 hours, with the 8-hour door opening cycle
repeating during each 24 hour period, to dilute any concerns of defrost
variability and maintain a constant load per 24 hour period. (ITW, No.
2, p. 10)
The CA IOUs commented that defrost energy can represent a
significant contribution to energy use of CRE and that equipment with
frost build up on their refrigeration coils suffer from reduced
efficiency compared to a clean coil. (CA IOUs, No. 8, p. 9)
For testing CRE with no automatic defrost, ASHRAE 72-2018R
incorporates instructions for starting the test period and door
openings that are consistent with those provided in the October 2018
Waiver (i.e., the instructions do not require a defrost occurrence).
Therefore, DOE's proposal to incorporate by reference ASHRAE 72-2018R
would address this test issue.
For testing CRE with variable defrost, DOE has tentatively
determined that the existing 24-hour test period represents typical
operation during a day, including a period of door openings and a
period of closed-door operation, and is not proposing any additional
test requirements in this NOPR. Units with variable defrost controls
may initiate more frequent defrosts in response to door openings, which
is captured by the current test procedure.
The 24-hour test period specified in ASHRAE 72-2018 provides a
representative basis for measuring energy consumption of most CRE,
capturing the defrost occurrences and door opening periods expected for
a 24-hour period. Most CRE include multiple defrosts during a 24-hour
test period, and any incomplete defrost cycle captured in the test
period does not significantly impact measured energy consumption. DOE
is not proposing to amend the 24-hour test to require that the test
procedure capture complete defrost cycles in situations where the
defrost interval is less than 24 hours.
DOE has tentatively determined that for CRE with defrost cycles
longer than 24 hours, the 24-hour test period would overestimate the
actual average defrost energy contribution during a day. Therefore, DOE
is proposing to allow the use of a two-part test for CRE with defrost
cycles longer than 24 hours. DOE is proposing the two-part test
approach, consistent with the approach in the May 2017 Interim Waiver,
for such equipment--rather than extending the existing test period in
24-hour increments--in order to limit test burden. For the basic models
addressed in the May 2017 Interim Waiver, testing in 24-hour increments
would require three 24-hour periods (e.g., the duration between
defrosts is 3.5 days, and introducing a fourth 24-hour period would
result in the test period capturing two defrosts). Additionally, the
24-hour increment approach would continue to overestimate energy
consumption associated with defrosts, albeit to a lesser extent, for
defrost intervals that are not exact multiples of 24 hours (as is the
case with the basic models covered by the May 2017 Interim Waiver). The
two-part test approach eliminates the need for multiple door opening
periods and may allow for much shorter overall test durations while
accounting for defrost occurrences based on actual defrost interval
durations.
Also consistent with the May 2017 Interim Waiver, DOE is proposing
that the two-part test would be optional because it would increase test
duration compared to the existing approach (by requiring both a 24-hour
test plus a defrost test), and manufacturers may determine that the
existing test procedure may be more appropriate their models, even if
the models incorporate defrost intervals longer than 24 hours.
Specifically, DOE is proposing to allow for testing equipment with
defrost intervals greater than 24 hours using a two-part test in which
the first part is a 24-hour period of stable operation, including door
openings as specified in ASHRAE 72-2018R, but without any defrost
operation. Stability for the first part of the test would be determined
according to Section 7.5 in ASHRAE 72-2018R, by comparing temperatures
determined during Test A and Test B (and a defrost may occur during the
test alignment period, as defined in Section 7.4 of ASHRAE 72-2018R,
between Test A and Test B). The second part of the test would capture a
defrost cycle, including any pre-cooling and temperature recovery
associated with a defrost. Rather than referencing the consumer
refrigeration product test procedures (as done in the May 2017 Interim
Waiver approach), DOE is proposing to require that the start and end of
the test period be determined as the last time before and first time
after a defrost occurrence, when the measured average simulator
temperature (i.e., the instantaneous average of all test simulator
temperature measurements) is within 0.5 [deg]F of the IAT as measured
[[Page 39207]]
during the first part of the test. This would ensure that the defrost
part of the test captures any pre-cooling operation and temperature
recovery following a defrost while limiting the overall duration of the
second part of the test.
The May 2017 Interim Waiver includes certain parameters specific to
the models covered by the waiver, namely the duration between defrosts.
DOE granted the interim waiver based on the minimum defrost interval
possible for the equipment; i.e., 3.5 days. To generalize the May 2017
Interim Waiver approach for other CRE models, DOE is proposing that the
two-part calculation be applied based on the minimum duration between
defrosts permitted by the unit's controls as shown in the following
equation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JN22.000
Where DEC is the daily energy consumption in kWh/day; ET1 is the
energy consumed during the first part of the test, in kWh/day; ET2 is
the energy consumed during the second part of the test, in kWh;
tNDI is the normalized length of defrosting time per day, in
minutes; tDI is the length of time of the defrosting test
period, in minutes; tDC is the minimum time between defrost
occurrences, in days; and 1,440 is a conversion factor, in minutes per
day.
DOE recognizes that the two-part test approach could result in
slightly less door-opening energy contribution as the first part of the
test, with no defrost and 8 hours of door openings, would be combined
with the defrost portion of the test by a calculation. To investigate
this impact, DOE conducted testing on equipment with defrost intervals
longer than 24 hours and compared results of the existing test
procedure (24-hour test period, starting with a defrost), the May 2017
Interim Waiver approach (two-part test, as proposed in this NOPR), and
a full-duration approach (multiple 24-hour periods, each with door
opening periods, through a complete defrost cycle) as illustrated in
Table III.5.
Table III.5--The May 2017 Interim Waiver Approach Investigative Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current DOE May 2017 Full defrost
Total display CRE test interim waiver cycle duration
HCT.SC.I area (ft\2\) procedure (kWh/ approach (kWh/ approach (kWh/
day) day) day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit #1........................................ 12.72 7.12 6.66 6.66
Unit #2........................................ 14.84 6.12 5.61 5.62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's testing showed that the two-part waiver test approach
provides an accurate representation of energy consumption when measured
over a full defrost cycle (and therefore representative of average
use). Additionally, the testing showed that the existing test procedure
approach can overestimate measured energy use for CRE with defrost
cycles longer than 24 hours.
Based on DOE's investigative testing, DOE has tentatively
determined that the May 2017 Interim Waiver approach, and the approach
proposed in this NOPR, is representative of a full defrost cycle
duration approach for equipment with defrost intervals greater than 24
hours.
With regard to CRE models with multiple evaporators (and therefore,
potentially multiple defrosts) connected to a single or multi-stage
condensing unit, ASHRAE 72-2005 does not specify which evaporator
should be used to determine the defrost cycle that initiates the test.
Additionally, if the defrost cycles for multiple evaporators do not
activate at the same time during the test, ASHRAE 72-2005 does not
specify which defrost cycle should be used to determine the start of
the 24-hour test period. ASHRAE 72-2005 also does not explicitly
address the treatment of defrost cycles for multi-compartment CRE
models (i.e., hybrid CRE) with different evaporator temperatures and
defrost sequences.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested information regarding the types
of defrost systems that exist in CRE available on the market and how
manufacturers currently select test periods for models with multiple
evaporators with non-synchronous defrost cycles. 86 FR 31182, 31192.
DOE requested comment on any potential modifications that could be made
to the CRE test procedure in order to increase representativeness and
provide additional detail for testing these units, including whether
the two-part approach, as described earlier in this section, would be
appropriate. Id.
AHRI and Hussmann commented that self-contained units with
differing defrost systems would have no impact on the measured energy
use. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 14; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 16) AHRI and Hussmann
commented that remote hybrid systems, for which there could be a self-
service case and a storage/service area with differing defrost systems,
the two defrost systems would be tested to the current test procedure
individually and would be required to meet the current DOE energy
consumption requirements. (Id.) ITW commented the ASHRAE 72-2018
evaluation for hybrid equipment should start with the defrost cycle of
the storage compartment experiencing the greatest time interval between
defrosts. (ITW, No. 2, p. 10)
ITW commented that some controls may be able to interlock the
initial defrost at the start of the energy evaluation with subsequent
defrost
[[Page 39208]]
cycles occurring at intervals determined by the control's operation
strategy. (ITW, No. 2, p. 10) ITW suggested increasing the evaluation
period from 24 to 48 hours (or longer) but keeping the evaluation
process simple to eliminate errors and confusion. (Id.) AHRI and
Hussmann commented that modifications are not necessary for this
situation. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 14; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 16)
AHRI and Hussmann commented that if further clarification is
needed, the discussion should be taken to the ASHRAE SSPC 72 committee.
(AHRI, No. 3, p. 14; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 16)
As discussed earlier in this section, CRE with automatic defrost
typically include multiple defrost occurrences per day. DOE expects
that any multi-evaporator CRE with multiple unique defrost cycle
durations would similarly defrost multiple times per day, and therefore
no change to the existing test procedure is necessary. However, to
ensure that the 24-hour test period captures a representative number of
defrosts for each evaporator's defrost, DOE is proposing to specify
that for CRE with multiple unique defrost intervals for multiple
evaporators, the test period as specified in ASHRAE 72-2018R would
start with a defrost occurrence for the evaporator defrost having the
longest interval between defrosts.
DOE requests comment on the proposed approach to account for long
duration defrost cycles using an optional two-part test procedure
consistent with the existing waiver approach granted for such models.
DOE also requests comment on whether any additional provisions are
necessary to account for different defrost operation or controls, and
on DOE's proposed approach in which the test period would start with
the defrost occurrence having the longest interval between defrosts.
2. Total Display Area
Section 3.2 of appendix B provides instructions regarding the
measurement of TDA. That section specifies that TDA is the sum of the
projected area(s) of visible product, expressed in square feet
(``ft\2\'') (i.e., portions through which product can be viewed from an
angle normal, or perpendicular, to the transparent area).
For certain CRE configurations, merchandise is not necessarily
located at an angle directly normal, or perpendicular, to the
transparent area despite the transparent area being intended for
customer viewing. For example, for service over counter ice-cream
freezers, the ice cream containers may be placed within the chest
portion of the refrigerated case, with a glass display panel on the
front and glass rear doors located above the merchandise storage area.
If the glass display areas are nearly vertical, the ice cream
containers may be positioned low enough in the case that they are not
at a viewing angle perpendicular to the glass. However, during typical
use, customers would stand close enough to the display glass that the
ice cream would be visible from other angles not perpendicular to the
glass.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested feedback on whether the TDA
definition and test instructions should account for display areas in
which the merchandise is not at a location normal to the display
surface. 86 FR 31182, 31192. If so, DOE requested information on how to
define the revised display area. Id. DOE also requested comment on
other CRE applications or configurations for which the TDA, as
currently defined, may not adequately represent the display
functionality of the equipment. Id.
Arneg commented that an amended TDA definition is needed because
merchandise is not always at a location normal to the display, such as
service over counter cases. (Arneg, No. 12, p. 2) True commented that
TDA should not account for display areas in which the merchandise is
not at a location normal to the display surface, and that the testing
standard should only use the display visibility as defined in AHRI
1200-2013. (True, No. 4, p. 21)
AHRI and Hussmann asked DOE to further clarify the units being
described by ``display areas in which the merchandise is not at a
location normal to the display surface,'' specifically, if DOE is
referring to deli counter type cases with display areas outside the
doors themselves. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 15; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 17)
DOE participated in the committee discussions to consider updates
to AHRI 1200-2013. These discussions included TDA and whether any
additional updates would be appropriate. The industry committee
determined to maintain the existing definition and approach, which is
based on the visibility of merchandise at a location normal to the
display surface, but to include additional diagrams to clarify the
determination of TDA. See Appendix D to AHRI 1200-202X. Figure 10 in
AHRI 1200-202X appendix D shows a service over counter unit similar to
the example described earlier in this section. The food load is
included only in the lowest portion of the refrigerated cabinet, and as
a result, only portions of the transparent areas are considered for the
TDA (i.e., the portions through which the food load is visible at an
angle normal to the transparent area).
Consistent with the updated version of AHRI 1200-202X, DOE is not
proposing revisions to the current TDA. As discussed, DOE is proposing
to incorporate by reference AHRI 1200-202X, which includes the new
Appendix D to provide clarification on how to apply the current TDA
approach to different CRE configurations.
DOE is aware that the current DOE test procedure includes
conflicting instructions regarding the calculation of TDA for CRE with
transparent and non-transparent areas over the length of the case. The
instructions in section 3.1 of appendix B specify determining the
length of the display area as the interior length of the CRE model,
provided no more than 5 inches of that length consists of non-
transparent material, or, for those cases with greater than 5 inches of
non-transparent area, the length shall be determined as the projected
linear dimension(s) of visible product plus 5 inches. Figures A3.4 and
A3.5 of appendix B show a similar approach, but instead reference 10
percent of the total length as the threshold of non-transparent area
rather than 5 inches. The captions for these figures reference 5
inches, consistent with section 3.1. The April 2014 Final Rule
established these TDA provisions in appendix B. 79 FR 22277, 22300-
22301. In the final rule, DOE stated that the 10-percent approach
rather than the 5-inch approach would allow for more consistent
application of the TDA requirements across CRE models. Id.
In addition, DOE incorrectly applied the 10-percent threshold
approach as shown in Figures A3.4 and A3.5 of appendix B. As discussed,
DOE intended to provide a consistent TDA approach for cases with
transparent and non-transparent area. The equation for length shown in
Figure A3.5 shows that length equals the total transparent dimension,
multiplied by 1.10. As a result, the non-transparent area would
represent 10 percent of the transparent dimension, not 10 percent of
the total length. The correct application would have length equal to
the transparent dimension divided by 0.9--resulting in a non-
transparent area representing 10 percent of the total length.
Section D.1.1.1 of AHRI 1200-202X appendix D includes correct
equations regarding TDA and case length as intended in the April 2014
Final Rule. Specifically, AHRI 1200-202X applies the 10 percent
threshold approach for non-transparent area and correctly calculates
the length of the CRE for cases with non-transparent areas greater than
10 percent of the length of the case.
[[Page 39209]]
As discussed, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference AHRI 1200-
202X, which would correct these errors regarding TDA calculations
currently included in appendix B.
G. Alternative Refrigerants
DOE's current test procedure for remote condensing CRE requires the
estimation of compressor EER from Table 1 of AHRI 1200-2010. The EER
ratings in the table are based on performance of reciprocating
compressors and were developed based on refrigerants that historically
have been commonly used for CRE (i.e., R-404A).
Certain remote CRE installations can use carbon dioxide
(``CO2'') as the refrigerant; however, the existing remote
CRE test procedure does not address the unique operation for these
systems. For example, the current DOE test procedure requires an inlet
refrigerant liquid temperature of 80 [deg]F with a saturated liquid
pressure corresponding to a condensing temperature of 89.6 [deg]F to
120.2 80 [deg]F. See ASHRAE 72-2005, Sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3.
CO2 has a critical point of 87.8 [deg]F and 1,070 pounds per
square inch (``psi''), above which it is a supercritical fluid.
Accordingly, CO2 cannot be a liquid at the specified
condensing temperature conditions (i.e., it would either be a gas or
supercritical fluid, depending on pressure). Additionally,
CO2 systems typically include multiple stages of compression
and cooling, resulting in liquid supplied to the refrigerant cases at
conditions not necessarily defined by the typical condensing unit
conditions. DOE has recently granted a waiver for specific models of
CRE to address CO2 operating conditions for testing walk-in
cooler and walk-in freezer unit coolers. 86 FR 14887 (March 19, 2021;
``March 2021 Waiver''). The March 2021 Waiver requires for testing of
the specified basic models liquid inlet saturation temperature and
liquid inlet subcooling of 38 [deg]F and 5 [deg]F, respectively. 86 FR
14887, 14889. The March 2021 Waiver also maintains the existing
compressor energy consumption determination based on an approach
consistent with the CRE remote calculations using AHRI 1200-2010 (the
walk-in requirements instead refer to the walk-ins rating standard,
AHRI 1250-2009, which includes the same EER table as AHRI 1200-2010).
Id.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested information on the typical
conditions for remote CRE intended for use with CO2
refrigerant. 86 FR 31182, 31192. DOE requested comment and data on the
applicability of the EER values in Table 1 of AHRI 1200-2010 to the
typical compressor EERs for CO2 refrigerant systems. Id. DOE
also requested information and supporting data on whether the existing
test procedure is appropriate for any other alternative refrigerants
that may be used for remote CRE. Id. DOE requested feedback on whether
the operating conditions specified in ASHRAE 72-2005 or the
standardized EER values in Table 1 of AHRI 1200-2010 should be revised
to account for operation with any other alternative refrigerants. Id.
