[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 12, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56790-56825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21663]
[[Page 56789]]
Vol. 86
Tuesday,
No. 194
October 12, 2021
Part III
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Parts 429 and 430
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Refrigeration
Products; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 86 , No. 194 / Tuesday, October 12, 2021 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 56790]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 430
[EERE-2017-BT-TP-0004]
RIN 1904-AD84
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Refrigeration
Products
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 23, 2019, the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'')
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') to amend the test
procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, and
miscellaneous refrigeration products (collectively ``refrigeration
products''). That proposed rulemaking serves as the basis for this
final rule. Specifically, the test procedure amendments adopted in this
final rule incorporates by reference the most recent version of the
referenced industry standard, provide additional specifications
regarding test setup and test conduct, and make additional corrections
to the test procedures. The amendments also adjust the energy
conservation standards for these products to ensure that the change in
test methodology does not: Require manufacturers to increase the
efficiency of already compliant products in order to meet the current
energy conservation standard; or enable products that would not be
compliant with the current energy conservation standards to meet the
adjusted energy conservation standards.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is November 12, 2021. The final
rule changes will be mandatory for product testing starting April 11,
2022. The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in this
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on November
12, 2021. The incorporation by reference of other material listed in
this rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register on May
21, 2014.
ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for review at https://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in
the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from
public disclosure, may not be publicly available.
A link to the docket web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0004. The docket web page
contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public
comments, in the docket.
For further information on how to review the docket contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by
email: [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Stephanie Johnson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-2J,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1943. Email: [email protected].
Ms. Linda Field, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-3440. Email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE maintains a previously approved
incorporation by reference and incorporates by reference the following
industry standard into 10 CFR part 430:
AHAM HRF-1-2019, (``HRF-1-2019''), Energy and Internal Volume of
Consumer Refrigeration Products, Copyright (copyright) 2019.
Copies of HRF-1-2019 can be obtained from the Association of Home
Appliance Manufacturers, 1111 19th Street NW, Suite 402, Washington, DC
20036, (202) 872-5955, or go to https://www.AHAM.org.
AS/NZS 4474.1:2007, (``AS/NZS 4474.1:2007''), Performance of
Household Electrical Appliances--Refrigerating Appliances; Part 1:
Energy Consumption and Performance, Second Edition, published August
15, 2007.
Copies of AS/NZS 4474.1:2007 can be obtained from the GPO Box 476,
Sydney NSW 2001, (02) 9237-6000 or (12) 0065-4646, or go to
www.standards.org.au/Standards New Zealand, Level 10 Radio New Zealand
House 144 The Terrace Wellington 6001 (Private Bag 2439 Wellington
6020), (04) 498-5990 or (04) 498-5991, or go to www.standards.co.nz.
For a further discussion of this standard, see section IV.N.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. Scope of Applicability
B. Relevant Industry Test Standards
1. Ambient Test Conditions
2. Updates to AHAM HRF-1-2019
C. Compartment Definitions and Clarifications
D. Test Setup
1. Built-In Test Configuration
2. Thermocouple Configuration for Freezer Drawers
3. Test Platform Requirements
4. Separate External Temperature Controls
5. Ambient Temperature Measurement Locations
E. Test Conditions
1. Ambient Temperature and Vertical Ambient Gradient
2. Stabilization
F. Defrost Energy Consumption
G. Icemaking Energy Consumption
1. Icemaking Energy Use Adder
2. Icemaking Energy Test Method Impacts
3. Amended Energy Conservation Standards
H. Features Not Directly Addressed in Appendix A or Appendix B
1. Door-in-Door Designs
2. Display Screens, Connected Functions, and Demand Response
I. Corrections
J. Effective Date, Compliance Date, and Waivers
K. Test Procedure Costs
1. Amendment Regarding the Stabilization and Test Periods
2. Amendment Regarding Energy Use Associated With Automatic
Icemaking
3. Impact of the Other Amendments
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
M. Congressional Notification
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers are included in
the list of ``covered products'' for which DOE is authorized to
establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures.
(42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1)) Additionally, under 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20), DOE
may extend coverage over a particular type of consumer product provided
that DOE determines
[[Page 56791]]
that classifying products of such type as covered products is necessary
or appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA, and specified
requirements are met. (See 42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1) and 6295(l)(1))
Consistent with its statutory obligations, DOE established regulatory
coverage over miscellaneous refrigeration products (``MREFs'').\1\ 81
FR 46768 (July 18, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A miscellaneous refrigeration product is defined as a
consumer refrigeration product other than a refrigerator,
refrigerator-freezer, or freezer, which includes coolers and
combination cooler refrigeration products. 10 CFR 430.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's energy conservation standards and test procedures for
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers, and MREFs are currently
prescribed at 10 CFR 430.23(a) and part 430, subpart B, appendix A
(``Appendix A'') for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers; 10 CFR
430.23(b) and 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix B (``Appendix B'')
for freezers; and 10 CFR 430.23(ff) and appendix A for MREFs.
The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish test
procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers, and
MREFs (collectively, ``refrigeration products''), and relevant
background information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures
for these products.