DOE also requested usage data regarding the range of refrigerants in
the remote CRE market. Id.
Hussmann and AHRI commented that OEMs with CO2 systems
use the EER values in AHRI 1200-2013 to provide comparison of products
and energy consumption based on typical operating conditions, and as
the use of CO2 systems evolve the industry test standard
organizers will research whether changes are necessary to the EER
tables. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 17; AHRI, No. 3, p. 15) Regarding the use
of other refrigerants, AHRI and Hussmann commented that the EER values
in Table 1 of AHRI 1200-2013 are representative of use agnostic to the
refrigerant because the values would vary little for specific
alternative refrigerants. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 15; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 18)
AHRI and Hussmann commented that AHRI 1200-202X provides additional
clarifications to address the glide of the newer alternative
refrigerants. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 15; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 18)
Arneg commented that DOE should wait for an update to ASHRAE 72 to
address CO2 because the ASHRAE 72 committee will be
considering the issue of typical conditions for CO2 remote
CRE. (Arneg, No. 12, p. 2)
NEEA asserted that Table 1 of AHRI 1200-2013 is not representative
of CO2 refrigeration systems, and recommended that DOE adopt
representative EER tables for natural refrigerants. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 5-
6)
NEEA commented that DOE should review current test procedures to
ensure applicability to CRE with natural refrigerants. (NEEA, No. 5, p.
5) NEEA commented that the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act
would reduce the use of hydrofluorocarbons (``HFCs'') by 85 percent by
2035, and that natural refrigerants such as CO2 and propane
(R-290) are already widely used in commercial refrigeration. (Id.)
NEEA commented that DOE should consider establishing test
procedures that account for the unique operation and energy use of
systems that use natural refrigerants, such as secondary refrigerant
loops and trans critical booster systems typical of CO2
based systems. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 5) NEEA commented that DOE could use
documentation such as the National Renewable Energy Lab's (``NREL'')
Refrigeration Playbook \33\ as a resource. (Id.) NEEA commented that
ASHRAE has discussed technical challenges related to natural
refrigerants and encouraged DOE to explore ASHRAE 15-2019 to determine
appropriate testing considerations. (Id.) NEEA commented to refer to
case studies suggesting that CO2 refrigerants can increase
the efficiency of CRE systems up to 27 percent. (Id.) NEEA commented
that DOE's test procedures should reflect actual energy use, even in
cases where energy usage increases. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ NREL ``Refrigeration Playbook: Natural Refrigerants.
Selecting and Designing Energy Efficient Commercial Refrigeration
Systems That Use Low Global Warming Potential Refrigerants''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all remote CRE, the DOE test procedure requires measuring
energy consumption of the refrigerated case and the heat gain of the
refrigerant providing cooling to the remote case. AHRI 1200-2010
specifies a calculation of compressor energy consumption based on the
heat gain measured for the test refrigerant. DOE is aware that
manufacturers may specify the use of multiple refrigerants for a single
remote CRE cabinet and that the current test procedure allows for
consistent testing of such equipment regardless of refrigerant used for
testing. As indicated by Hussmann and AHRI, manufacturers are already
testing and rating systems that can use CO2, likely by
testing with non-CO2 refrigerants under the existing test
conditions, according to the existing approach, which references AHRI
1200-2010. DOE expects that any ratings for current CO2
systems are based on testing with another refrigerant capable of
maintaining the conditions specified in ASHRAE 72-2005.
Based on a review of CRE that are capable of using CO2
refrigerant, DOE has observed that many of these models also may be
installed for use with other refrigerants that can be tested under the
existing approach. However, any remote CRE that are intended for use
only with CO2 refrigerant would not be able to be tested
according to the current DOE test procedure due to the specified liquid
conditions specified in ASHRAE 72-2005. To allow for testing remote CRE
with CO2 refrigerant, DOE is proposing to adopt alternate
refrigerant conditions consistent with those granted in the March 2021
Waiver for walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer unit coolers with
CO2 refrigerant. DOE is proposing that
[[Page 39210]]
for remote CRE tested with direct expansion CO2, the liquid
inlet saturation temperature be 38 [deg]F with liquid inlet subcooling
of 5 [deg]F.
DOE research into the performance of different configurations of
CO2 booster systems indicates that enhanced CO2
cycles can match conventional refrigerants in average efficiency. Even
though the EER values included in AHRI 1200-202X for remote compressors
were initially established for conventional refrigerants, DOE has
tentatively determined that they are also appropriate for determining
compressor energy consumption of CO2 remote systems. DOE
recognizes that the actual compressor energy consumption of a specific
remote system will vary based on a number of parameters (ambient
conditions, refrigerant conditions necessary for the remote cases,
etc.), but has tentatively determined that the values included in AHRI
1200-202X are appropriate for determining the energy consumption of an
average use cycle for all remote CRE as tested under the proposed test
procedure.
In addition to CO2, DOE has tentatively determined that
the EER table in AHRI 1200-202X is appropriate for other alternative
refrigerants. DOE similarly researched compressor EERs at a range of
operating conditions for refrigerants other than R-404A, including R-
407A, R-407F, and R-507A, and found the existing EERs to be
representative based on expected operating conditions. Additionally,
AHRI 1200-202X further improves the consistency of the EER approach by
including additional instructions regarding the use of high-glide
refrigerants, as discussed in section III.B.1.a of this NOPR. DOE is
not proposing additional amendments to address alternative refrigerants
other than CO2 in this NOPR.
DOE requests comment on the proposed alternate refrigerant
conditions to be used for testing remote CRE with CO2
refrigerant. DOE requests comment on whether any other aspects of the
current test procedure require amendment to allow for testing with
CO2 or any other alternative refrigerants.
H. Certification of Compartment Volume
DOE's current test procedure incorporates by reference AHAM HRF-1-
2008 to measure compartment volume. DOE acknowledges that manufacturers
often use computer aided designs (``CAD'') in designing their
equipment. However, the current test procedure and certification
provisions for CRE do not provide for using CAD drawings to determine
compartment volume. Using the CAD as the basis for determining
compartment volumes may be particularly helpful when the geometric
designs of the CRE make physical measurements in accordance with AHAM
HRF-1-2008 difficult. Currently, DOE's certification requirements in 10
CFR part 429 include provisions for certifying volume for basic models
of consumer refrigeration products, commercial gas-fired and oil-fired
instantaneous water heaters, and hot water supply boilers using CAD
drawings. 10 CFR 429.72(c), (d), and (e).
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether allowing
manufacturers to certify compartment volumes for CRE basic models using
CAD drawings would introduce any testing or certification issues. 86 FR
31182, 31192. DOE also requested information on the extent to which the
use of CAD drawings may reduce manufacturer test burden. Id.
ITW, AHRI, Arneg, True, and Hussmann commented in support of using
CAD drawings to ensure appropriate volume measurements and minimize any
errors. (ITW, No. 2, p. 11; AHRI, No. 3, p. 15; Arneg, No. 12, p. 2;
True, No. 4, p. 22; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 18) AHRI and Hussmann
commented that AHRI Standard 1200-202X has allowances for CAD drawings
to illustrate volumes. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 15; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 18)
Arneg commented that CRE cases can be manufactured to have curvature,
such that the only accurate way of calculating volume would be to use
CAD software. (Arneg, No. 12, p. 2) True commented that there should be
a validation or verification process since this type of measurement
depends on the CAD application user. (True, No. 4, p. 22)
DOE has tentatively determined that calculating volume according to
CAD drawings would reduce manufacturer test burden and may allow for
more accurate measurements of volume for complicated cabinet designs.
DOE is proposing to adopt provisions in 10 CFR part 429 to allow for
certifying volume for basic models of CRE using CAD drawings. To ensure
that volumes determined based on CAD drawings are consistent with
testing actual production models, DOE proposes certain enforcement
provisions in section III.J of this NOPR.
I. Test Procedure Waivers
A person may seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for
a particular basic model of a type of covered equipment when the basic
model for which the petition for waiver is submitted contains one or
more design characteristics that: (1) Prevent testing according to the
prescribed test procedure, or (2) cause the prescribed test procedures
to evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true
energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate
comparative data. 10 CFR 431.401(a)(1).
In addition to the test procedure waivers discussed, DOE has
granted test procedures waivers to address certain CRE designed for
specialized applications. Specifically, on September 12, 2018, DOE
published a test procedure waiver for ITW for testing specified basic
models of grocery and general merchandise system (i.e., refrigerated
storage allowing for order storage and customer pickup). 83 FR 46148
(``September 2018 Waiver''). The specified basic models have
characteristics that include floating suction temperatures for
individual compartments, different typical door-opening cycles, and a
high-temperature ``ambient'' compartment. 83 FR 46148, 46149. DOE has
similarly granted Hussmann an interim waiver for testing CRE intended
for short-term storage and designed for loading and retrieving product
a limited number of times per day. 86 FR 40548 (July 28, 2021; ``July
2021 Interim Waiver'').
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested feedback on whether the test
procedure waiver approach required under the September 2018 Waiver,
which includes the same door opening approach as required in the July
2021 Interim Waiver, is generally appropriate for testing basic models
with these features. 86 FR 31182, 31193.
AHRI, Hussmann, and ITW commented that the test procedure waivers
are appropriate for testing basic models of CRE addressed by the
waivers. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 16; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 19; ITW, No. 2, p.
11) ITW commented that the basic models outlined have little market
penetration, availability, and appear to be single sourced, such that
further effort is unwarranted. (ITW, No. 2, p. 11)
The CA IOUs commented that several petitions for test procedure
waivers have been submitted by manufactures and support the door
opening methodology granted in those waivers. The CA IOUs asserted that
an 8-second door opening cycle once every two hours for 10 hours seems
more representative of real-world operation than door opening cycles
once every 10 minutes for eight hours in ASHRAE 72-2018). (CA IOUs, No.
10, p. 6-7)
The CA IOUs review of product data for these units found these
units are designed to operate in outdoor
[[Page 39211]]
conditions or have configurations designed for outdoor environments and
referenced the ASHRAE standard for testing beverage vending machines,
which includes a test condition at 90 [deg]F and 65 percent relative
humidity to account for outdoor installations. (CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 6-
7)
DOE is proposing to adopt test procedure provisions to address the
equipment characteristics at issue in the September 2018 Waiver and the
July 2021 Interim Waiver. For both waiver cases, the subject basic
models are intended for short-term storage of refrigerated merchandise
and limited door opening cycles per day; e.g., for holding customer
orders and maintaining refrigerated temperatures until customer pickup.
DOE understands that this equipment includes individual secured
compartments that are accessible only to the customer for order
retrieval--e.g., by providing the customer with a unique unlocking
function to access the compartment. DOE also conducted a review of the
market of this type of equipment and found similar characteristics and
features in currently available models (e.g., contactless pick-up of
customer orders using digital locks). Therefore, DOE is proposing to
define this equipment as ``customer order storage cabinets'' to
differentiate it from other CRE. DOE is proposing to define ``customer
order storage cabinets'' as CRE that store customer orders and include
individual, secured compartments with doors that are accessible to
customers for order retrieval.
Consistent with the waiver and interim waiver, DOE is proposing
that customer order storage cabinets be tested according to the
conventional CRE test procedure, except that the door openings be
conducted by opening each door to the fully open position for 8
seconds, once every 2 hours, for 6 door-opening cycles. DOE has
tentatively determined that this proposed approach, which is consistent
with the September 2018 Waiver and the July 2021 Interim Waiver, is
representative of typical use of this equipment.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definition and term ``customer
order storage cabinet'' to describe the equipment currently addressed
in the September 2018 Waiver and the July 2021 Interim Waiver. DOE
requests comment on the proposal to test such equipment with reduced
door openings, consistent with the waiver and interim waiver approach.
In addition to the door opening cycles, the September 2018 Waiver
specifies testing provisions for other characteristics of the specified
basic models, including floating suction temperatures for individual
compartments and the presence of a high-temperature ``ambient''
compartment. 83 FR 46148, 46149-46152.
To address the floating suction temperature aspect of the basic
models subject to the September 2018 Waiver, DOE requires the use of an
alternate test approach for testing and rating the equipment in a
manner similar to the remote CRE test procedure. 83 FR 46148, 46151.
Specifically, DOE requires that this equipment be tested using an
inverse refrigeration load test (i.e., a reverse heat leak method). Id.
This test allows for determining the thermal load of the cabinet at the
specified storage temperatures without requiring refrigerant to be
supplied to the unit (as refrigerant is supplied from an integral
condensing unit). The September 2018 Waiver specifies calculating
energy consumption associated with the thermal load based on assumed
EERs, consistent with those specified in AHRI 1200-2010. 83 FR 46148,
46151-46152. The calculations also account for component energy
consumption and heat loads. Id. DOE is proposing to adopt this
alternate test procedure for any customer order storage cabinets that
supply refrigerant to multiple individual secured compartments and that
allow the suction pressure from the evaporator in each individual
secured compartment to float based on the temperature required to store
the customer order in that individual secured compartment.
For the high-temperature ``ambient'' compartments in the basic
models specified in the September 2018 Waiver, DOE requires that
testing be based on a 75 [deg]F storage temperature for these
compartments and that the ambient compartment be treated as a medium
temperature compartment at 75 [deg]F. 83 FR 46148, 46150. The September
2018 Waiver also requires that all volume and energy consumption
calculations be included within the medium temperature category and
summed with other medium temperature compartment(s) calculations. Id.
The September 2018 Waiver further requires that compartments that are
convertible between ambient and refrigerator temperature ranges be
tested at the refrigerator temperature (38 [deg]F) and that
compartments that are convertible between refrigerator and freezer (0
[deg]F) temperature ranges be tested at both temperatures. Id. DOE is
proposing to adopt the existing waiver instructions for customer order
storage cabinets that have at least one individual secured compartment
that is not capable of maintaining an IAT below the ambient dry-bulb
temperature (i.e., the individual secured compartments may include
refrigeration systems to ensure proper storage temperatures but are
only intended to operate at an IAT of 75 [deg]F 2 [deg]F
and not at a LAPT or the specified refrigerator or freezer
temperatures). Additionally, with the proposed introduction of high-
temperature refrigerators, as discussed in sections III.A.1 and
III.B.1.b of this NOPR, DOE is proposing that such compartments would
be treated as high-temperature refrigerators rather than refrigerators
upon the compliance date of any new energy conservation standards for
high-temperature refrigerators.
DOE requests comment on the additional proposed test procedure
amendments that would allow for reverse heat leak testing of customer
order storage cabinets with floating suction pressures for multiple
different temperature compartments.
J. Enforcement Provisions
Subpart C of 10 CFR part 429 establishes enforcement provisions
applicable to covered products and covered equipment, including CRE.
Product-specific enforcement provisions are established in 10 CFR
429.134. Various provisions in 10 CFR 429.134 specify which ratings or
measurements DOE will use to determine compliance with applicable
energy or water conservation standards. Generally, DOE provides that
the certified metric is used for enforcement purposes (e.g.,
calculation of the applicable energy conservation standard) if the
average value measured during assessment and enforcement testing is
within a specified percent of the rated value. Otherwise, the average
measured value would be used.
Section 10 CFR 429.134 currently does not contain product-specific
enforcement provisions for CRE. However, DOE does currently provide
product-specific enforcement provisions for refrigerated bottled or
canned beverage vending machines, specifying that the certified
refrigerated volume will be considered valid only if the measurement(s)
(either the measured refrigerated volume for a single unit sample or
the average of the measured refrigerated volumes for a multiple unit
sample) is within five percent of the certified refrigerated volume. 10
CFR 429.134(j)(1). The test procedure for measuring volume of beverage
vending machines is consistent with the procedure required for CRE, and
vending machines typically have volumes similar to those for CRE.
[[Page 39212]]
Because of the same test methods and similar equipment sizes, DOE is
proposing consistent product-specific enforcement provisions for CRE.
Specifically, DOE proposes to add a new product-specific enforcement
provision section stating that the certified volume for CRE will be
considered valid only if the measurement(s) (either the measured volume
for a single unit sample or the average of the measured volumes for a
multiple unit sample) is within five percent of the certified volume;
otherwise, the measured volume would be used as the basis for
determining the applicable energy conservation standard.
DOE has also established product-specific enforcement provisions
for transparent areas of beverage vending machines. 10 CFR
429.134(j)(2). However, display area is only used to determine
equipment class for beverage vending machines and TDA is not a metric
used to determine applicable energy conservation standards. For
consistency with the volume approach, DOE is proposing for CRE that the
certified TDA for CRE will be considered valid only if the
measurement(s) (either the measured TDA for a single unit sample or the
average of the measured TDAs for a multiple unit sample) is within five
percent of the certified TDA. If the certified TDA is found to not be
valid, the measured TDA would be used to determine the applicable
energy conservation standard.
DOE requests comment on the proposed product-specific enforcement
provisions for CRE.
K. Lowest Application Product Temperature
Section 2.2 of appendix B specifies that if a unit is not able to
be operated at the specified IAT, the unit is tested at the LAPT, which
is defined in 10 CFR 431.62 as the lowest IAT at which a given basic
model is capable of consistently operating (i.e., maintaining so as to
comply with the steady-state stabilization requirements specified in
ASHRAE 72-2005 for the purposes of testing under the DOE test
procedure). Section 2.2 of appendix B specifies that for units equipped
with a thermostat, LAPT is the lowest thermostat setting; for remote
condensing equipment without a thermostat or other means of controlling
temperature at the case, the LAPT is the temperature achieved with the
dew point temperature (as defined in AHRI Standard 1200-2010) set to 5
degrees colder than that required to maintain the manufacturer's lowest
specified application temperature.
DOE's compliance certification database \34\ lists all CRE models
certified to DOE, including the LAPT used for rating each model, if
applicable. Of the 28,478 single-compartment individual models included
in the compliance certification database at the time of this analysis,
460 individual models are rated at LAPTs. Of these individual models,
77 are rated at LAPTs below the required test IAT. For example,
multiple refrigerator models are rated at an IAT of 34 [deg]F (instead
of 38 [deg]F 2 [deg]F), and multiple freezer models are
rated at an IAT of -7 [deg]F (instead of 0 [deg]F 2
[deg]F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Available at www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is proposing to maintain the current LAPT provisions and add an
additional provision for testing CRE that are only capable of
maintaining temperatures below the specified IAT (or for buffet tables
or preparation tables, the average pan temperature of all measurements
taken during the test) range. For these units, DOE proposes to test at
the highest thermostat setting. This would allow for testing the CRE
under the setting closest to the required IAT (or for buffet tables or
preparation tables, the average pan temperature of all measurements
taken during the test). DOE proposes to amend the definition of LAPT in
10 CFR 431.62 to the following:
``Lowest application product temperature'' means the integrated
average temperature (or for buffet tables or preparation tables, the
average pan temperature of all measurements taken during the test) at
which a given basic model is capable of consistently operating that is
closest to the integrated average temperature (or for buffet tables or
preparation tables, the average pan temperature of all measurements
taken during the test) specified for testing under the DOE test
procedure.
For testing, DOE is proposing to specify that if a unit is not able
to operate at the integrated average temperature specified for testing,
or average pan temperature, as applicable, test the unit at the LAPT,
as defined in Sec. 431.62. DOE is proposing that for units equipped
with a thermostat, LAPT is the lowest thermostat setting (for units
that are only able to operate at temperatures above the specified
integrated average temperature or average pan temperature) or the
highest thermostat setting (for units that are only able to operate at
temperatures below the specified integrated average temperature or
average pan temperature). DOE is proposing that for remote condensing
equipment without a thermostat or other means of controlling
temperature at the case, the LAPT is the temperature achieved with the
dew point temperature, or mid-point evaporator temperature for high-
glide refrigerants (as defined in AHRI Standard 1200-202X), set to 5
degrees colder than that required to maintain the manufacturer's
specified application temperature closest to the specified integrated
average temperature or average pan temperature.
DOE has tentatively determined that this proposal would not affect
current CRE ratings or testing costs because the models currently
available on the market that would be tested under the newly proposed
provision are already and testing and rating in accordance with the
proposed approach.
L. Removal of Obsolete Provisions
The DOE test procedure in appendix B is required for testing CRE
manufactured on or after March 28, 2017, and appendix A applies to CRE
manufactured prior to that date. As such, appendix A is now obsolete
for new units being manufactured. Therefore, DOE is proposing to remove
appendix A. DOE is not proposing to redesignate appendix B as appendix
A in order to avoid confusion regarding the appropriate version of the
test procedure required for use.
Additionally, the title to appendix B is currently ``Amended
Uniform Test Method for the Measurement of Energy Consumption of
Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers.'' To
avoid confusion with the other test procedure amendments proposed in
this NOPR, DOE is proposing to amend the title to appendix B to remove
the word ``amended.''
DOE is also proposing to remove outdated standards incorporated by
reference in 10 CFR 431.63 that would no longer be referenced under the
proposed test procedure. Specifically, DOE proposes to remove reference
to ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004, AHAM HRF-1-2008, and ASHRAE 72-2005. DOE would
maintain the listing of standards referenced in 10 CFR 431.66 (``Energy
conservation standards and their effective dates'') and would consider
removing those referenced standards when proposing any amendments to
that section of the CFR as part of any future amended energy
conservation standards.
M. Additional Topics Raised in Comments From Interested Parties
In response to the June 2021 RFI, DOE received comments from
interested parties on topics not raised in the RFI and not specifically
related to the
[[Page 39213]]
proposals presented in this NOPR. DOE summarizes and addresses these
comments in the following sections.
1. Refrigerant Leakages and Life Cycle Performance
IGSD commented that the CRE test procedure should account for the
energy performance impact of refrigerant leakages. (IGSD, No. 7, p. 1)
IGSD commented that a typical supermarket refrigeration system has an
average annual leak rate of 25 percent, according to the EPA. (Id.)
IGSD commented that these leak rates must be known to accurately
estimate the performance of CRE, since high leak rates result in
undercharged refrigerant systems that significantly deteriorate energy
efficiency. (Id.) IGSD asserted that this can result in up to 138
percent efficiency impact of annual energy consumption over a 15-year
lifespan, increasing electricity use and electricity related emissions.
(Id.) IGSD commented that use of leak detection and energy monitoring
in one supermarket chain reduced electricity use by 23 million kWh per
year. (Id.)
IGSD commented that DOE should account for the greenhouse gas
emissions associated with refrigerant leaks and that large commercial
refrigeration units using common refrigerants (e.g., R-404A) have
lifetime emissions over 22,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent
using 100-year GWPs and 35,000 tonnes using 20-year GWPs.\35\ (IGSD,
No. 7 at p. 2) IGSD commented that this inclusion would encourage the
adoption of leak reduction strategies, thus improving energy efficiency
and presents potential to capture large electricity savings and
electricity-related GHG emissions. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Values calculated using the California Air Resources
Board's (``CARB'') Refrigerant Calculator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IGSD further commented that the CRE test procedure should inform
the lifecycle energy and climate performance of regulated equipment as
sustainable procurement practices are becoming more widespread and
information on CRE energy and climate performance is increasingly in
demand. (IGSD, No. 7, p. 2)
IGSD commented that in 2016, the International Institute for
Refrigeration (``IIR'') released guidelines to harmonize life-cycle
climate performance (``LCCP'') calculations for refrigeration systems
and under these guidelines, emissions in LCCP assessments account for
refrigerant charge, the average unit lifetimes, the annual leakage
rates, and the end-of-life leakage rates, annual energy consumption,
and the amount of CO2 emitted per kWh. IGSD commented the
test requirements in the AHRI 1320-2011 or AHRI 1200-2010 should be
collected to inform LCCP assessments that can be made using the IIR
guidelines by DOE and its partner laboratories. (Id.)
IGSD further commented that the CRE test procedure should inform
refrigeration design requirements similar to those found in the
European Union's Eco-Design Directive (Directive 2009/1255/EC), which
recognizes the larger environmental impact of CRE, especially during
servicing activities where refrigerant leakages are most likely to
occur and should be developed in the US as well. (IGSD, No. 7 at p. 3)
As discussed previously in this NOPR, the DOE test procedure for
remote CRE assesses the thermal load of a refrigerated unit and
estimates the compressor energy consumption associated with that
thermal load based on Table 1 in AHRI 1200-2010. Refrigerant leakage is
an aspect of refrigeration system design outside of the individual CRE
model performance. Refrigerant charging, leak mitigation, and the
associated energy consumption impacts are aspects of the overall
refrigeration system based on installation, rather than metrics that
can be quantified for basic models of CRE.
DOE is not proposing to account for remote refrigerant leakages in
its CRE test procedure. However, to the extent that refrigerant leakage
could impact compressor efficiencies as specified in Table 1 in AHRI
1200-2010 and AHRI 1200-202X, DOE welcomes additional information on
whether different EER values would better represent actual operation
for remote CRE.
2. Refrigerant Collection for Remote Testing
King commented, regarding remote testing, that DOE should establish
a listing for non-profit organization recollection and distribution of
refrigerants used during applicable testing and for finalized system
sealant. (King, No. 9, p. 1) Refrigerant recovery and recycling
requirements are established by EPA,\36\ not DOE. To the extent that
third-party or manufacturer test facilities require the use of
refrigerants to test remote CRE, it is the responsibility of the test
facility to ensure proper use and collection of the refrigerants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See www.epa.gov/section608/refrigerant-recovery-and-recycling-equipment-certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Energy Conservation Standards
In response to the June 2021 RFI, DOE received multiple comments
from interested parties on topics related to the CRE test procedures,
but more directly applicable to the consideration of new or amended
energy conservation standards for CRE. Specifically, DOE received
comments regarding topics related to energy conservation standards from
the Joint Commenters, ITW, True, NEEA, AHRI, Hussmann, IGSD, CA IOUs,
and Continental. (Joint Commenters, No. 8, p. 1-2; ITW, No. 2, p. 1-6;
True, No. 4, p. 3-23; NEEA, No. 5, p. 2-7; AHRI, No. 3, p. 3-15;
Hussmann, No. 14, p. 5-10; IGSD, No. 7, p. 3; CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 3-9;
Continental, No. 6, p. 2) DOE will consider those comments as part of
any subsequent rulemaking document related to energy conservation
standards for CRE.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ DOE has published a Federal Register notice undertaking an
early assessment review for amended energy conservation standards
for CRE to determine whether to amend applicable energy conservation
standards for this equipment. 86 FR 37708 (July 16, 2021). Documents
related to this action are available in docket ID EERE-2017-BT-STD-
0007, available at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
N. Sampling Plan
DOE's current certification requirements mandate reporting of the
chilled or frozen compartment volume in cubic feet, the adjusted volume
in cubic feet, or the TDA (as appropriate for the equipment class). 10
CFR 429.42(b)(2)(iii). However, the sampling plan requirements in 10
CFR 429.42(a) do not specify how to determine the represented value of
volume or TDA for each basic model based on the test results from the
sample of individual models tested. Similar to the requirements for
other covered products and commercial equipment, DOE is proposing that
any represented value of volume or TDA for the basic model be
determined as the mean of the measured volumes or TDAs for the units in
the test sample, based on the same tests used to determine the reported
energy consumption. Although not currently specified in 10 CFR 429.42,
DOE expects manufacturers are currently certifying CRE performance
based on the tested volume and TDA. Therefore, this proposed amendment
would clarify the certification requirements but not impose any
additional burden on manufacturers.
DOE seeks comment on the proposed sampling plan for CRE volume and
TDA.
O. Test Procedure Costs and Harmonization
1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend the existing test procedure for
CRE to:
[[Page 39214]]
(1) Establish new definitions for high-temperature refrigerator,
medium-temperature refrigerator, low-temperature freezer, and amend the
definition for ice-cream freezer.
(2) Incorporate by reference the most current versions of industry
standards AHRI 1200, ASHRAE 72, and AHRI 1320-2011.
(3) Establish definitions and test procedures for buffet tables and
preparation tables.
(4) Establish definitions and test procedures for blast chillers
and blast freezers.
(5) Amend the definition for chef base or griddle stand.
(6) Specify alternate conditions for alternative refrigerants.
(7) Allow for certification of compartment volumes based on CAD
drawings.
(8) Incorporate provisions for defrosts and customer order storage
cabinets currently specified in waivers and interim waivers.
(9) Adopt product-specific enforcement provisions.
(10) Clarify use of the LAPT provisions.
(11) Remove the obsolete test procedure in appendix A.
(12) Specify a sampling plan for volume and TDA.
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments to the
test procedure for CRE currently subject to testing would not impact
testing costs and manufacturers would be able to rely on data generated
under the current test procedure should any of these additional
proposed amendments be finalized.
DOE is proposing to establish test procedures for additional
categories of CRE not currently subject to the DOE test procedure:
buffet tables or preparation tables, and blast chillers and blast
freezers. If a manufacturer chooses to make representations of the
energy consumption of this equipment, beginning 360 days after a final
rule, were DOE to finalize the proposal, manufacturers would be
required to test according to the proposed test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6314(d)). DOE discusses the costs associated with testing this
equipment, if a manufacturer chooses to make representations of the
energy consumption, in the following paragraphs.
In a 2010 NOPR, DOE estimated CRE testing costs to be approximately
$5,000 per unit. 75 FR 71596, 71607 (November 24, 2010). Based on
testing at third-party test facilities, DOE has tentatively determined
that $5,000 is still a representative CRE test cost based on the
existing DOE test procedure. DOE has also tentatively determined that
$5,000 is a representative per-test cost for the new test procedures
proposed for the additional CRE categories (i.e., buffet tables or
preparation tables, blast chillers, and blast freezers).
For buffet tables and preparation tables, the overall test duration
would be similar to the test duration for CRE currently subject to the
test procedure. The test would be a 24-hour test and DOE is proposing
stabilization requirements consistent with CRE currently subject to the
test procedure. The proposed test setup would not require the use of
test simulators or test filler materials loaded in any refrigerated
compartments, but would require loading pans with distilled water and
identifying the appropriate control setting to maintain the specified
average temperatures. DOE expects the overall test burden associated
with loading and determining appropriate control settings to be similar
for testing buffet tables and preparation tables, as proposed, and
other CRE currently subject to the test procedure. While DOE has not
quantified the differences in test burden, DOE has initially determined
that the test burden and duration for buffet and preparation tables is
similar to CRE currently subject to the test procedure, and therefore
the $5,000 per-test cost is appropriate.
For blast chillers and blast freezers, the overall duration of a
test as proposed would be shorter than the 24-hour test period and
stabilization period required for CRE currently subject to the test
procedure. As proposed, blast chiller and blast freezer testing would
require the preparation of food simulator material, heating of that
material to the specified temperature, loading of the heated test pans,
and then conducting the test procedure as specified (DOE estimates
approximately an 8-hour test duration per test). While DOE has not
quantified the differences in test burden, DOE expects the increased
test burden and decreased test burden to be comparable. Therefore, DOE
has tentatively determined that $5,000 is a representative per-unit
test cost for blast chillers and blast chillers, based on the test
procedure proposed in this NOPR.
Under the proposed test procedures, were a manufacturer to choose
to make representations of the energy consumption of buffet tables or
preparation tables, blast chillers, or blast freezers beginning 360
days after a final rule, were DOE to finalize the proposal,
manufacturers would be required to base such representations on the DOE
test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d))
Based on a review of blast chillers and blast freezers available on
the market, DOE has determined that manufacturers make no claims
regarding the energy consumption of their models.
After establishing any test procedure for blast chillers and blast
freezers, DOE expects that the manufacturers currently electing to make
no claims regarding energy consumption would continue to do so.
Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed test
procedure for blast chillers and blast freezers would not impact
testing costs should the proposed test procedure be finalized.
Buffet tables and preparation tables are currently subject to test
procedures under the California Code of Regulations. DOE observed that
to the extent that buffet table and preparation table manufacturers
make representations regarding the energy consumption of their models,
they do so in accordance with the California Code of Regulations. EPCA
prescribes that, if DOE amends a test procedure, all representations of
energy efficiency and energy use, including those made on marketing
materials and product labels, must be made in accordance with that
amended test procedure, beginning 360 days after publication of such a
test procedure final rule in the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C.
6314(d)(1)) Therefore, the manufacturers currently making
representations of the energy consumption of buffet tables and
preparation tables would be required to re-test according to the
proposed test procedure beginning 360 days after the final rule, should
DOE finalize the proposal, and may incur some re-testing costs
associated with their buffet table and preparation table models.
For any manufacturers not currently making representations of the
energy use of buffet tables or preparation tables, blast chillers, or
blast freezers, testing according to the proposed test procedure would
not be required (other than if making voluntary representations of
energy consumption) until the compliance date of any energy
conservation standards for that equipment, should DOE adopt such
standards.