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\2\
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part B \3\ of EPCA established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, which sets forth
a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. These
products include refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers,
the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020).
\3\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291),
test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294),
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
The testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for (1)
certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2)
making representations about the efficiency of those products (42
U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to
determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards
promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for
particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures
and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or
amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test
results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual
operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use
cycle (as determined by the Secretary) or period of use and shall not
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
Further, when amending a test procedure, DOE must determine the
extent to which, if any, the proposal would alter the measured energy
use of a given product as determined under the existing test procedure.
(42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that the amended test
procedure would alter the measured energy use of a covered product, DOE
must also amend the applicable energy conservation standard during the
rulemaking carried out with respect to such test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6293(e)(2)) In determining the amended energy conservation standard,
the Secretary shall measure, pursuant to the amended test procedure,
the energy efficiency, energy use, or water use of a representative
sample of covered products that minimally comply with the existing
standard. The average of such energy efficiency, energy use, or water
use levels determined under the amended test procedure shall constitute
the amended energy conservation standard for the applicable covered
products. Id.
In addition, EPCA requires that DOE amend its test procedures for
all covered products to integrate measures of standby mode and off mode
energy consumption into the overall energy efficiency, energy
consumption, or other energy descriptor, unless the current test
procedure already incorporates the standby mode and off mode energy
consumption, or if such integration is technically infeasible. (42
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) If an integrated test procedure is technically
infeasible, DOE must prescribe separate standby mode and off mode
energy use test procedures for the covered product, if a separate test
is technically feasible. (Id.) Any such amendment must consider the
most current versions of the International Electrotechnical Commission
(``IEC'') Standard 62301 \4\ and IEC Standard 62087 \5\ as applicable.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances--Measurement of
standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011-01).
\5\ IEC 62087, Methods of measurement for the power consumption
of audio, video, and related equipment (Edition 3.0, 2011-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it
must publish a proposed test procedure and offer the public an
opportunity to present oral and written comments on it. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(2))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate
test procedures for each type of covered product, including
refrigeration products, to determine whether amended test procedures
would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the
test procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be
reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy
efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a
representative average use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)(A)) If the Secretary determines, on their own behalf or in
response to a petition by any interested person, that a test procedure
should be prescribed or amended, the Secretary shall promptly publish
in the Federal Register proposed test procedures and afford interested
persons an opportunity to present oral and written data, views, and
arguments with respect to such procedures. The comment period on a
proposed rule to amend a test procedure shall be at least 60 days and
may not exceed 270 days. In prescribing or amending a test procedure,
the Secretary shall take into account such information as the Secretary
determines relevant to such procedure, including technological
developments relating to energy use or energy efficiency of the type
(or class) of covered products involved. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)). If DOE
[[Page 56792]]
determines that test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE must
publish its determination not to amend the test procedures. DOE is
publishing this final rule in satisfaction of the 7-year review
requirement specified in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
B. Background
As described, DOE's existing test procedure for refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and MREFs appears at Appendix A (``Uniform Test
Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Refrigerators,
Refrigerator-Freezers, and Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products'').
DOE's existing test procedure for freezers appears at Appendix B
(``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of
Freezers''). These test procedures are the result of numerous
evaluations and updates that have occurred since DOE initially
established its test procedures for these products in a final rule
published in the Federal Register on September 14, 1977 (42 FR
46140).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A more detailed history of the test procedures is provided
at 84 FR 70842, 70844-70845 (December 23, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE most recently amended the test procedures for refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers in a final rule published on April
21, 2014 (the ``April 2014 Final Rule''). 79 FR 22320. The amendments
enacted by the April 2014 Final Rule addressed products with multiple
compressors and established an alternative method for measuring and
calculating energy consumption for refrigerator-freezers and
refrigerators with freezer compartments. Id. The April 2014 Final Rule
also amended certain aspects of the test procedures to improve test
accuracy and repeatability. Id. To allow additional time to review
comments and data received during the comment period extension, DOE did
not address automatic icemaking energy use or built-in testing
configuration in the April 2014 Final Rule. Id.
On July 18, 2016, DOE published a final rule (the ``July 2016 Final
Rule'') that established coverage and test procedures for MREFs.\7\ 81
FR 46768. Included within this product category are refrigeration
products that include one or more compartments that maintain higher
temperatures than typical refrigerator compartments, such as wine
chillers and beverage coolers. Additionally, the July 2016 Final Rule
amended appendices A and B to include provisions for testing MREFs and
to improve the clarity of certain existing test requirements, which
would apply to all refrigeration products. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ As part of the rulemaking process to establish the scope of
coverage, definitions, test procedures, and corresponding energy
conservation standards for MREFs, DOE established an Appliance
Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee negotiated
rulemaking working group. (See 80 FR 17355 (April 1, 2015))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 30, 2017, DOE published a request for information (the
``June 2017 RFI'') to initiate a data collection process to inform
DOE's decision on whether to amend its test procedures in Appendices A
and B. 82 FR 29780. After reviewing comments received in response to
the June 2017 RFI, DOE published a NOPR on December 23, 2019 (the
``December 2019 NOPR''), in which DOE proposed amendments to its test
procedures and corresponding amendments to the energy conservation
standards for refrigeration products to account for the proposed test
procedure amendments. 84 FR 70842. DOE held a public meeting related to
this NOPR on January 9, 2020 (the ``December 2019 NOPR public
meeting'').
DOE received written comments in response to the December 2019 NOPR
and oral comments at the December 2019 NOPR public meeting from the
interested parties listed in Table I.1.
Table I.1--Comments Received in Response to December 2019 NOPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this
Commenter(s) NOPR Commenter type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Energy Commission.... CEC............... Regulatory Agency.
Appliance Standards Awareness Joint Commenters.. Efficiency
Project, American Council for Organizations &
an Energy-Efficient Economy, Consumer
Consumer Federation of America, Advocates.
National Consumer Law Center,
National Resources Defense
Council.
Northwest Energy Efficiency NEEA.............. Efficiency
Alliance. Organization.
California Investor-Owned CA IOUs........... Utilities.
Utilities (Pacific Gas and
Electric Company,\8\ San Diego
Gas and Electric, Southern
California Edison).
Association of Home Appliance AHAM.............. Trade Association.
Manufacturers.
Felix Storch, Inc............... FSI............... Manufacturer.
GE Appliances, a Haier Company.. GEA............... Manufacturer.
Liebherr Canada, Ltd............ Liebherr.......... Manufacturer.
Samsung Electronics America..... Samsung........... Manufacturer.
Sub Zero Group, Inc............. Sub Zero.......... Manufacturer.
Whirlpool Corporation........... Whirlpool......... Manufacturer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Comments received not related to the proposals in the December
2019 NOPR will be considered and addressed as appropriate should DOE
undertake additional rulemakings.
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Pacific Gas and Electric Company separately submitted
comments (See docket ID number EERE-2017-BT-TP-0004-25) that are
identical to those submitted by the CA IOUs (See docket ID number
EERE-2017-BT-TP-0004-23). This final rule references only the CA
IOUs comment when addressing the comments provided in both
documents.
\9\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
test procedures for consumer refrigeration products. (Docket No.
EERE-2017-BT-TP-0004, which is maintained at https://www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged as follows:
(Commenter name, docket ID number, page of that document). The
December 2019 NOPR Public Meeting Transcript is referenced for
comments provided during the December 2019 NOPR public meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
In this final rule, DOE amends appendices A and B, and
corresponding sections in 10 CFR part 429, and in 10 CFR 430.23 as
follows:
Incorporates by reference the current revision to the
applicable industry standard, AHAM HRF-1-2019, ``Energy and Internal
Volume of Consumer Refrigeration Products,'' which includes updates to
methods for
[[Page 56793]]
test setup, sampling intervals, test conditions, and energy consumption
calculations;
Specifies how to determine the top of the unit for the
purpose of temperature measurement location;
Clarifies ambient temperature and gradient requirements;
Provides additional context regarding product coverage and
situations requiring test procedure waivers;
Reinstates previously omitted optional test method for
products with multiple temperature compartments; and
Updates the references in 10 CFR part 429 and 10 CFR
430.23 to refer to the amended appendices A and B.
The adopted amendments are summarized in Table II.1 compared to the
current test procedure as well as the reason for the adopted change.
Table II.1--Summary of Changes in the Amended Test Procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current DOE test procedure Amended test procedure Attribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorporates by reference Updates IBR to AHAM Industry test
(``IBR'') AHAM HRF-1-2008. HRF-1-2019. method update.
Variation between definitions Definitions amended IBR of
and corresponding test and established HRF[dash]1[dash
procedure provisions in consistent with test ]2019.
industry standard. procedure provisions
in
HRF[dash]1[dash]2019.
Variation between testing Requires only the IBR of
provisions for testing anti- tests used for HRF[dash]1[dash
sweat heaters and equations calculating annual ]2019.
to calculate annual energy energy use to be
use. conducted.
Specifies a temperature Specifies that the IBR of
measurement interval of 4 temperature and power HRF[dash]1[dash
minutes or less for most supply measurement ]2019; improves
products. intervals shall not representativen
exceed 1 minute. ess,
repeatability,
and
reproducibility
.
Does not define the terms Defines terms IBR of
``compartment'' or ``sub- consistent with HRF-1- HRF[dash]1[dash
compartment''. 2019. ]2019.
Does not explicitly specify Provides additional IBR of
thermocouple placement in thermocouple HRF[dash]1[dash
certain product placement ]2019; improves
configurations. specifications. representativen
ess,
repeatability,
and
reproducibility
.
Does not explicitly specify Provides consistent IBR of
the setup for test chamber specifications for HRF[dash]1[dash
floors that have vents for test platform and ]2019.
airflow. floor requirements.
Does not explicitly specify Specifies that Improves
timing of required conditions must be representativen
temperature range conditions. maintained for ess,
stabilization and repeatability,
test periods. and
reproducibility
.
Requires a separate Allows test period to IBR of
stabilization period and test serve as HRF[dash]1[dash
period when conducting all stabilization period ]2019.
energy tests. when conducting
certain energy tests.