2. Harmonization With Industry Standards
DOE's established practice is to adopt relevant industry standards
as DOE test procedures unless such methodology would be unduly
burdensome to conduct or would not produce test results that reflect
the energy efficiency, energy use, water use (as specified in EPCA) or
estimated operating costs of that product during a representative
[[Page 39215]]
average use cycle. 10 CFR 431.4; Section 8(c) of appendix A 10 CFR part
430 subpart C. In cases where the industry standard does not meet EPCA
statutory criteria for test procedures DOE will make modifications
through the rulemaking process to these standards as the DOE test
procedure.
The test procedures for CRE at 10 CFR 431.63 incorporates by
reference AHRI 1200-2010 for definitions, test rating conditions, and
calculations; ASHRAE 72-2005 for test conditions, equipment,
measurements, and test conduct; and AHAM HRF-1-2008 for the volume
measurement method.
The industry standards DOE proposes to incorporate by reference via
amendments described in this notice are discussed in further detail in
section IV.N. DOE requests comments on the benefits and burdens of the
proposed updates and additions to industry standards referenced in the
test procedure for CRE.
AHRI 1200-2010 has been updated to AHRI 1200-202X to provide
additional direction regarding application of the standard and to
provide volume measurement instructions (eliminating the need to
reference AHAM HRF-1-2008). ASHRAE 72-2005 has similarly been updated
in ASHRAE 72-2018R to reorganize the standard, provide updated setup
instructions, revise the test sequence, and provide additional
instructions for some test measurements. DOE has tentatively determined
that these updates provide additional detail for testing but would
otherwise not impact energy consumption measurements compared to the
current approach. DOE is also proposing to incorporate by refence an
existing industry standard for testing buffet tables and preparation
tables: ASTM F2143-16. This standard provides instructions regarding
setup and test conduct.
DOE is also aware of the CRE industry standard NSF/ANSI 7-2021,\38\
which establishes minimum food protection and sanitation requirements
for the materials, design, manufacture, construction, and performance
of CRE and CRE components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ In response to the June 2021 RFI, interested parties
commented in reference to NSF 7-2019. NSF 7-2021 was published after
the June 2021 RFI comment period ended. DOE did not observe any
changes from the 2019 to 2021 version that would impact the comments
received or DOE's proposal to reference other industry standards
rather than NSF 7-2019 or NSF 7-2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. Compliance Date and Waivers
EPCA prescribes that, if DOE amends a test procedure, all
representations of energy efficiency and energy use, including those
made on marketing materials and product labels, must be made in
accordance with that amended test procedure, beginning 360 days after
publication of such a test procedure final rule in the Federal
Register. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)) To the extent the modified test
procedure proposed in this document is required only for the evaluation
and issuance of updated efficiency standards, use of the modified test
procedure, if finalized, would not be required until the compliance
date of updated standards. 10 CFR 431.4; Section 8(d) of appendix A 10
CFR part 430 subpart C.
Upon the compliance date of test procedure provisions of an amended
test procedure, should DOE issue a such an amendment, any waivers that
had been previously issued and are in effect that pertain to issues
addressed by such provisions are terminated. 10 CFR 431.401(h)(3).
Recipients of any such waivers would be required to test the products
subject to the waiver according to the amended test procedure as of the
compliance date of the amended test procedure. The amendments proposed
in this document pertain to issues addressed by waivers and interim
waivers granted to AHT (Case Nos. CR-006, 2017-007, 2020-023, 2020-025,
2022-001, and 2022-002), ITW (Case No. CR-007), and Hussmann (Case No.
2020-003). See sections III.F.1 and III.I of this NOPR for a discussion
of the proposals to address the issues in the existing waivers and
interim waivers. Were DOE to finalize the amendments pertaining to
these waivers and interim waivers, at such time as testing were
required according to the amended test procedure, the waivers and
interim waivers granted to AHT, ITW, and Hussmann would terminate and
they would be required to make representations based on the amended
test procedure.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order (``E.O.'')12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires
agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a
regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify
its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to
quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on
society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into
account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs
of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the
extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying
the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office
of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has emphasized that such techniques
may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might
result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, this proposed regulatory action
is consistent with these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has
determined that this proposed regulatory action does not constitute a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under
E.O. 12866.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'')
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
[[Page 39216]]
Counsel's website: www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
DOE reviewed this proposed rule to amend the test procedures for
CRE under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the
policies and procedures published on February 19, 2003.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
DOE is proposing to amend the existing DOE test procedures for
Commercial Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers
(``CRE''). EPCA, as amended,\39\ requires that, at least once every 7
years, DOE evaluate test procedures for each type of covered equipment,
including CRE, 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. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)) DOE is publishing this NOPR in
satisfaction of the 7-year review requirement specified in EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the
statute as amended through Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260
(Dec. 27, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
With respect to CRE, EPCA requires DOE to use the test procedure
determined by the Secretary to be generally accepted industry standard,
or industry standards developed or recognized by American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (``ASHRAE'') or
American National Standards Institute (``ANSI''), and the initial test
procedures for self-contained CRE shall be the ASHRAE 117 test
procedure that is in effect on January 1, 2005. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(6)(A)) Additionally, EPCA requires DOE to address whether to
amend its test procedures if ASHRAE amends this standard. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(6)(E)-(F)) Finally, EPCA states if a test procedure other than
the ASHRAE 117 test procedure is approved by ANSI, a review of the
relative strengths and weaknesses of the new test procedure relative to
the ASHRAE 117 test procedure and adopt one new test procedure for use
in the standards program. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(F)(i)) \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ In 2005, ASHRAE combined Standard 72-1998, ``Method of
Testing Open Refrigerators,'' and Standard 117-2002 and published
the test method as ASHRAE Standard 72-2005, ``Method of Testing
Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers,'' which was approved by ANSI
on July 29, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate
test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including CRE, to
determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or
fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to be
reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy
efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a
representative average use cycle and not be unduly burdensome to
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))
DOE is publishing this NOPR in satisfaction of the 7-year review
requirement specified in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii))
3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated
DOE uses the Small Business Administration (``SBA'') small business
size standards to determine whether manufacturers qualify as ``small
businesses,'' which are listed by the North American Industry
Classification System (``NAICS'').\41\ The SBA considers a business
entity to be small business if, together with its affiliates, it
employs less than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR
part 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Available at: www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRE manufacturers, who produce the equipment covered by this
proposed rule, are classified under NAICS code 333415, ``Air-
conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and
Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a
threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer for an entity to be considered a
small business for this category. This employee threshold includes all
employees in a business's parent company and any other subsidiaries.
DOE conducted a focused inquiry into manufacturers of equipment
covered by this rulemaking. DOE accessed its Compliance Certification
Database (``CCD''),\42\ California Energy Commission's Modernized
Appliance Efficiency Database System (``MAEDbS''),\43\ and other public
sources, including manufacturer websites, to create a list of companies
that produce, manufacture, import, or private label the CRE covered by
this rulemaking. DOE then consulted other publicly available data, such
as manufacturer specifications and product literature, import/export
logs (e.g., bills of lading from Panjiva \44\), and basic model
numbers, to identify original equipment manufacturers (``OEMs'') of the
equipment covered by this rulemaking. DOE further relied on public
sources and subscription-based market research tools (e.g., Dun &
Bradstreet reports \45\) to determine company location, headcount, and
annual revenue. DOE screened out companies that do not offer equipment
covered by this proposed rulemaking, do not meet the SBA's definition
of a ``small business,'' or are foreign-owned and operated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ DOE's CCD is available at www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data (Last accessed January 26, 2022).
\43\ California Energy Commission's MAEDbS is available at
cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx
(Last accessed January 26, 2022).
\44\ Panjiva Supply Chain Intelligence is available at:
panjiva.com/import-export/United-States.
\45\ The Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers subscription login is
available online at app.dnbhoovers.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE initially identified 85 OEMs of CRE for the U.S. market. Of the
85 OEMs identified, DOE estimates that 30 qualify as small OEMs and are
not foreign-owned and operated.
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend the existing test procedure for
CRE to:
(1) Establish new definitions for high-temperature refrigerator,
medium-temperature refrigerator, low-temperature freezer, and amend the
definition for ice-cream freezer.
(2) Incorporate by reference the most current versions of industry
standards AHRI 1200, ASHRAE 72, and AHRI 1320-2011.
(3) Establish definitions and test procedures for buffet tables and
preparation tables.
(4) Establish definitions and test procedures for blast chillers
and blast freezers.
(5) Amend the definition for chef base or griddle stand.
(6) Specify alternate conditions for alternative refrigerants.
(7) Allow for certification of compartment volumes based on
computer aided design (``CAD'') models.
(8) Incorporate provisions for defrosts and customer order storage
cabinets currently specified in waivers and interim waivers.
(9) Adopt product-specific enforcement provisions.
(10) Clarify use of the lowest application product temperature
(``LAPT'') provisions.
(11) Remove the obsolete test procedure in appendix A.
(12) Specify a sampling plan for volume and total display area
(``TDA'').
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments to the
test procedure for CRE currently subject to
[[Page 39217]]
testing would not increase third-party lab testing costs per unit
relative to the current DOE test procedure, which DOE estimates to be
$5,000. Furthermore, DOE has tentatively concluded that manufacturers
would be able to rely on data generated under the current test
procedure should any of these additional proposed amendments be
finalized. Accordingly, DOE does not expect that manufacturers would be
required to re-test or re-certify existing CRE models as a result of
the proposals in this NOPR.
For the proposed new test procedures for additional categories of
CRE not currently subject to testing according to the DOE test
procedure (i.e., buffet tables or preparation tables, blast chillers,
or blast freezers), testing would not be required (other than making
voluntary representations of energy consumption) until the compliance
date of any energy conservation standards for equipment in these
categories. DOE has initially determined that $5,000 is a
representative per-unit test cost for blast chillers, blast freezers
and buffet and preparation tables. Based on a review of commercially
available blast chillers and blast freezers, DOE has determined that
manufacturers make no claims regarding the energy consumption of their
models. To the extent that buffet table and preparation table
manufacturers make claims regarding the energy consumption of their
models, DOE observed that they do so in accordance with the California
Code of Regulations. The manufacturers currently making representations
of the energy consumption of buffet tables and preparation tables would
be required to test according to the proposed test procedure beginning
360 days after the final rule, should DOE finalize the proposal.
DOE reviewed California Energy Commission's MAEDbS and identified
two small domestic OEMs currently making representations of the energy
consumption of buffet table or preparation table models. According to
MAEDbS, one small OEM makes claims regarding the energy consumption of
26 buffet table or preparation table models and the other small OEM
makes claims regarding the energy consumption of 20 buffet table or
preparation table models. Based on Dun & Bradstreet reports, both small
OEMs have an estimated annual revenue of over $100 million. As
previously discussed, DOE estimates a per-unit test cost of $5,000.
Therefore, DOE estimates that the potential costs associated with re-
testing would be minimal, accounting for approximately 0.1 percent of
annual revenue for both small businesses.
DOE does not anticipate that the proposed test procedure amendments
would result in increased testing costs for the vast majority of
manufacturers, including small manufacturers. DOE estimates that two
small businesses may incur some re-testing costs associated with their
buffet table and preparation table models, should DOE adopt the
proposed rule. However, DOE's research indicates these costs would
account for approximately 0.1 percent of annual revenue for both small
OEMs identified. Therefore, DOE tentatively concludes that the proposed
rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
DOE requests comment on its initial conclusion that the amendments
detailed in this NOPR would not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
5. Identification of Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other
Rules and Regulations
DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the rule being considered in this action.
6. A Description of Significant Alternatives to the Rule
DOE does not expect that the proposals detailed in this NOPR will
increase the test burden on manufacturers, including small businesses.
Under EPCA, DOE is required to adopt generally accepted industry test
standards, or industry test standards developed or recognized by the
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (``ASHRAE'') or American National Standards Institute
(``ANSI''). (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(A)(i)) It is also DOE's established
practice to adopt relevant industry standards as DOE test procedures
unless such methodology would be unduly burdensome to conduct or would
not produce test results that reflect the energy efficiency, energy
use, water use (as specified in EPCA) or estimated operating costs of
that product during a representative average use cycle. 10 CFR 431.4;
Section 8(c) of appendix A 10 CFR part 430 subpart C. DOE examined
relevant industry test standards, and the Department incorporated these
standards in the proposed test procedures whenever appropriate to
reduce test burden to manufacturers. Specifically, this NOPR
incorporates by reference the most current versions of industry
standards AHRI 1200, ASHRAE 72, and AHRI 1320-2011.
Additionally, manufacturers subject to DOE's energy efficiency
standards may apply to DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for
exception relief under certain circumstances. Manufacturers should
refer to 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of CRE 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 CRE. (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.
DOE is not proposing to amend the certification or reporting
requirements for CRE in this NOPR. Further, certification data will be
required for buffet tables and preparation tables, and blast chillers
and blast freezers; however, DOE is not proposing certification or
reporting requirements for these categories of CRE in this NOPR.
Instead, DOE may consider proposals to establish certification
requirements and reporting for these equipment categories under a
separate rulemaking regarding appliance and equipment certification.
DOE will address changes to OMB Control Number 1910-1400 at that time,
as necessary.
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 NOPR, DOE proposes test procedure amendments that it
expects will be used to develop and implement future energy
conservation standards for
[[Page 39218]]
CRE. 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 (Aug. 4, 1999)
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has
determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the
products that are the subject of this proposed rule. States can
petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and
based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further
action is required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction,
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately defines
key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law,
the proposed 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 proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997,
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available
at www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this proposed
rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that
the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate
that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year,
so these requirements do not apply.
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 proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
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 proposed regulation
would 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 www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May
[[Page 39219]]
22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, a
Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action.
A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final
rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
The proposed regulatory action to amend the test procedure for
measuring the energy efficiency of CRE is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by
the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy
action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy
Effects.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788;
``FEAA'') Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where
a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the
notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and
background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE
to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal
Trade Commission (``FTC'') concerning the impact of the commercial or
industry standards on competition.
The proposed modifications to the test procedure for CRE would
incorporate testing methods contained in certain sections of the
following commercial standards: AHRI 1200-202X, AHRI 1320-2011, ASHRAE
72-2018R, and ASTM F2143-16. DOE has evaluated these standards and is
unable to conclude whether they fully comply 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
will consult with both the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC
concerning the impact of these test procedures on competition, prior to
prescribing a final rule.
M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test
standard published by AHRI titled ``Performance Rating of Commercial
Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets.'' AHRI 1200-
202X is an industry-accepted test procedure that provides rating
instructs, calculations, and methods for CRE. The test procedure
proposed in this NOPR references AHRI 1200-202X for specific rating
instructions, calculations, and rating methods for CRE. AHRI 1200-202X
is a draft version of standard AHRI 1200 that has not reached final
publication, but the version discussed in this NOPR is available at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008.
DOE also proposes to incorporate by reference the test standard
published by AHRI titled ``Performance Rating of Commercial
Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets for Use With
Secondary Refrigerants.'' AHRI 1320-2011 is an industry-accepted test
procedure that provides rating instructs, calculations, and methods for
CRE used with secondary coolants. The test procedure proposed in this
NOPR references AHRI 1320-2011 regarding specific provisions regarding
secondary coolants, but otherwise references AHRI 1200-202X as
discussed. AHRI 1320-2011 is available at ahri.net.org/search-standards.
DOE also proposes to incorporate by reference the test standard
published by ASHRAE titled ``Method of Testing Open and Closed
Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers.'' ASHRAE 72-2018R is an
industry-accepted test procedure that provides setup, instrumentation,
measurement, and test conduct instructions for testing CRE. The test
procedure proposed in this NOPR references ASHRAE 72-2018R as the basis
for test setup and test conduct requirements. ASHRAE 72-2018R is a
draft version of the standard that has not reached final publication,
but the version discussed in this NOPR is available at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008.
DOE also proposes to incorporate by reference the test standard
published by ASTM titled ``Standard Test Method for Performance of
Refrigerated Buffet and Preparation Tables.'' ASTM F2143-16 is an
industry-accepted test procedure that provides setup, instrumentation,
conditions, measurement, and test conduct instructions for testing
buffet tables and preparation tables. The test procedure proposed in
this NOPR references ASTM F2143-16 as the basis for test setup and test
conduct for buffet tables and preparation tables. Copies of ASTM F2143-
16 can be purchased at www.astm.org/f2143-16.html.
ASTM E1084-86 (Reapproved 2009), which appears in the proposed
regulatory text, has already been incorporated by reference for that
text; no change is proposed.
V. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
The time and date for the webinar meeting are listed in the DATES
section at the beginning of this document. Webinar registration
information, participant instructions, and information about the
capabilities available to webinar participants will be published at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008. Participants are
responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar
software.