Stabilization requirements may Allows measuring IBR of
not be achievable by certain average temperatures HRF[dash]1[dash
products with irregular over multiple ]2019;
compressor cycling or compressor cycles or addresses
multiple compressors. for a given time current waiver.
period to determine
stable operation.
Includes energy use adder for Updates energy use IBR of
automatic icemakers of 84 kWh/ adder for automatic HRF[dash]1[dash
yr. icemakers to 28 kWh/ ]2019.
yr.
Tests connected features the Tests any connected IBR of
same as certain other products with the HRF[dash]1[dash
customer-accessible features, communication module ]2019.
i.e., set at the lowest on but not connected
energy usage position, except to a network.
for demand response devices
in the as-shipped position.
Inadvertently omits optional Reinstates optional Correction.
method for calculating method and makes
average per-cycle energy other non-substantive
consumption of refrigerators corrections.
and refrigerator-freezers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section III of this document describes the amendments to the
current test procedures for Refrigeration products. DOE has determined
that the amendment to the icemaking energy use adder would alter the
measured efficiency of Refrigeration products and require re-
certification solely as a result of DOE's adoption of the amendments to
the test procedures. After reviewing comments received in response to
the December 2019 NOPR, DOE is not requiring calculations in accordance
with this test procedure amendment until the compliance dates of any
amended energy conservation standards for these products, which would
incorporate the amended automatic icemaker energy consumption.
Accordingly, in this final rule DOE is not amending the energy
conservation standards for these products based on this test procedure
amendment. This amendment is discussed in section III.G of this
document.
Additionally, while the amendment to test connected products with
the communication module on but not connected to any network could
affect the measured energy consumption for certain products, DOE
expects that this amendment would typically result in no change to
measured energy use ratings. Therefore, DOE is not amending the energy
conservation standards for these products based on this test procedure
amendment as discussed in section III.H.2 of this document.
Similarly, the amendment revising the ambient temperature
measurement locations for products measuring less than 36 inches in
height is not expected to result in a change to measured energy use
ratings. Therefore, DOE is not amending the energy conservation
standards for these products based on this test procedure amendment as
discussed in section III.D.5 of this document.
The effective date for the amended test procedures adopted in this
final rule is 30 days after publication of this document in the Federal
Register. Representations of energy use or energy efficiency must be
based on testing in accordance with the amended test procedures
beginning 180 days after the publication of this final rule.
III. Discussion
A. Scope of Applicability
The amendments in this final rule apply to products that meet the
definition for ``refrigeration product,'' as codified in 10 CFR 430.2.
Refrigeration products include refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers,
freezers, and MREFs. Refrigeration products generally refer to cabinets
used with one or more doors that are capable of maintaining
[[Page 56794]]
temperatures colder than the ambient temperature. While these products
are typically used for the storage and freezing of food or beverages,
the definitions do not require that the products be designed or
marketed for that purpose. The definitions require only that the
product be capable of maintaining compartment temperatures within
certain ranges, regardless of use. (10 CFR 430.2)
As stated, the test procedure for refrigerators, refrigerator-
freezers, and MREFs is included in appendix A. The test procedure for
consumer freezers is included in appendix B. The amendments in this
final rule do not change the scope of applicability of the test
procedures for refrigeration products.
B. Relevant Industry Test Standards
DOE's test procedures for refrigeration products in Appendices A
and B currently incorporate by reference the Association of Home
Appliance Manufacturers (``AHAM'') industry standard HRF-1, ``Energy
and Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances'' (``HRF-1-2008''). DOE
references HRF-1-2008 for definitions, installation and operating
conditions, temperature measurements, and volume measurements. In
August 2016, AHAM released an updated version of the HRF-1 standard,
HRF-1-2016.
In the June 2017 RFI, DOE stated that, based on review of HRF-1-
2016, the majority of the updates from the 2008 standard were
clarifications or other revisions to harmonize with DOE's test
procedures. 82 FR 29780, 29785. In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE proposed
to incorporate by reference HRF-1-2016 into 10 CFR part 430, subpart A,
and reference certain sections of the 2016 standard in appendix A and
appendix B. DOE noted that updating the references to HRF-1-2016 would
not substantively affect the existing test procedures in appendix A and
appendix B. 84 FR 70842, 70847-70848. DOE also noted that AHAM had
released a draft of an updated HRF-1 for public review and provided a
link to the draft revision. 84 FR 70842, 70847. DOE requested feedback
on its proposal and on whether DOE should incorporate an updated
version of HRF-1 instead, should one become publicly available. 84 FR
70842, 70848.
In response to the December 2019 NOPR, AHAM supported incorporation
by reference in its entirety of the new version of HRF-1, HRF-1-2019,
stating that DOE had participated in the development of the standard
and that the standard was also available for public review, allowing
other stakeholders to provide feedback as well. (AHAM, No. 18, p. 2)
Whirlpool and Liebherr also recommended the incorporation of HRF-1-
2019. (Whirlpool, No. 19, p. 1; Liebherr, No. 16, p. 1) Sub Zero
commented that HRF-1-2019 is the most up-to-date and effective energy
test procedure for household refrigeration equipment and recommended
that it be adopted by reference by DOE. (Sub Zero, No. 17, p. 1-2)
DOE is also aware of another international test standard:
International Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'') Standard 62552,
``Household refrigerating appliances--Characteristics and test
methods'' (``IEC 62552''). The latest publication of this test standard
is IEC 62552:2015, which was published in three parts (IEC 62552-
1:2015, IEC 62552-2:2015, and IEC 62552-3:2015) on February 13,
2015.\10\ On November 30, 2020 IEC issued an amendment to this test
standard, IEC 62552:2015/AMD1:2020.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Available online from IEC at https://webstore.iec.ch/.
\11\ Available online from IEC at https://webstore.iec.ch/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CEC encouraged DOE to incorporate by reference the three parts of
IEC 62552, stating that the standard addresses all types of
refrigerators, including those not driven by compressors, and that
harmonizing with the international test procedure would reduce net test
burden. (CEC, No. 20, p. 4)
Samsung recommended that DOE generally consider adopting global IEC
test procedures in residential appliance test procedures in order to
reduce regulatory burdens. Samsung referenced what it described as
significant progress toward international modernization and
harmonization of standards and test procedures in many industries,
leading to improvements in efficiency. According to Samsung, DOE's
adoption of IEC test procedures would allow companies to design
international platforms and configurations for global markets, which
Samsung asserted would reduce cost for manufacturers in design and
testing and would result in improved efficiencies and broader consumer
choices. (Samsung, No. 24, p. 3) The Joint Commenters referenced
similar comments that Samsung provided in the December 2019 NOPR Public
Meeting and also recommended that DOE evaluate the relevant IEC test
procedures. (Joint Commenters, No. 22, p. 2) NEEA also recommended that
DOE adopt a version of the IEC test procedure to harmonize refrigerator
test procedures worldwide, which NEEA stated would reduce overall test
burden on manufacturers. NEEA added that such harmonization would
eliminate the need for manufacturers to optimize refrigerator
performance to multiple test procedures. (NEEA, No. 26, p. 5)
In response to CEC's comment regarding applicability of IEC 62552
to non-compressor products, DOE's existing test procedure for MREFs in
10 CFR 430.23(ff) and appendix A already accounts for testing non-
compressor products. (See 10 CFR 430.23(ff)(8)) Additionally, while
HRF-1-2016 specifically limited scope to compressor-driven
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, wine chillers, and freezers (See
section 2 of HRF-1-2016), HRF-1-2019 does not limit scope to compressor
products.
DOE recognizes that there may be a potential benefit to harmonizing
among international test standards and regulations, including the
potential for reduced burden on manufacturers. In the present case, the
existing DOE test procedure, which uses an approach consistent with
that in HRF-1-2019, has a long history of use in the United States
market, is generally understood by industry, and the results are
generally understood by consumers. The existing test procedure is also
used as the basis for the Environmental Protection Agency's ENERGY STAR
eligibility criteria for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and
freezers \12\ and the Federal Trade Commission's (``FTC'') EnergyGuide
labels \13\ for these products. DOE also notes that the current
approach to the test procedure was generally supported for use by
commenters representing manufacturers. (AHAM, No. 18, p. 2; Liebherr,
No. 16, p. 1; Sub Zero, No. 17, pp. 1-2; Whirlpool, No. 19, p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See ENERGY STAR's Eligibility Criteria Version 5.0,
available at https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/product_specs/program_reqs/Refrigerators_and_Freezers_Program_Requirements_V5.0.pdf.
\13\ See 16 CFR 305.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, DOE is generally maintaining the existing test
approach in this final rule. As discussed in the following sections of
this final rule, the test procedure amendments established in this
final rule do not represent a significant change from the current test
approach and, therefore, result in little or no additional burden on
manufacturers. Additionally, DOE has determined that the existing test
approach, including the amendments as discussed in this final rule,
results in representative measures of energy use and is not unduly
burdensome to conduct, as required under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
[[Page 56795]]
In addition to the comments described earlier in this section, many
of the commenters supporting use of the IEC 62552 test method referred
to the ambient conditions required in that test standard, including the
requirement for testing at two ambient temperatures. As discussed in
section III.B.1 of this document, DOE considered harmonizing with IEC
62552's ambient test conditions, including as part of an optional
second ambient test condition; however, DOE concluded that the current
single-ambient test approach is appropriate for determining
representative energy consumption for refrigeration products.
DOE also reviewed the updates included in the latest HRF-1-2019
standard, as discussed in section III.B.2 of this document. Compared to
the draft available for public review and referenced in the December
2019 NOPR, the published version of HRF-1-2019 includes only one
substantive update, as discussed in section III.F of this final rule.
After considering these updates, DOE is incorporating by reference HRF-
1-2019 with additional changes as discussed further in this final rule.