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this
notice, or who is representative of a group or class of persons that
has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to make an
oral presentation at the webinar. Such persons may submit to
[email protected]. Persons who wish to speak
should include with their request a computer file in WordPerfect,
Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that briefly describes
the nature of their interest in this proposed rulemaking and the topics
they wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a daytime
telephone number where they can be reached.
C. Conduct of the Webinar
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar and may
also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will
not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will
conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A
court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and
[[Page 39220]]
prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of
presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of
the webinar. There shall not be discussion of proprietary information,
costs or prices, market share, or other commercial matters regulated by
U.S. anti-trust laws. After the webinar and until the end of the
comment period, interested parties may submit further comments on the
proceedings and any aspect of the proposed rulemaking.
The webinar will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE
will present a general overview of the topics addressed in this
proposed rulemaking, allow time for prepared general statements by
participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views
on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed
to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE),
before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time
permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general
statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit
participants to clarify their statements briefly. Participants should
be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants
concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of
participants concerning other matters relevant to this proposed
rulemaking. The official conducting the webinar/public meeting will
accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time
permits. The presiding official will announce any further procedural
rules or modification of the above procedures that may be needed for
the proper conduct of the webinar.
A transcript of the webinar will be included in the docket, which
can be viewed as described in the docket section at the beginning of
this proposed rulemaking. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the
transcript from the transcribing reporter.
D. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule no later than the date provided in the DATES section at
the beginning of this proposed rule.\46\ Interested parties may submit
comments using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at
the beginning of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ DOE has historically provided a 75-day comment period for
test procedure NOPRs pursuant to the North American Free Trade
Agreement, U.S.-Canada-Mexico (``NAFTA''), Dec. 17, 1992, 32 I.L.M.
289 (1993); the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation
Act, Public Law 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057 (1993) (codified as amended
at 10 U.S.C.A. 2576) (1993) (``NAFTA Implementation Act''); and
Executive Order 12889, ``Implementation of the North American Free
Trade Agreement,'' 58 FR 69681 (Dec. 30, 1993). However, on July 1,
2020, the Agreement between the United States of America, the United
Mexican States, and the United Canadian States (``USMCA''), Nov. 30,
2018, 134 Stat. 11 (i.e., the successor to NAFTA), went into effect,
and Congress's action in replacing NAFTA through the USMCA
Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C. 4501 et seq. (2020), implies the
repeal of E.O. 12889 and its 75-day comment period requirement for
technical regulations. Thus, the controlling laws are EPCA and the
USMCA Implementation Act. Consistent with EPCA's public comment
period requirements for consumer products, the USMCA only requires a
minimum comment period of 60 days. Consequently, DOE now provides a
60-day public comment period for test procedure NOPRs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential
Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via
email also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not
include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead,
provide your contact information on a cover letter. Include your first
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing
address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it
does not include any comments
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. No faxes will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature
of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked
confidential including all the information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked non-confidential with the
information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own
determination about the confidential status of the information and
treat it according to its determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except
[[Page 39221]]
information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE requests comment on the proposed amended definition of ice-
cream freezer, and on whether any additional characteristics may better
differentiate this equipment from other commercial freezers.
(2) DOE requests comment on the proposed amended definition for
ice-cream freezer and the proposed definition for low-temperature
freezer.
(3) DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for high-
temperature refrigerator and medium-temperature refrigerator, including
whether the terms should be mutually exclusive or constructed such that
equipment could be considered to meet both definitions.
(4) DOE requests comment on the proposal to specify the
requirements from the April 2014 Final Rule regarding basic models of
CRE that operate in multiple equipment classes.
(5) DOE requests comment on the proposal to incorporate by
reference AHRI 1200-202X and on whether the use of the updated test
method would impact CRE ratings based on the current DOE test
procedure.
(6) DOE requests comment on the proposal to incorporate by
reference AHRI 1200-202X, including the new provisions regarding high
glide refrigerants. DOE also requests information on whether any remote
condensing CRE are currently tested and rated using high glide
refrigerants and whether the proposed test procedure would impact the
rated energy consumption for such models.
(7) DOE requests comment on the proposal to adopt a rating point of
55 [deg]F 2.0 [deg]F for high-temperature refrigerators by
adopting through reference certain provisions of AHRI 1200-202X.
(8) DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate by
reference ASHRAE 72-2018R, including on whether the updates included in
the industry test standard would impact the measured energy consumption
of any CRE currently available.
(9) DOE requests comment on the proposed additional instructions
regarding loading drawers. DOE requests information on whether the
proposed approach is consistent with any future industry standard
revisions to address this issue. DOE requests comment on whether other
instructions for CRE with drawers should be revised (e.g., fully open
definition for drawers) or if additional instructions are needed.
(10) DOE requests comment on the proposal to incorporate by
reference AHRI 1320-2011 for CRE used with secondary coolants,
including the proposal to only reference the industry standard for
provisions specific to secondary coolants and to otherwise reference
AHRI 1200-202X, as proposed for other CRE.
(11) DOE requests comment on the model regulation guidelines and on
whether there are opportunities for DOE to harmonize its regulations
with other regulations in place for CRE.
(12) DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for buffet
table or preparation table. DOE requests information on whether any
additional definitions are necessary for the purposes of testing this
equipment, or whether any additional equipment characteristics are
necessary to differentiate this equipment from other categories of CRE.
(13) DOE requests comment on its proposal to adopt through
reference certain provisions of ASTM F2143-16 as the basis for testing
buffet tables and preparation tables. DOE also seeks comment on the
proposal to specify test procedures only for self-contained buffet
tables and preparation tables, consistent with ASTM F2143-16.
(14) DOE requests comment on the proposal for testing buffet tables
and preparation tables with test conditions (i.e., test chamber
conditions, measurement location, and electric supply conditions)
consistent with ASHRAE 72-2018R, with additional detail specific to
buffet tables and preparation tables.
(15) DOE requests comment on the proposal for testing buffet tables
and preparation tables with test setup instructions consistent with
ASHRAE 72-2018R rather than ASTM F2143-16.
(16) DOE requests comment on the proposed test loads and
temperature measurement locations for buffet tables and preparation
tables--i.e., distilled water in pans for the open-top refrigerated
area and no load in any refrigerated compartment--consistent with the
approach in ASTM F2143-16.
(17) DOE requests comment on the proposal to account for defrosts
when testing buffet tables and preparation tables, consistent with the
approach in ASHRAE 72-2018R.
(18) DOE requests comment on its proposal to require loading pans
in the open-top refrigerated area and not moving them to a refrigerated
compartment, if applicable, during testing.
(19) DOE requests comment on the proposed 24-hour test period,
which is consistent with the approach in ASTM F2143-16.
(20) DOE requests comment on the proposed door and cover opening
procedures, which are consistent with the approach specified in ASTM
F2143-16. DOE requests data and information on representative usage of
buffet tables and preparation tables, including door and cover
openings.
(21) DOE requests comment on the proposed stabilization approach
for buffet table and preparation table testing, which would reference
the approach specified in ASHRAE 72-2018R.
(22) DOE requests comment on the proposed approach for testing
buffet tables and preparation tables based on separate pan and
compartment average temperatures. DOE also requests feedback on the
proposed target temperature of 38 [deg]F 2 [deg]F for each
average temperature.
(23) DOE requests comment on the proposed capacity metrics of pan
storage volume, compartment volume, and pan display area. DOE requests
feedback on the proposed methods for measuring each and the extent to
which these metrics are relevant capacity metrics for buffet tables and
preparation tables.
(24) DOE requests comment on the proposed product-specific
enforcement provisions regarding how DOE would determine whether a
model meets the pull-down temperature application definition. DOE also
requests data and comment on whether the proposed product-specific
enforcement provisions sufficiently differentiate pull-down temperature
applications from holding temperature applications.
(25) DOE seeks comment on the proposed definitions of ``blast
chiller'' and ``blast freezer.''
(26) DOE seeks comment on the proposal to establish test procedures
for self-contained commercial blast chillers and blast freezers that
have a refrigerated volume of up to 500 ft3.
(27) DOE seeks comment on the proposal to incorporate certain
provisions from the draft ASHRAE 220 and certain deviations for the
blast chillers and blast freezers test procedures.
(28) DOE seeks comment on the proposal to reference section 4 and
the relevant portions of Appendix A of ASHRAE 72-2018R for
instrumentation requirements for the blast chiller and blast freezer
test procedures.
[[Page 39222]]
(29) DOE seeks comment on the proposal to require the dry-bulb
temperatures specified in the tentative ASHRAE 220 draft and
incorporate section 6.1 and Figure 6 of ASHRAE 72-2018R to specify the
point TA where the dry-bulb temperatures are to be measured and the
type of thermocouple to use when measuring dry-bulb in the blast
chillers and blast freezers test procedures.
(30) DOE seeks comment on the proposal to incorporate the portions
of Appendix A in ASHRAE 72-2018R which specify the requirements for
voltage and frequency in the blast chillers and blast freezers test
procedures.
(31) DOE seeks comment on whether any additional test conditions
are appropriate for blast chiller and blast freezer testing, including
those specified in Sections 6.2, 6.3, and Appendix A in ASHRAE 72-
2018R.
(32) DOE seeks comment on the proposal to incorporate Sections 5.1,
5.2, 5.3 (including sub-sections 5.3.1 to 5.3.17), and the relevant
portions of Appendix A of ASHRAE 72-2018R, with the proposed
deviations, for the blast chillers and blast freezers test procedures.
(33) DOE seeks comment on the proposal to incorporate the relevant
portions of Appendix A of ASHRAE 72-2018R for the electrical
measurement locations for the blast chillers and blast freezers test
procedures.
(34) DOE seeks comment on the proposal to reference AHRI 1200-202X
for measuring the refrigerated volume of blast chillers and blast
freezers.
(35) DOE seeks comment on the proposal to incorporate the standard
product pan specifications in ASHRAE 220 for the blast chillers and
blast freezers test procedures.
(36) DOE seeks comment on the proposed method to determine the
number of pans required for testing blast chillers and blast freezers.
(37) DOE seeks comment on the proposal to determine the tested
product capacity for the blast chillers and blast freezers test
procedures.
(38) DOE seeks comment on the proposed method for distributing the
pans within the test unit's cabinet for testing blast chillers and
blast freezers.
(39) DOE seeks comment on the proposed method to determine which
standard product pans would include temperature measurement sensors for
the blast chillers and blast freezers test procedures.
(40) DOE seeks comment on the proposed method of measuring the
product temperature in the measured pans for the blast chillers and
blast freezers test procedures.
(41) DOE seeks comment on the proposed method for preparing the
product medium mixture to be placed in the standard product pans for
the blast chillers and blast freezers test procedures.
(42) DOE seeks comment on the proposal to include pre-cooling and
pull-down operating in the blast chiller and blast freezer test
procedure and to not include any holding periods during testing.
(43) DOE seeks comment on the proposed data recording rate for the
blast chillers and blast freezers test procedures.
(44) DOE seeks comment on the proposed data collection periods for
the blast chillers and blast freezers test procedures.
(45) DOE seeks comment on the proposed method to conduct the pre-
cool cycle for the blast chillers and blast freezers test procedures.
(46) DOE seeks comment on the proposed method to load the prepared
standard product pans into the test unit for the blast chillers and
blast freezers test procedures.
(47) DOE seeks comment on the proposed method to conduct the blast
chilling or blast freezing test.
(48) DOE requests comment on the proposed amendment to the
definition for chef base or griddle stand, which specifies a maximum
height of 32 inches for this equipment. DOE requests information on any
other identifiable equipment characteristics that may differentiate
chef bases and griddle stands from other similar CRE.
(49) DOE requests comment on its proposal to test chef bases and
griddle stands according to the test procedure used for other CRE.
(50) DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for mobile
refrigerated cabinet. DOE also requests comment on the proposal to not
establish test procedures for mobile refrigerated cabinets.
(51) DOE requests comment on its tentative determination to not
propose amended test procedures for dedicated remote condensing units.
(52) DOE requests comment on the proposed approach to account for
long duration defrost cycles using an optional two-part test procedure
consistent with the existing waiver approach granted for such models.
DOE also requests comment on whether any additional provisions are
necessary to account for different defrost operation or controls, and
on DOE's proposed approach in which the test period would start with
the defrost occurrence having the longest interval between defrosts.
(53) DOE requests comment on the proposed alternate refrigerant
conditions to be used for testing remote CRE with CO2 refrigerant. DOE
requests comment on whether any other aspects of the current test
procedure require amendment to allow for testing with CO2 or any other
alternative refrigerants.
(54) DOE requests comment on the proposed definition and term
``customer order storage cabinet'' to describe the equipment currently
addressed in the September 2018 Waiver and the July 2021 Interim
Waiver. DOE requests comment on the proposal to test such equipment
with reduced door openings, consistent with the waiver and interim
waiver approach.
(55) DOE requests comment on the additional proposed test procedure
amendments that would allow for reverse heat leak testing of customer
order storage cabinets with floating suction pressures for multiple
different temperature compartments.
(56) DOE requests comment on the proposed product-specific
enforcement provisions for CRE.
(57) DOE seeks comment on the proposed sampling plan for CRE volume
and TDA.
(58) DOE requests comment on its initial conclusion that the
amendments detailed in this NOPR would not have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed
rule.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 429
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Small businesses.
10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation test procedures, Incorporation by
reference, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on June 15,
2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
[[Page 39223]]
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 June 15, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend
parts 429 and 431 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 429.42 is amended by adding paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) to
read as follows:
Sec. 429.42 Commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-
freezers.
(a) * * *
(3) Represented value calculations. The volume and total display
area (TDA) of a basic model, as applicable, is the mean of the measured
volumes and the mean of the measured TDAs, as applicable, for the
tested units of the basic model, based on the same tests used to
determine energy consumption.
(4) Convertible equipment. Each basic model of commercial
refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-freezer that is capable of
operating at integrated average temperatures that span the operating
temperature range of multiple equipment classes, either by adjusting a
thermostat for a basic model or by the marketed, designed, or intended
operation for a basic model with a remote condensing unit but without a
thermostat, must determine the represented values, which includes the
certified ratings, either by testing, in conjunction with the
applicable sampling provisions, or by applying an AEDM to comply with
the requirements necessary to certify to each equipment class that the
basic model is capable of operating within.
(i) Customer order storage cabinets. For customer order storage
cabinets that have individual secured compartments that are convertible
between the >=32 [deg]F and <32 [deg]F operating temperatures, the
customer order storage cabinets must determine the represented values,
which includes the certified ratings, either by testing, in conjunction
with the applicable sampling provisions, or by applying an AEDM with
all convertible compartments either as medium temperature refrigerators
or all convertible compartments as low-temperature freezers, or at the
lowest application product temperature for each equipment class as
specified in Sec. 431.64 of this chapter, to comply with the
requirements necessary to certify to each equipment class that the
basic model is capable of operating within.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 429.72 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 429.72 Alternative methods for determining non-energy ratings.
* * * * *
(f) Commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers.
The volume of a basic model of a commercial refrigerator, refrigerator-
freezer, or freezer may be determined by performing a calculation of
the volume based upon computer-aided design (CAD) models of the basic
model in lieu of physical measurements of a production unit of the
basic model. If volume is determined by performing a calculation of
volume based on CAD drawings, any value of volume of the basic model
reported to DOE in a certification of compliance in accordance with
Sec. 429.42(b)(2)(iii) must be calculated using the CAD-derived
volume(s) and the applicable provisions in the test procedures in 10
CFR part 431.64 for measuring volume.
0
4. Section 429.134 is amended by adding paragraphs (s) and (t) to read
as follows:
Sec. 429.134 Product-specific enforcement provisions.
* * * * *
(s) Reserved.
(t) Commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers--
(1) Verification of volume. The volume will be measured pursuant to the
test requirements of 10 CFR part 431 for each unit tested. The results
of the measurement(s) will be averaged and compared to the value of the
certified volume of the basic model. The certified volume will be
considered valid only if the average measured volume is within five
percent of the certified volume.
(i) If the certified volume is found to be valid, the certified
volume will be used as the basis for determining the maximum daily
energy consumption allowed for the basic model.
(ii) If the certified volume is found to be invalid, the average
measured volume of the units in the sample will be used as the basis
for determining the maximum daily energy consumption allowed for the
basic model.
(2) Verification of total display area. The total display area will
be measured pursuant to the test requirements of 10 CFR part 431 for
each unit tested. The results of the measurement(s) will be averaged
and compared to the value of the certified total display area of the
basic model. The certified total display area will be considered valid
only if the average measured total display area is within five percent
of the certified total display area.