1. Ambient Test Conditions
The DOE test procedures in appendices A and B simulate typical room
conditions (72 [deg]F (22.2 [deg]C)) with door openings, by testing at
90 [deg]F (32.2 [deg]C) without door openings. 10 CFR 430.23(a)(7), 10
CFR 430.23(b)(7), and 10 CFR 430.23(ff)(7). The test procedures
directly measure the energy consumed during steady-state operation and
defrosts, if applicable. The additional thermal load and additional
energy consumption of the refrigeration system at the elevated ambient
temperature, compared to typical operating ambient conditions,
represents the increase in energy consumption caused by thermal loads
introduced during normal consumer use--e.g., from door openings and the
loading of warm items into the refrigerated space. Additionally, the
current test procedures incorporate usage adjustment factors to account
for differences in these user-related thermal loads for different types
of refrigeration products (i.e., chest freezers and MREFs are typically
used less frequently than a primary refrigerator-freezer in a
household).
DOE has provided principles of interpretation for its test
procedures in 10 CFR 430.23(a)(7), 10 CFR 430.23(b)(7), and 10 CFR
430.23(ff)(7) to describe the intent of the test procedures and the
requirements regarding component operation in the test condition versus
typical room temperature operation. For example, energy consuming
components that operate in typical room conditions (including as a
result of door openings, or a function of humidity), and that are not
excluded by the test procedure, must operate in an equivalent manner
during energy testing under the test procedure, or be accounted for by
all calculations as provided for in the test procedure. (See, for
example, 10 CFR 430.23(a)(7)(i))
DOE first adopted the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition in 1977
after conducting a public notice and comment proceeding to discuss the
merits of a proposed test procedure that included the possibility of
adopting the 90 [deg]F ambient temperature condition or a higher one at
104 [deg]F. (See 42 FR 46140, 46142 (September 14, 1977) (rejecting
adoption of the 104 [deg]F ambient test condition in favor of 90
[deg]F)) DOE explained the basis for selecting this temperature
condition in its proposal leading to that final rule by noting in part
that the selected temperature is designed to compensate for door
openings when they occur and a correction factor can be applied ``when
appropriate.'' 42 FR 21584, 21586 (April 27, 1977). Further, industry's
more recent efforts at revising and updating the test procedures for
refrigeration have continued to consistently apply the 90 [deg]F
ambient condition. The currently incorporated by reference HRF-1-2008,
the more recent HRF-1-2016, and most recent HRF-1-2019 all maintain the
approach of a 90 [deg]F ambient temperature.
In response to the December 2019 NOPR, DOE received a variety of
comments regarding the test method set forth in IEC 62552, in
particular with regard to the specification of two ambient test
conditions (at approximately 90 [deg]F and 60 [deg]F) \14\ by IEC
62552. The IEC 62552 method requires testing at these two ambient
conditions with optional additional load processing efficiency tests
(to account for a door opening and warm item insertion) and other
auxiliary component efficiency tests.\15\ The total energy consumption
of a product is determined by a regional interpolation function of the
90 [deg]F and 60 [deg]F test results, load processing efficiency
results, and auxiliary component efficiency results. The regional
interpolation functions are not defined by IEC 62552--individual
jurisdictions may adapt these interpolation weighting factors to result
in representative household conditions for the specific jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ IEC 62552 specifically requires testing at 16 [deg]C and 32
[deg]C, which correspond to 60.8 [deg]F and 89.6 [deg]F.
\15\ IEC 62552-3:2015 specifies closed-door testing at 16 [deg]C
and 32 [deg]C and a load processing efficiency test in Annex G to
account for door openings and warm item loading, which is also
conducted at two ambient conditions. The load processing efficiency
test quantifies the additional energy consumed by the product to
remove a known amount of energy which is contained in warm water,
which is placed into refrigerated compartments in a defined way
(with one door opening). Test methods for accounting for the energy
use of other auxiliary components (ambient-controlled anti-sweat
heaters and tank-type automatic icemakers) are found in Annex F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the December 2019 NOPR, AHAM opposed adopting the
test method of IEC 62552 in the current DOE test procedure rulemaking.
AHAM cited a study conducted in 1991 by Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory that found agreement between the 90 [deg]F test method
required by the DOE test procedure and field use energy
consumption.\16\ AHAM stated that any effort to consider or adopt IEC
62552, specifically, the two ambient test conditions, would require
extensive testing and take time to evaluate, which would be
inappropriate at this time given DOE's statutory obligations to publish
an amended test procedure. AHAM stated that it continues its efforts to
harmonize HRF-1 with IEC 62552 and the DOE test procedures and
commented that its task force will consider if any of the elements of
the IEC 62552 test method should eventually be incorporated into HRF-1.
AHAM supported an incorporation by reference of HRF-1-2019, which AHAM
asserted balances representativeness with test burden, while also
retaining high repeatability and reproducibility with the single 90
[deg]F closed-door test point. (AHAM, No. 18, pp. 3-4) Sub Zero
supported AHAM's comments and added that IEC 62552 over time has
adopted more and more of the methods prescribed in HRF-1, and in the
future, these test standards may become even more similar. (Sub Zero,
No. 17, p. 2) Sub Zero additionally stated that the elevated-ambient,
closed-door energy test prescribed in HRF-1-2019 has been shown to be
an excellent proxy for determining actual field energy use while
providing repeatability and reproducibility without imposing an
unreasonable burden to conduct. (Sub Zero, No. 17, p. 1-2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Alan Meier and Richard Jansky, Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, Field Performance of Residential Refrigerators: A
Comparison with the Laboratory Test (May 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the December 2019 NOPR Public Meeting, GEA stated that the 60
[deg]F ambient test point used in IEC 62552 was developed specifically
for products which, in low-temperature climates, would activate a
heater in order to maintain refrigeration capacity, and that
[[Page 56796]]
the 60 [deg]F test is not needed to measure the average energy usage at
72 [deg]F with door openings. GEA stated that applying an additional
test point at 60 [deg]F would not only double the testing time, but
also would not be as repeatable or reproducible as the single ambient
method in HRF-1. GEA further commented that single speed compressors
and variable speed compressors alike would benefit from the lower
ambient temperature. (GEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 11, pp. 54-
57)
Several commenters recommended that DOE consider alignment with IEC
62552, stating that there are potential benefits associated with
multiple ambient condition tests. The CA IOUs, CEC, NEEA, and the Joint
Commenters commented that testing at a single ambient test point cannot
differentiate energy-saving design options (e.g., variable speed
compressors) present in refrigeration products currently on the market.
(CA IOUs, No. 23, p. 1; CEC, No. 20, p. 3; NEEA, No. 26, p. 2; Joint
Commenters, No. 22, p. 1) The CA IOUs and CEC also stated that the
single condition leads to a focus on insulation rather than
refrigeration efficiency. (CA IOUs, No. 23, p. 2; CEC, No. 20, p. 4)
The CA IOUs, CEC, NEEA, and the Joint Commenters argued that the
elevated ambient temperature does not represent normal use conditions.
(CA IOUs, No. 23, p. 2; CEC, No. 20, p. 3; NEEA, No. 26, p. 2; Joint
Commenters, No. 22, p. 1) The CA IOUs and CEC raised concerns regarding
susceptibility to circumvention, stating that multiple test points
discourage test circumvention strategies. (CA IOUs, No. 23, p. 2; CEC,
No. 20, p. 4) The CA IOUs and CEC also argued that there is a high
testing burden for manufacturers who supply products to international
markets if individual jurisdictions each have different single-ambient
test points. (CA IOUs, No. 23, p. 2; CEC, No. 20, p. 3) Specifically,
the CA IOUs, NEEA, and the Joint Commenters commented that IEC 62552
allows jurisdictions to use the two ambient test points to interpolate
to the appropriate regional ambient temperature, thus reducing overall
test burden across jurisdictions with different climates. (CA IOUs, No.
23, p. 2; NEEA, No. 26, p. 2; Joint Commenters, No. 22, p. 2)
The Joint Commenters further commented and referred to previous
comments on a request for information DOE published regarding the
representativeness of DOE's test procedures and average use cycles of
covered products.\17\ The Joint Commenters stated that some variation
in efficiency performance among models would be expected at more
representative test conditions. The Joint Commenters stated that
because most refrigerators and freezers are not placed in 90 [deg]F
rooms, the single elevated ambient test point may not be providing an
accurate relative ranking of model efficiencies. Specifically, the
Joint Commenters were concerned that two models that have the same
energy consumption as measured by the current test procedure could
potentially perform significantly differently at more representative
conditions, and furthermore, that the current test procedure does not
adequately reflect the benefits of variable speed compressors. The
Joint Commenters commented that a refrigerator's compressor would cycle
more often at an ambient temperature of 72 [deg]F than at 90 [deg]F and
therefore, the benefits of variable speed compressors, which can reduce
speed to cycle less frequently, would be greater at 72 [deg]F. The
Joint Commenters stated that a test procedure that relied on an ambient
condition more representative of field conditions would provide more
incentive for optimizing designs at these conditions and would supply
better information to consumers. The Joint Commenters also mentioned
that the load processing efficiency test in IEC 62552, which measures a
unit's response to a single door opening and insertion of warm water
bottles, can increase representativeness. (Joint Commenters, No. 22,
pp. 1-2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ On March 18, 2019 DOE issued a notice of request for
information on the measurement of average use cycles or periods of
use in DOE test procedures. 84 FR 9721 (March 18, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEEA stated that test data of 100 refrigerators evaluated as part
of the IEC 62552 development demonstrates that the ambient temperature
has the greatest impact on refrigerator energy consumption, and
technologies such as variable speed compressors have an energy savings
potential of 10-30% for refrigerator-freezers due to reduced cycling
losses from load-matching (i.e., responding to door openings and warm
item insertion). NEEA commented that without the addition of a second
ambient temperature test in DOE's test procedure, the reduced energy
use associated with such energy saving technologies will not be
recognized. NEEA stated that the current test procedure may even
penalize the rated performance of energy efficient refrigerators in
some cases due to rating equipment at near full compressor speed. NEEA
also stated that testing at a single elevated ambient temperature with
no user interaction does not reflect normal use and does not encourage
manufacturers to optimize the performance of their products for a
normal use condition. (NEEA, No. 26, p. 2)
NEEA presented data from testing six refrigerators using both the
DOE (i.e., high ambient temperature) and IEC 62552 low-temperature
ambient conditions. NEEA asserted that the data shows that
refrigerators with variable speed compressors showed a relatively
smaller increase in energy consumption from the low-temperature test to
the high-temperature test. This data is reproduced in Table III.1.