(i) If the certified total display area is found to be valid, the
certified total display area will be used as the basis for determining
the maximum daily energy consumption allowed for the basic model.
(ii) If the certified total display area is found to be invalid,
the average measured total display area of the units in the sample will
be used as the basis for determining the maximum daily energy
consumption allowed for the basic model.
(3) Determination of pull-down temperature application. A
classification of a basic model as pull-down temperature application
will be considered valid only if a model meets the definition of pull-
down temperature application specified in Sec. 431.62 of this chapter
as follows.
(i) 12-ounce beverage can temperatures will be measured for 12-
ounce beverage cans loaded at the locations within the commercial
refrigerator that are as close as possible to the locations that would
be measured by test simulators according to the test procedure for
commercial refrigerators specified in Sec. 431.64 of this chapter.
(ii) The commercial refrigerator will be operated at ambient
conditions consistent with those specified for commercial refrigerators
in Sec. 431.64 of this chapter and at the control setting necessary to
achieve a stable integrated average temperature of 38 [deg]F, prior to
loading.
(iii) 12-ounce beverage cans to be fully loaded into the commercial
refrigerator (with and without temperature measurements) will be
maintained at 90 [deg]F 2 [deg]F based on the average
measured 12-ounce beverage
[[Page 39224]]
can temperatures prior to loading into the commercial refrigerator.
(iv) The duration of pull-down (which must be 12 hours or less)
will be determined starting from closing the commercial refrigerator
door after completing the 12-ounce beverage can loading until the
integrated average temperature reaches 38 [deg]F 2 [deg]F.
(v) An average stable temperature of 38 [deg]F will be determined
by operating the commercial refrigerator for an additional 12 hours
after initially reaching 38 [deg]F 2 [deg]F with no
changes to control settings, and determining an integrated average
temperature of 38 [deg]F 2 [deg]F at the end of the 12
hour stability period.
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
5. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
6. Section 431.62 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 431.62 Definitions concerning commercial refrigerators,
freezers and refrigerator-freezers.
Air-curtain angle means:
(1) For equipment without doors and without a discharge air grille
or discharge air honeycomb, the angle between a vertical line extended
down from the highest point on the manufacturer's recommended load
limit line and the load limit line itself, when the equipment is viewed
in cross-section; and
(2) For all other equipment without doors, the angle formed between
a vertical line and the straight line drawn by connecting the point at
the inside edge of the discharge air opening with the point at the
inside edge of the return air opening, when the equipment is viewed in
cross-section.
Basic model means all commercial refrigeration equipment
manufactured by one manufacturer within a single equipment class,
having the same primary energy source, and that have essentially
identical electrical, physical, and functional characteristics that
affect energy consumption.
Blast chiller means commercial refrigeration equipment, other than
a blast freezer, that is capable of the rapid temperature pull-down of
hot food products from 135 [deg]F to 40 [deg]F within a period of four
hours, when measured according to the test procedure at appendix D to
subpart C of part 431.
Blast freezer means commercial refrigeration equipment that is
capable of the rapid temperature pull-down of hot food products from
135 [deg]F to 40 [deg]F within a period of four hours and capable of
achieving a final product temperature of less than 32 [deg]F, when
measured according to the test procedure at appendix D to subpart C of
part 431.
Buffet table or preparation table means a commercial refrigerator
with an open-top refrigerated area, that may or may not include a lid,
for displaying or storing merchandise and other perishable materials in
pans or other removable containers for customer self-service or food
production and assembly. The unit may or may not be equipped with a
refrigerated storage compartment underneath the pans or other removable
containers that is not thermally separated from the open-top
refrigerated area.
Chef base or griddle stand means commercial refrigeration equipment
that has a maximum height of 32 inches, including any legs or casters,
and that is designed and marketed for the express purpose of having a
griddle or other cooking appliance placed on top of it that is capable
of reaching temperatures hot enough to cook food.
Closed solid means equipment with doors, and in which more than 75
percent of the outer surface area of all doors on a unit are not
transparent.
Closed transparent means equipment with doors, and in which 25
percent or more of the outer surface area of all doors on the unit are
transparent.
Commercial freezer means a unit of commercial refrigeration
equipment in which all refrigerated compartments in the unit are
capable of operating below 32 [deg]F (2 [deg]F).
Commercial hybrid means a unit of commercial refrigeration
equipment:
(1) That consists of two or more thermally separated refrigerated
compartments that are in two or more different equipment families, and
(2) That is sold as a single unit.
Commercial refrigerator means a unit of commercial refrigeration
equipment in which all refrigerated compartments in the unit are
capable of operating at or above 32 [deg]F (2 [deg]F).
Commercial refrigerator-freezer means a unit of commercial
refrigeration equipment consisting of two or more refrigerated
compartments where at least one refrigerated compartment is capable of
operating at or above 32 [deg]F (2 [deg]F) and at least one
refrigerated compartment is capable of operating below 32 [deg]F
(2 [deg]F).
Commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer means
refrigeration equipment that -
(1) Is not a consumer product (as defined in Sec. 430.2);
(2) Is not designed and marketed exclusively for medical,
scientific, or research purposes;
(3) Operates at a chilled, frozen, combination chilled and frozen,
or variable temperature;
(4) Displays or stores merchandise and other perishable materials
horizontally, semi-vertically, or vertically;
(5) Has transparent or solid doors, sliding or hinged doors, a
combination of hinged, sliding, transparent, or solid doors, or no
doors;
(6) Is designed for pull-down temperature applications or holding
temperature applications; and
(7) Is connected to a self-contained condensing unit or to a remote
condensing unit.
Customer order storage cabinet means a commercial refrigerator,
freezer, or refrigerator-freezer that stores customer orders and
includes individual, secured compartments with doors that are
accessible to customers for order retrieval.
Door means a movable panel that separates the interior volume of a
unit of commercial refrigeration equipment from the ambient environment
and is designed to facilitate access to the refrigerated space for the
purpose of loading and unloading product. This includes hinged doors,
sliding doors, and drawers. This does not include night curtains.
Door angle means:
(1) For equipment with flat doors, the angle between a vertical
line and the line formed by the plane of the door, when the equipment
is viewed in cross-section; and
(2) For equipment with curved doors, the angle formed between a
vertical line and the straight line drawn by connecting the top and
bottom points where the display area glass joins the cabinet, when the
equipment is viewed in cross-section.
High-temperature refrigerator means a commercial refrigerator that
is not capable of operating with an integrated average temperature as
low as 38.0 [deg]F (2.0 [deg]F).
Holding temperature application means a use of commercial
refrigeration equipment other than a pull-down temperature application,
except a blast chiller or freezer.
Horizontal Closed means equipment with hinged or sliding doors and
a door angle greater than or equal to 45[deg].
Horizontal Open means equipment without doors and an air-curtain
angle greater than or equal to 80[deg] from the vertical.
[[Page 39225]]
Ice-cream freezer means:
(1) Prior to the compliance date(s) of any amended energy
conservation standard(s) for ice-cream freezers, a commercial freezer
that is designed to operate at or below -5.0 [deg]F (2.0
[deg]F) and that the manufacturer designs, markets, or intends for the
storing, displaying, or dispensing of frozen desserts; or
(2) Upon the compliance date(s) of any amended energy conservation
standard(s) for ice-cream freezers, a commercial freezer that is
designed for an operating temperature at or below -15.0 [deg]F (2.0 [deg]F) and that the manufacturer designs, markets, or
intends for the storing, displaying, or dispensing of frozen desserts.
Integrated average temperature means the average temperature of all
test package measurements taken during the test.
Lighting occupancy sensor means a device which uses passive
infrared, ultrasonic, or other motion-sensing technology to
automatically turn off or dim lights within the equipment when no
motion is detected in the sensor's coverage area for a certain preset
period of time.
Lowest application product temperature means the integrated average
temperature (or for buffet tables or preparation tables, the average
pan temperature of all measurements taken during the test) at which a
given basic model is capable of consistently operating that is closest
to the integrated average temperature (or for buffet tables or
preparation tables, the average pan temperature of all measurements
taken during the test) specified for testing under the DOE test
procedure.
Low-temperature freezer means a commercial freezer that is not an
ice-cream freezer.
Medium-temperature refrigerator means a commercial refrigerator
that is capable of operating with an integrated average temperature of
38.0 [deg]F (2 [deg]F), or lower.
Mobile refrigerated cabinet means commercial refrigeration
equipment that is designed and marketed to operate only without a
continuous power supply.
Night curtain means a device which is temporarily deployed to
decrease air exchange and heat transfer between the refrigerated case
and the surrounding environment.
Operating temperature means the range of integrated average
temperatures at which a self-contained commercial refrigeration unit or
remote-condensing commercial refrigeration unit with a thermostat is
capable of operating or, in the case of a remote-condensing commercial
refrigeration unit without a thermostat, the range of integrated
average temperatures at which the unit is marketed, designed, or
intended to operate.
Pull-down temperature application means a commercial refrigerator
with doors that, when fully loaded with 12 ounce beverage cans at 90
degrees F, can cool those beverages to an average stable temperature of
38 degrees F in 12 hours or less.
Rating temperature means the integrated average temperature a unit
must maintain during testing (i.e., either as listed in the table at
Sec. 431.66(d)(1) or the lowest application product temperature).
Remote condensing unit means a factory-made assembly of
refrigerating components designed to compress and liquefy a specific
refrigerant that is remotely located from the refrigerated equipment
and consists of 1 or more refrigerant compressors, refrigerant
condensers, condenser fans and motors, and factory supplied
accessories.
Scheduled lighting control means a device which automatically shuts
off or dims the lighting in a display case at scheduled times
throughout the day.
Self-contained condensing unit means a factory-made assembly of
refrigerating components designed to compress and liquefy a specific
refrigerant that is an integral part of the refrigerated equipment and
consists of 1 or more refrigerant compressors, refrigerant condensers,
condenser fans and motors, and factory supplied accessories.
Semivertical Open means equipment without doors and an air-curtain
angle greater than or equal to 10[deg] and less than 80[deg] from the
vertical.
Service over counter means equipment that has sliding or hinged
doors in the back intended for use by sales personnel, with glass or
other transparent material in the front for displaying merchandise, and
that has a height not greater than 66 inches and is intended to serve
as a counter for transactions between sales personnel and customers.
Test package means a packaged material that is used as a standard
product temperature-measuring device.
Transparent means greater than or equal to 45 percent light
transmittance, as determined in accordance with ASTM E1084-86
(Reapproved 2009), (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.63) at
normal incidence and in the intended direction of viewing.
Vertical Closed means equipment with hinged or sliding doors and a
door angle less than 45[deg].
Vertical Open means equipment without doors and an air-curtain
angle greater than or equal to 0[deg] and less than 10[deg] from the
vertical.
Wedge case means a commercial refrigerator, freezer, or
refrigerator-freezer that forms the transition between two regularly
shaped display cases.
0
7. Section 431.63 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 431.63 Materials incorporated by reference.
Certain material is incorporated by reference into this subpart
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other
than that specified in this section, the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) must publish a document in the Federal Register and the material
must be available to the public. All approved incorporation by
reference (IBR) material is available for inspection at DOE and at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact DOE at:
the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, Sixth Floor, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-9127,
[email protected], https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/building-technologies-office. For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, email: [email protected], or go to:
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. The material
may be obtained from the following sources:
(a) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute,
2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201; (703) 524-8800;
[email protected]; www.ahrinet.org/Content/StandardsProgram_20.aspx.
(1) ARI Standard 1200-2006, Performance Rating of Commercial
Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets, 2006; IBR
approved for Sec. 431.66.
(2) AHRI Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010, 2010 Standard for Performance
Rating of Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage
Cabinets, 2010; IBR approved for Sec. 431.66.
(3) AHRI Standard 1200-202X (AHRI 1200-202X), Performance Rating of
Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets,
[publication expected 2022]; IBR approved for the following appendices
to this subpart: B; C; D.
(4) AHRI Standard 1320 (I-P), (AHRI 1320-2011) 2 Performance Rating
of Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets
for Use With Secondary Refrigerants, 2011 IBR approved for the
following appendices to this subpart: B.
[[Page 39226]]
(b) ASHRAE. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and
Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 1971 Tullie Circle NE, Atlanta, GA
30329; (404) 636-8400; www.ashrae.org/. (1) ASHRAE Standard 72-2018R
(ASHRAE 72-2018R), Method of Testing Open and Closed Commercial
Refrigerators and Freezers, [publication expected 2022]; IBR approved
for the following appendices to this subpart: B; C; D.
(2) [Reserved]
(c) ASTM. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700,
West Conshohocken, PA 19428; (877) 909-2786; www.astm.org/.
(1) ASTM E1084-86 (Reapproved 2009), Standard Test Method for Solar
Transmittance (Terrestrial) of Sheet Materials Using Sunlight, approved
April 1, 2009; IBR approved for Sec. 431.62. (2) ASTM F2143-16,
Standard Test Method for Performance of Refrigerated Buffet and
Preparation Tables, approved May 1, 2016; IBR approved for the
following appendices to this subpart: C.
0
8. Section 431.64 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 431.64 Uniform test method for the measurement of energy
consumption of commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-
freezers.
(a) Scope. This section provides the test procedures for measuring,
pursuant to EPCA, the energy consumption or energy efficiency for a
given equipment category of commercial refrigerators, freezers, and
refrigerator-freezers.
(b) Testing and calculations. (1) Determine the daily energy
consumption and volume or total display area of each covered commercial
refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-freezer by conducting the
appropriate test procedure set forth in appendix B to this subpart. The
daily energy consumption of commercial refrigeration equipment shall be
calculated using raw measured values and the final test results shall
be reported in increments of 0.01 kWh/day.
(2) Determine the daily energy consumption and pan storage volume,
pan display area, and refrigerated volume of each buffet table or
preparation table by conducting the appropriate test procedure set
forth in appendix C to this subpart. The daily energy consumption shall
be calculated using raw measured values and the final test results
shall be recorded in increments of 0.01 kWh/day.
(3) Determine the energy consumption per weight of product and
product capacity of each blast chiller and blast freezer by conducting
the appropriate test procedure set forth in appendix D to this subpart.
The energy consumption per weight of product shall be calculated using
raw measured values and the final test results shall be recorded in
increments of 0.01 kWh/lb.
Appendix A [Removed and Reserved]
0
9. Appendix A to subpart C of part 431is removed and reserved.
0
10. Appendix B to subpart C of part 431 is revised to read as follows:
Appendix B to Subpart C of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for the
Measurement of Energy Consumption of Commercial Refrigerators,
Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers
Note: Prior to [date 360 days after publication of final rule],
any representations, including for certification of compliance, made
with respect to the energy use or efficiency of commercial
refrigeration equipment, except for buffet tables or preparation
tables, blast chillers, blast freezers, or mobile refrigerated
cabinets, must be made in accordance with the results of testing
pursuant to this appendix that was in place on January 1, 2022. On
and after [date 360 days after publication of final rule], any
representations, including for certification of compliance, made
with respect to the energy use or efficiency of commercial
refrigeration equipment, except for buffet tables or preparation
tables, blast chillers, blast freezers, or mobile refrigerated
cabinets, must be made in accordance with the results of testing
pursuant to this appendix.
The test procedure for equipment cooled only by secondary
coolants in section 1.1.3 of this appendix is not required for use
until the compliance date(s) of any amended energy conservation
standard(s) for such commercial refrigeration equipment.
High-temperature refrigerators must be tested as medium-
temperature refrigerators according to section 2.1.3 of this
appendix based on the lowest application product temperature until
the compliance date(s) of any amended energy conservation
standard(s) established for high-temperature refrigerators. On and
after the compliance date(s) of such energy conservation
standard(s), high-temperature refrigerators must be tested pursuant
to this appendix.
0. Incorporation by Reference
DOE incorporated by reference in Sec. 431.63 the entire
standard for AHRI 1200-202X; AHRI 1320-2011; and ASHRAE 72-2018R.
However, only enumerated provisions of those documents are
applicable to this appendix as follows:
0.1. AHRI 1200-202X
0.1.1. Section 3, ``Definitions,'' Section 4, ``Test
Requirements,'' and Section 7, ``Symbols and Subscripts'' as
referenced in section 1.1 of this appendix.
0.1.2. Section 6, ``Rating Requirements for Self-contained
Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets''
as referenced in section 1.1.1 of this appendix.
0.1.3. Section 5, ``Rating Requirements for Remote Commercial
Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets'' as
referenced in section 1.1.2 of this appendix.
0.1.4. Appendix C, ``Commercial Refrigerated Display
Merchandiser and Storage Cabinet Refrigerated Volume Calculation--
Normative'' as referenced in section 3.1 of this appendix.
0.2. AHRI 1320-2011
0.2.1. Sections 5.2.7 and 5.2.8 as referenced in section 1.1.3
of this appendix.
1. Test Procedure
1.1. Determination of Daily Energy Consumption. Determine the
daily energy consumption of each covered commercial refrigerator,
freezer, or refrigerator-freezer by conducting the test procedure
set forth in the AHRI 1200-202X, Section 3, ``Definitions,'' Section
4, ``Test Requirements,'' and Section 7, ``Symbols and Subscripts''.
References to ASHRAE Standard 72 refer to ASHRAE 72-2018R.
1.1.1. For each commercial refrigerator, freezer, or
refrigerator-freezer with a self-contained condensing unit, also use
AHRI 1200-202X, Section 6, ``Rating Requirements for Self-contained
Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage
Cabinets.''
1.1.2. For each commercial refrigerator, freezer, or
refrigerator-freezer with a remote condensing unit, also use AHRI
1200-202X, Section 5, ``Rating Requirements for Remote Commercial
Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets.''
1.1.3. For each commercial refrigerator, freezer, or
refrigerator-freezer used with a secondary coolant, test according
to section 1.1.2 of this appendix, except in place of the equations
for CDEC and CEC in Sections 5.2 and 5.2.1 of AHRI 1200-202X,
respectively, apply the following equations:
CDEC = CEC + [FEC + LEC + AEC + DEC + PEC]* + CPEC
CEC = [(Qrt + QCP) [middot] (t--
tdt)]/(EER [middot] 1000)
Where CPEC and QCP are as specified in Sections 5.2.7 and
5.2.8 of AHRI 1320-2011 and EER is determined based on a temperature
that is 6.0 [deg]F lower than the secondary coolant cabinet inlet
temperature.
1.2. Methodology for Determining Applicability of Transparent
Door Equipment Families. To determine if a door for a given model of
commercial refrigeration equipment is transparent: (1) Calculate the
outer door surface area including frames and mullions; (2) calculate
the transparent surface area within the outer door surface area
excluding frames and mullions; (3) calculate the ratio of (2) to (1)
for each of the outer doors; and (4) the ratio for the transparent
surface area of all outer doors must be greater than 0.25 to qualify
as a transparent equipment family.
1.3. Drawers. Drawers shall be treated as identical to doors
when conducting the DOE test procedure. Commercial refrigeration
equipment with drawers shall be configured with Gastronorm food
service pans, installed per the manufacturer's instructions to the
maximum size pan configuration specified. The net usable volume
where test simulators are not required shall be filled with filler
material so that between 60 percent and 80
[[Page 39227]]
percent of the net usable volume is uniformly occupied by filler
material. Packing of test simulators and filler packages shall be in
accordance with the requirements for commercial refrigerators
without shelves, as specified in Section 5.4.4 of ASHRAE 72-2018R.
Specifically, the net usable volume is the storage volume of the
pans up to the top edge of the pan. Test simulators shall be placed
at the corner locations of each pan. For any pans not wide or deep
enough to allow for test simulators at each corner (i.e., not enough
space to have test simulators side-by-side), center the test
simulators along the pan edge in that dimension. For any pans not
tall enough to allow for test simulators at the top and bottom at
each location (i.e., the pan is not tall enough to allow for two
test simulators to be stacked within the height of the pan), load a
test simulator only at the top edge of the pan in each required
location.
1.4. Long-time Automatic Defrost. For commercial refrigeration
equipment not capable of operating with defrost intervals of 24
hours or less, testing may be conducted using a two-part test
method.
1.4.1. First Part of Test. The first part of the test shall be a
24-hour test starting in steady-state conditions and including eight
hours of door opening (according to ASHRAE 72-2018R). The energy
consumed in this test, ET1, shall be recorded.
1.4.2. Second Part of Test. The second part of the test shall be
a defrost cycle, including any operation associated with a defrost.
The start and end of the test period be determined as the last time
before and first time after a defrost occurrence when the measured
average simulator temperature (i.e., the instantaneous average of
all test simulator temperature measurements) is within 0.5 [deg]F of
the IAT as measured during the first part of the test. The energy
consumed in this test, ET2, and duration, tDI, shall be
recorded.
1.4.3. Daily Energy Consumption. Based on the measured energy
consumption in these two tests, the daily energy consumption (DEC)
in kWh shall be calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JN22.001
Where:
DEC = daily energy consumption, in kWh;
ET 1 = energy consumed during the first part of the test, in kWh;
ET 2 = energy consumed during the second part of the test, in kWh;
tNDI = normalized length of defrosting time per day, in
minutes;
tDI = length of time of defrosting test period, in
minutes;
tDC = minimum time between defrost occurrences, in days;
and
1440 = conversion factor, minutes per day.
1.5. Customer Order Storage Cabinets. Customer order storage
cabinets shall conduct door openings according to ASHRAE 72-2018R,
except that each door shall be opened to the fully open position for
8 seconds, once every 2 hours, for 6 door-opening cycles.
1.5.1. Ambient Compartments. For customer order storage cabinets
that have at least one individual secured compartment that is not
capable of maintaining an integrated average temperature below the
ambient dry-bulb temperature, the individual secured compartment(s)
at ambient dry-bulb temperature shall be categorized as a high-
temperature refrigerator compartment for the purpose of testing and
rating. All volume, total display area, and energy consumption
calculations shall be included within the high-temperature
refrigerator category and summed with other high-temperature
refrigerator category compartment(s) calculations.
1.5.2. Convertible Compartments. For customer order storage
cabinets that have individual secured compartments that are
convertible between the ambient dry-bulb temperature and the >=32
[deg]F operating temperature, the convertible compartment shall be
tested as a medium-temperature refrigerator compartment or at the
lowest application product temperature as specified in section 2.2.
of this appendix.
1.5.3. Inverse Refrigeration Load Test. For customer order
storage cabinets that supply refrigerant to multiple individual
secured compartments and that allow the suction pressure from the
evaporator in each individual secured compartment to float based on
the temperature required to store the customer order in that
individual secured compartment, test according to section 1.1.2 of
this appendix, except that energy (heat) loss shall be allowed at a
rate and [Delta]T equivalent to the energy gains of a standard
refrigerated cabinet as specified in sections 1.5.3.1-1.5.3.3 of
this appendix.
1.5.3.1. Anti-sweat door heaters. Anti-sweat door heaters shall
be de-energized for the inverse refrigeration load test specified in
section 1.5.3. of this appendix.
1.5.3.2. Integrated Average Temperature. For medium-temperature
refrigerator compartments, the integrated average temperature shall
be 112.4 [deg]F 2.0 [deg]F. For low-temperature freezer
compartments, the integrated average temperature shall be 150.4
[deg]F 2.0 [deg]F. For ambient compartments, the
integrated average temperature shall be 75.4 [deg]F 2.0
[deg]F.
1.5.3.3. Daily Energy Consumption. Determine the calculated
daily energy consumption (CDEC) and the EER based on AHRI 1200-202X,
Section 5, ``Rating Requirements for Remote Commercial Refrigerated
Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets,'' except that the
compressor energy consumption (CEC) shall be calculated by applying
the following equations:
[[Page 39228]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JN22.002
Where:
CEC = compressor energy consumption, kWh per day;
Q = inverse refrigeration load (does not include waste heat from
auxiliary components and moisture infiltration), in BTU per h;
t = test duration, in h;
ML = moisture load impacts, BTU per day;
FEC = evaporator fan motor(s) energy consumption, Wh per day;
AEC = anti-condensate heater(s) energy consumption, Wh per day;
DEC = defrost heater(s) energy consumption, Wh per day;
3.412 = conversion factor, BTU per Wh;
EER = energy efficiency ratio, BTU per Wh;
1000 = conversion factor, W per kW;
Win = energy input measured over the test period for all energized
components (heaters, controls, and fans) located in the refrigerated
compartments, in Wh;
Nd = number of door openings during test, unitless;
Ae = enthalpy adjustment, BTU per day;
Am = moisture/frost accumulation, BTU per day;
Ha = ambient air enthalpy, BTU per pound;
Hc = compartment air enthalpy based on air conditions during cold
operation (e.g., 0 [deg]F dry bulb/-20 [deg]F dew point for freezer
compartment, 38 [deg]F dry bulb/20 [deg]F dew point for refrigerator
compartment, 75 [deg]F dry bulb/20 [deg]F dew point for ambient
compartment), BTU per pound;
Ht = compartment air enthalpy during heat leak test based on dew
point being equal to ambient air dew point, BTU per pound;
ma = mass of compartment air exchanged (30% of total
compartment volume) based density of air during cold operation,
pounds;
Cp,liner = specific heat of liner material, BTU per [deg]F per
pound;
Wliner = weight of all liner parts, pounds; and
[Delta]Tliner = maximum temperature rise of all liner parts (e.g.,
4.5 [deg]F, 2.5 [deg]F, and 1 [deg]F for freezer, refrigerator, and
ambient compartments, respectively), [deg]F.
2. Test Conditions
2.1. Integrated Average Temperatures. Conduct the testing
required in section 1 of this appendix, and determine the daily
energy consumption at the applicable integrated average temperature
as follows:
2.1.1. Ice-cream Freezers. Test ice-cream freezers and ice-cream
freezer compartments to the integrated average temperature specified
in Section 3.14.1, ``Ice Cream Applications'' of AHRI 1200-202X.
2.1.2. Low-temperature Freezers. Test low-temperature freezers
and low-temperature freezer compartments to the integrated average
temperature specified in Section 3.14.2, ``Low Temperature
Applications'' of AHRI 1200-202X.
2.1.3. Medium-temperature Refrigerators. Test medium-temperature
refrigerators and medium-temperature refrigerator compartments to
the integrated average temperature specified in Section 3.14.3,
``Medium Temperature Applications'' of AHRI 1200-202X.
2.1.4. High-temperature Refrigerators. Test high-temperature
refrigerators and high-temperature refrigerator compartments to the
integrated average temperature specified in section 3.14.4, ``High
Temperature Applications'' of AHRI 1200-202X.
2.2. Lowest Application Product Temperature. If a unit of
commercial refrigeration equipment is not able to be operated at the
integrated average temperature specified in paragraph 2.1 of this
appendix, test the unit at the lowest application product
temperature (LAPT), as defined in Sec. 431.62. For units equipped
with a thermostat, LAPT is the lowest thermostat setting (for units
that are only able to operate at temperatures above the specified
test temperature) or the highest thermostat setting (for units that
are only able to operate at temperatures below the specified test
temperature). For remote condensing equipment without a thermostat
or other means of controlling temperature at the case, the lowest
application product temperature is the temperature achieved with the
dew point temperature or mid-point evaporator temperature (as
defined in AHRI 1200-202X) set to 5 degrees colder than that
required to maintain the manufacturer's specified application
temperature that is closest to the specified integrated average
temperature.
2.3. Testing at NSF Test Conditions. For commercial
refrigeration equipment that is also tested in accordance with NSF
test procedures (Type I and Type II), integrated average
temperatures and ambient conditions used for NSF testing may be used
in place of the DOE-prescribed integrated average temperatures and
ambient conditions provided they result in a more stringent test.
That is, the measured daily energy consumption of the same unit,
when tested at the rating temperatures and/or ambient conditions
specified in the DOE test procedure, must be lower than or equal to
the measured daily energy consumption of the unit when tested with
the rating temperatures or ambient conditions used for NSF testing.
The integrated average temperature measured during the test may be
lower than the range specified by the DOE applicable temperature
specification provided in paragraph 2.1 of this appendix, but may
not exceed the upper value of the specified range. Ambient
temperatures and/or humidity values may be higher than those
specified in the DOE test procedure.
2.4. Remote Condensing with Direct Expansion Carbon Dioxide. For
remote condensing commercial refrigeration equipment used with
direct expansion carbon dioxide refrigerant, instead of the liquid
refrigerant conditions specified in appendix A to ASHRAE 72-2018R,
the liquid inlet saturation temperature shall be 38 [deg]F with
liquid inlet subcooling of 5 [deg]F.
3. Volume and Total Display Area
3.1. Determination of Volume. Determine the volume of a
commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer using the
method set forth in AHRI Standard 1200-202X, appendix C,
``Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandiser and Storage Cabinet
Refrigerated Volume Calculation--Normative.''
3.2. Determination of Total Display Area. Determine the total
display area of a commercial refrigerator, freezer, and
refrigerator-freezer using the method set forth in AHRI 1200-202X,
section 3.18 and appendix C, ``Commercial Refrigerated Display
Merchandiser and Storage Cabinet Total Display Area (TDA)
Calculation--Normative.''
0
11. Appendix C to subpart C of part 431 is added to read as follows:
Appendix C to Subpart C of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for the
Measurement of Energy Consumption of Buffet Tables or Preparation
Tables
Note: After [date 360 days following publication of final
rule], any representations, including for compliance certification
purposes, made with respect to
[[Page 39229]]
the energy consumption of a buffet table or preparation table must
be made in accordance with the results of testing pursuant to this
appendix.
0. Incorporation by Reference
DOE incorporated by reference in Sec. 431.63 the entire
standard for AHRI 1200-202X, ASHRAE 72-2018R, and ASTM F2143-16.
However, only those provisions specifically referenced in this
appendix are applicable to this appendix.
1. Test Procedure
1.1. Determination of Daily Energy Consumption. Determine the
daily energy consumption of each buffet table or preparation table
with a self-contained condensing unit by conducting the test
procedure set forth in ASTM F2143-16, section 3, ``Terminology,''
section 6.1, ``Analytical Balance Scale,'' section 6.2, ``Pans,''
Section 7, ``Reagents and Materials,'' section 9, ``Preparation of
Apparatus'' (only section 9.6), section 10.1, ``General'' (only
section 10.1.1), section 10.2, ``Pan Thermocouple Placement,''
section 10.5, ``Test'' (only sections 10.5.5 and 10.5.6), section
11.4, ``Energy Consumption'' (only section 11.4.1), and section
11.5, ``Production Capacity'', with additional instructions as
described in the following sections.
1.2. Test Conditions. Ambient conditions and instrumentation for
testing shall be as specified in the ``Chamber conditions'' and
``Electricity supply and consumption of unit under test and
components metered separately'' portions of Appendix A to ASHRAE 72-
2018R and measured according to Section 6.1 of ASHRAE 72-2018R and
the specifications in Appendix A of ASHRAE 72-2018R. The ``highest
point'' of the buffet table or preparation table shall be determined
as the highest point of the open-top refrigerated area of the buffet
table or preparation table, without including the height of any lids
or covers. The geometric center of the buffet table or preparation
table is: for buffet tables or preparation tables without
refrigerated compartments, the geometric center of the top surface
of the open-top refrigerated area; and for buffet tables or
preparation tables with refrigerated compartments, the geometric
center of the door opening area for the refrigerated compartment.
1.3. Test Setup. Install the buffet table or preparation table
according to Sections 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 of ASHRAE 72-2018R.
1.4. Test Load.
1.4.1. Pan Loading. Fill pans with distilled water to within 0.5
inches of the top edge of the pan. For pans that are not configured
in a horizontal orientation, only the lowest side of the pan is
filled to within 0.5 inches of the top edge of the pan with
distilled water.
1.4.2. Refrigerated Compartments. Measure the temperature of any
refrigerated compartment(s) as specified in Section 9.6 of ASTM
F2143-16. The thermocouples for measuring compartment air
temperature shall be in thermal contact with the center of a 1.6-oz
(45-g) cylindrical brass slug with a diameter and height of 0.75 in.
The brass slugs shall be placed at least 0.5 in from any heat-
conducting surface.
1.5. Stabilization and Test Period. Prepare the unit for testing
and conduct two test periods to determine stability according to
Sections 7.1 through 7.5 of ASHRAE 72-2018R, excluding sections
7.2.1, 7.2.2, 7.3.1, 7.3.2, 7.3.3, and 7.3.4. The preparation period
under Section 7.2 of ASHRAE 72-2018R includes loading the test unit
pans with distilled water and adjusting the controls to maintain the
desired performance.
1.5.1. Test Periods A and B. Conduct two test periods, A and B,
as specified in Section 7.3 of ASHRAE 72-2018R (excluding sections
7.3.1, 7.3.2, 7.3.3, and 7.3.4). The 24-hour test periods shall
begin with an 8 hour active period as specified in Section 10.5.5 of
ASTM F2143-16. Following the active period, the remaining 16 hours
of the test period shall be a standby period with the pans remaining
in place, any pan covers in the closed position, and with no
additional door openings.
1.5.2. Stability. Average pan temperatures shall be used to
determine stability, as specified in Section 7.5 of ASHRAE 72-2018R,
rather than average test simulator temperatures.
1.5.3. Data Recording. For each test period, record data as
specified in Section 10.1.1 of ASTM F2143-16, except record wet-bulb
temperature rather than relative humidity. Rather than voltage,
current, and power as specified in Section 10.1.1 of ASTM F2143-16,
record the electrical supply potential and frequency and energy
consumption as specified in Appendix A of ASHRAE 72-2018R.
1.6. Target Temperatures.
1.6.1. Average Pan Temperature. The average of all pan
temperature measurements during the test period shall be 38 [deg]F
2 [deg]F. If the unit under test is not able to be
operated at this average temperature range, test the unit at the
lowest application product temperature (LAPT), as defined in Sec.
431.62. For units equipped with a thermostat, LAPT is the lowest
thermostat setting (for units that are only able to operate at
temperatures above the specified test temperature) or the highest
thermostat setting (for units that are only able to operate at
temperatures below the specified test temperature).
1.6.2. Average Compartment Temperature. The average of all
compartment temperature measurements during the test period shall be
38 [deg]F 2 [deg]F. If the unit under test is not
capable of maintaining both average pan temperature and average
compartment temperature within the specified range, the average
compartment temperature shall be the average temperature necessary
to maintain average pan temperature within the specified range. If
the unit is tested at the LAPT for the average pan temperature, as
described in section 1.6.1 of this appendix, the average compartment
temperature is the average of all compartment temperature
measurements at that control setting.
2. Capacity Metrics
2.1. Pan Volume. Determine pan volume according to Section 11.5
of ASTM F2143-16.
2.2. Refrigerated Volume. Determine the volume of any
refrigerated compartments according to section 3.17 and Appendix C
of AHRI 1200-202X . The refrigerated volume excludes the volume
occupied by pans loaded in the open-top display area for testing.
2.3. Pan Display Area. Determine the pan display area based on
the total surface area of water in the test pans when filled to
within 0.5 inches of the top edge of the pan, or for test pans that
are not configured in a horizontal orientation, when the lowest side
of the pan is filled to within 0.5 inches of the top edge of the pan
with water.
0
12. Appendix D to subpart C of part 431 is added to read as follows:
Appendix D to Subpart C of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for the
Measurement of Energy Consumption of Blast Chillers or Blast Freezers
Note: After [date 360 days after publication of a final rule],
any representations, including for compliance certification
purposes, made with respect to the energy use or efficiency of blast
chillers or blast freezers, must be made in accordance with the
results of testing pursuant to this appendix.
0. Incorporation by Reference
DOE incorporated by reference in Sec. 431.63 the entire
standard for AHRI 1200-202X and ASHRAE 72-2018R. However, only
enumerated provisions of those documents are applicable to this
appendix as follows:
0.1. AHRI 1200-202X.
0.1.1. Appendix C, ``Commercial Refrigerated Display
Merchandiser and Storage Cabinet Refrigerated Volume Calculation--
Normative,'' as referenced in section 1.1.1. of this appendix.
0.2. ASHRAE 72-2018R.
0.2.1. Section 4, ``Instruments,'' as referenced in section 1.2.
of this appendix.
0.2.2. Section 5, ``Preparation of Unit Under Test,'' (except
section 5.4, ``Loading of Test Simulators and Filler Material'') as
referenced in section 1.2. of this appendix.
0.2.3. Section 6.1, ``Ambient Temperature and Humidity,'' as
referenced in sections 1.2. and 1.4. of this appendix.
0.2.4. Figure 6, ``Location of Ambient Temperature Indicators,''
as referenced in sections 1.2. and 1.4. of this appendix.
0.2.5. Normative Appendix A, ``Measurement Locations,
Tolerances, Accuracies, and Other Characteristics,'' (only the
measured quantities specified in section 1.2.1. of this appendix) as
referenced in sections 1.2. and 1.4. of this appendix.
1. Test Procedures
1.1. Scope. This section provides the test procedures for
measuring the energy consumption in kilowatt-hours per pound (kWh/
lb) for self-contained commercial blast chillers and blast freezers
that have a refrigerated volume of up to 500 ft\3\.
1.1.1. Determination of Refrigerated Volume. Determine the
refrigerated volume of a self-contained commercial blast chiller or
blast freezer using the method set forth in AHRI 1200-202X, Appendix
C, ``Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandiser and Storage
Cabinet Refrigerated Volume Calculation--Normative.''
[[Page 39230]]
1.2. Determination of Energy Consumption. Determine the energy
consumption of each covered blast chiller or blast freezer by
conducting the test procedure set forth in ASHRAE 72-2018R, Section
4, ``Instruments,'' Section 5, ``Preparation of Unit Under Test,''
(except Section 5.4, ``Loading of Test Simulators and Filler
Material'') Section 6.1, ``Ambient Temperature and Humidity,''
Figure 6, ``Location of Ambient Temperature Indicators,'' and
normative Appendix A, ``Measurement Locations, Tolerances,
Accuracies, and Other Characteristics,'' (only the measured
quantities specified in section 1.2.1. of this appendix) as well as
the requirements of this appendix.
1.2.1. Measured Quantities in Normative Appendix A of ASHRAE 72-
2018R. The following measured quantities shall be in accordance with
the specifications of normative Appendix A of ASHRAE 72-2018R: dry
bulb temperature (except for deviations specified in section 1.3 and
1.4. of this appendix), electrical supply frequency, electrical
supply potential, energy consumed (except for deviations specified
in section 1.3. of this appendix), extent of non-perforated surface
beyond edges of unit under test, front clearance, rear or side
clearance, and time measurements.
1.2.2. Additional Specifications for ASHRAE 72-2018R. The term
``refrigerator'' used in ASHRAE 72-2018R shall instead refer to
``blast chiller'' or ``blast freezer,'' as applicable. In Section
5.3 of ASHRAE 72-2018R, the phrase ``all necessary components and
accessories shall be installed prior to loading the storage and
display areas with test simulators and filler material'' shall be
replaced with ``all necessary components and accessories shall be
installed prior to precooling the unit under test''. Section 5.3.5
shall also require that, prior to precooling the unit under test,
the condensate pan shall be dry.
1.3. Data Recording Measurement Intervals. Measurements shall be
continuously recorded during the test in intervals no greater than
10 seconds.
1.4. Test Conditions. The required test conditions shall have
dry bulb temperature values according to Table D.1 when measured at
point A in figure 6 of ASHRAE 72-2018R and according to Section 6.1
of ASHRAE 72-2018R.
Table D.1--Test Condition Values and Tolerances
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test condition Value Tolerance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dry Bulb............................. 86.0[deg Average over test
]F period: 1.8[deg]F.
Individual
measurements: 3.6[deg]F.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.5. Product Pan. The product pan shall be a 12 inch by 20 inch
by 2.5 inch, 22 gauge or heavier, and 300 series stainless steel
pan. If the blast chiller or blast freezer is not capable of holding
the 12 inch by 20 inch by 2.5 inch product pan dimensions, the
manufacturer's recommended pan size shall be used, conforming as
closely as possible to the 12 inch by 20 inch by 2.5 inch pan
dimensions.
1.6. Product Temperature Measurement. The product temperature
shall be measured in the geometric center of the measured product
pans using an unweighted thermocouple placed \5/8\ of an inch above
the bottom of the measured product pan. The thermocouple leads shall
be secured to the bottom of the measured product pan while also
allowing for the transfer of the measured product pan from the
heating source into the blast chiller's or blast freezer's cabinet.
1.7. Product Preparation. The product shall be made for each
product pan and shall be loaded to 2 inches of product thickness
(i.e., depth) within the product pan unless an additional product
pan with a product thickness of less than 2 inches is needed to meet
the product capacity determined in section 2.1 of this appendix. A
20 percent by volume propylene glycol (1,2-Propanediol) mixture in
water shall be prepared. In each product pan, pour the propylene
glycol mixture over #20 mesh southern yellow pine sawdust to create
a 22 percent to 78 percent by mass slurry. An example of an
acceptable sawdust specification is the American Wood Fibers brand,
#20 Mesh Pine Sawdust. Mix until the sawdust becomes completely
saturated and leave uncovered in the product pan. Verify that the
product pan thermocouple is fully submerged in the product mixture
and reposition the product pan thermocouple to the requirements of
section 1.6. of this appendix if the product pan thermocouple is
incorrectly positioned after mixing. Each product pan shall be
weighed before and after the food product simulator is added and
prior to heating the product. The weight of the product shall not
include the weight of the pans, thermocouples, or wires. A
cumulative total of the product weight shall be calculated and the
product pans shall continue to be loaded with the product mixture
until the cumulative total reaches, but not exceeds, the product
capacity determined in section 2.1 of this appendix with a tolerance
of 5 percent or 2 pounds, whichever is less.
The cumulative total weight of product, the weight of product in
each individual pan, and the number of pans shall be recorded.
1.8. Product Pan Heating. Measured product pans shall be
maintained at an average temperature of 160.0 [deg]F
1.8 [deg]F and individual pan temperatures shall be maintained at
160 [deg]F 10 [deg]F for a minimum of 8 hours prior to
being loaded into the blast chiller or blast freezer. Non-measured
product pans shall also be heated for a minimum of 8 hours prior to
being loaded into the blast chiller or blast freezer and the non-
measured product pans shall be placed in alternating positions with
the measured product pans in the heating device. Data acquisition
for the temperature of the measured product pans and time
measurements shall begin to be recorded prior to the minimum of 8
hours heating period.
1.9. Product Pan Distribution. The product pans shall be spaced
evenly throughout each vertical column of rack positions in the
blast chiller or blast freezer without the product pans touching any
other product pans and without the product pans touching the top and
the bottom of the blast chiller or blast freezer cabinet. For blast
chillers or blast freezers that have an additional product pan with
a product thickness of less than 2 inches, the additional product
pan shall be placed as close to the middle rack position as possible
while maintaining an even distribution of all product pans. If not
all rack positions are occupied by product pans, the product pan
locations shall be recorded.
1.10. Measured Product Pans. If multiple product pans are
required per level of the blast chiller or blast freezer (i.e.,
product pans can be loaded side-by-side at the same level), only the
product temperature of one product pan per level shall be measured
and the product pans measured should alternate vertical columns of
the blast chiller or blast freezer cabinet so that each vertical
column does not have two measured product pans on sequential levels.
If a blast chiller or blast freezer requires an additional product
pan with a thickness less than 2 inches, the additional product pan
shall not be measured for product temperature.
1.11. Stabilization. The blast chiller or blast freezer shall
stabilize at the test conditions specified in section 1.4. of this
appendix for at least 24 hours without operating.
1.12. Pre-cool Cycle. Data acquisition for the test condition
temperatures specified in section 1.4. of this appendix and time
measurements shall begin to be recorded prior to the pre-cool cycle.
The pre-cool cycle shall be initiated on a blast chiller or blast
freezer once the stabilization specified in section 1.11. of this
appendix is complete. The fastest pre-cool cycle shall be selected.
The pre-cool cycle shall be complete when the blast chiller or blast
freezer notifies the user that the pre-cool is complete. If the
blast chiller or blast freezer does not notify the user that the
pre-cool cycle is complete, the pre-cool cycle shall be deemed
complete when the blast chiller or blast freezer reaches 40 [deg]F
or 2 [deg]F based on the blast chiller's or blast freezer's sensing
probe for blast chillers and blast freezers, respectively. For blast
chillers or blast freezers without any defined pre-cool cycles, the
fastest blast chilling or blast freezing cycle shall be run with an
empty cabinet until the blast chiller or blast freezer reaches 40
[deg]F or 2 [deg]F based on the blast chiller's or blast freezer's
sensing probe. During the pre-cool cycle, the blast chiller's or
blast freezer's sensing probe shall remain in its default or
holstered position. The pre-cool test data to be recorded are the
test condition temperatures specified in section 1.4. of this
appendix, pre-cool cycle selected, pre-cool duration, and final pre-
cool cabinet temperature based on the blast chiller's or blast
freezer's sensing probe.
1.13. Loading. The blast chiller or blast freezer door shall be
fully open to an angle of not less than 75 degrees for loading at
4.0 1.0 minutes after the blast chiller or blast freezer
completes the pre-cool cycle as specified in section 1.12 of this
appendix. The door shall remain open to load all of the product pans
for the entirety of the loading procedure. The door shall remain
open for 20 seconds per roll-in rack and 15 seconds per product pan
for roll-in and standard blast
[[Page 39231]]
chillers or blast freezers, respectively. The total door open period
shall have a tolerance of 5 seconds. The blast chiller's
or blast freezer's sensing probe shall be inserted into the
geometric center of a product pan approximately 1 inch deep in the
product mixture at the median pan level in the blast chiller or
blast freezer. If the product pan at the median level is the
additional product pan with less than 2 inches of product thickness,
the closest product pan or product pan level that is farthest away
from the evaporator fan shall be used to insert the blast chiller's
or blast freezer's sensing probe. If the median pan level has
capacity for multiple product pans, the probed product pan shall be
the furthest away from the evaporator. The sensing probe shall not
touch the bottom of the product pan or be exposed to the air. The
location of the product pan with the sensing probe shall be
recorded. The sensing probe shall be placed so that there is no
interference with the product pan thermocouple. The product pan
thermocouple wiring shall not affect the energy performance of the
blast chiller or blast freezer. The door shall remain closed for the
remainder of the test.
1.14. Blast Chilling or Blast Freezing Cycle. Determine the
blast chilling or blast freezing cycle that will conduct the most
rapid product temperature pulldown that is designed for the densest
food product, as stated in the blast chiller's or blast freezer's
manufacturer literature. A blast chilling cycle shall have a target
temperature of 38.0 [deg]F and a blast freezing cycle shall have a
target temperature of 0.0 [deg]F. The test condition temperatures
specified in section 1.4. of this appendix and the time measurements
shall continue to be recorded from the pre-cool cycle. Measured
product pan temperatures shall continue to be recorded from the
minimum of 8-hour period of heating prior to the loading of the
product pans into the blast chiller or blast freezer. Electrical
supply frequency, electrical supply potential, and energy consumed
shall start to be recorded as soon as the blast chiller or blast
freezer door is opened to load the product pans. Once the blast
chiller or blast freezer door is closed, the blast chilling cycle or
blast freezing cycle shall be selected and initiated as soon as is
practicable. The blast chilling cycle or blast freezing cycle
selected shall be recorded. The blast chilling or blast freezing
test period shall continue from the door opening until all
individual measured pan temperatures are at or below 40.0 [deg]F or
2.0 [deg]F for blast chiller and blast freezer tests, respectively,
regardless of whether the selected cycle program has terminated. If
all individual measured pan temperatures do not reach 40.0 [deg]F or
2.0 [deg]F for blast chiller and blast freezer tests, respectively,
two hours after the selected cycle program has terminated, the test
shall be repeated with the target temperature lowered by 1.0 [deg]F
until all individual measured pan temperatures are at or below 40.0
[deg]F or 2.0 [deg]F for blast chiller and blast freezer tests,
respectively, at the conclusion of the test. The duration of the
blast chiller or blast freezer test shall be recorded.
1.15. Calculations. The measured energy consumption determined
in section 1.14. of this appendix shall be reported in kilowatt-
hours and shall be divided by the cumulative total weight of product
determined in section 1.7. of this appendix in pounds.
2. Capacity Metric
2.1. Product Capacity. Determine the product capacity by
reviewing all manufacturer literature that is included with the
blast chiller or blast freezer. The largest product capacity by
weight that is stated in the manufacturer literature shall be the
product capacity. If the blast chiller or blast freezer is able to
operate as both a blast chiller and a blast freezer when set to
different operating modes by the user and the manufacturer
literature specifies different product capacities for blast chilling
and blast freezing, the largest capacity by weight stated for the
respective operating mode shall be the product capacity. If no
product capacity is stated in the manufacturer literature, the
product capacity shall be the product capacity that fills the
maximum number of 12 inch by 20 inch by 2.5 inch pans that can be
loaded into the blast chiller or blast freezer according to section
1.7. of this appendix. If the blast chiller or blast freezer with no
product capacity stated in the manufacturer literature is not
capable of meeting the definition of a blast chiller or blast
freezer according to Sec. 431.62 upon testing according to section
1 of this appendix, one 12 inch by 20 inch by 2.5 inch pan shall be
removed from the blast chiller or blast freezer until the definition
of a blast chiller or blast freezer is met according to Sec. 431.62
when testing according to section 1 of this appendix.
[FR Doc. 2022-13225 Filed 6-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P