Based on this data, NEEA stated that DOE's single ambient test
temperature obscures the energy saving benefit of variable speed
technologies that would be of most benefit during normal use. (NEEA,
No. 26, pp. 1-3)
NEEA referred to the Australian/New Zealand regulatory requirements
for refrigerators and freezers (AS/NZS 4474:2018), which incorporate
IEC 62552 without modifications but adapt the weighting factors for the
90 [deg]F test result and the 60 [deg]F test result for the purpose of
providing a representative local energy use. NEEA stated that the IEC
test method is specifically constructed in a manner to allow different
countries and regions to add the different components together in a
manner and weighting that best reflects local conditions while using
only a single suite of test elements that remain harmonized throughout
the world, and that weighting factors can be adapted for the typical
conditions in the United States. (NEEA, No. 26, pp. 1-4)
Samsung commented in support of a test method with multiple ambient
test conditions, specifically IEC 62552, stating that such a method
would be more representative in capturing the energy savings benefits
of innovative technologies such as variable speed compressors. Samsung
stated that the current test procedure, with a single 90 [deg]F ambient
test point, was adequate at a time when most of the refrigerators in
the market used single speed compressors, but that in the last ten
years, variable speed compressors and adaptive control algorithms have
allowed compressors to optimize performance for different load
conditions as well as minimize temperature fluctuations for better food
preservation. Samsung stated that the energy savings of such
technologies would be realized under real-world variable-load
conditions due to door openings, introduction of large food
[[Page 56797]]
loads, seasonal temperature changes, and consumer day/night routines.
(Samsung, No. 24, pp. 2-3)
Samsung acknowledged that testing in two ambient test conditions
would result in an increase in the test burden, but Samsung stated that
such burden is justified by the need for representativeness in order to
accurately measure the efficiency benefits of new technologies. Samsung
recommended that DOE could limit test burden by developing an optional
single ambient test condition approach, as DOE has similarly done for
the optional measurement or calculation of motor performance in the
2016 test procedure final rule for pumps.\18\ (Samsung, No. 24, p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ On January 25, 2016, DOE published a final rule
establishing a new test procedure for pumps with calculation methods
applicable for certain types of pumps. 81 FR 4085, 4140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEEA also commented in support of an approach in which
manufacturers could elect to perform an optional second ambient
condition test, noting that this approach would be an incremental
approach to incentivize more efficient technologies while not
increasing burden for those manufacturers choosing not to run the
additional test. (NEEA, No. 26, p. 4)
At the December 2019 NOPR Public Meeting, ASAP commented that IEC
62552 has a strong international pedigree and recommended that DOE
perform a side-by-side comparison of the IEC 62552 and the DOE test
procedure. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 11, pp. 89-91) The CA
IOUs also recommended that DOE conduct such a comparison to determine
the representativeness of the single ambient test condition, and stated
that the DOE test procedure should provide adequate differentiation of
part-load compressor technologies. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 11, pp. 91-92)
DOE appreciates the comprehensive feedback from commenters
regarding the ambient test condition issue. The primary concerns with
the existing single ambient test condition approach were regarding
representativeness (specifically for variable speed compressor
products) and the potential for circumvention.
DOE recognizes the concern of using a single test condition to
measure energy consumption of models with variable speed compressors.
While variable speed compressors and single speed compressors may have
similar performance at full-load conditions (i.e., full speed and
compressor always on), variable speed compressors typically perform
more efficiently than single speed compressors when operating at part-
load conditions. Variable speed compressors may match the lower cooling
demand by reducing speed rather than by cycling on and off, thereby
avoiding losses that occur when the system cycles on and off. On March
29, 2021, DOE published a final rule to amend the test procedure for
room air conditioners to, in part, provide for the testing of variable
speed compressor products to better reflect their relative efficiency
gains at lower outdoor temperatures compared to single speed compressor
products (the ``March 2021 Room AC Final Rule''). 86 FR 16446 (March
29, 2021). In the March 2021 Room AC Final Rule, DOE explained that the
previous test procedure for room air conditioners measured performance
while operating at full-load conditions (i.e., the compressor is
operated continuously on), and as a result, the existing DOE test
procedure for room air conditioners did not capture any inefficiencies
due to cycling losses. Id at 86 FR 16452. DOE included a methodology
for determining and applying a ``performance adjustment factor'' for
variable speed room air conditioners to reflect the avoidance of
cycling losses that would be experienced in a representative consumer
installation (i.e., at part load conditions). 86 FR 16446, 16455-16460.
However, the same is not true for the existing test procedures for
refrigeration products: the existing 90 [deg]F ambient test point does
not impose a full-load test condition for all refrigeration products.
As discussed previously in this section, the 90 [deg]F test condition
represents typical room conditions (72 [deg]F (22.2 [deg]C)) with door
openings (i.e., typical operation rather than maximum thermal load
operation). At the ambient test condition temperature of 90 [deg]F,
many refrigeration products exhibit compressor cycling, and thus the 90
[deg]F condition typically already represents part-load conditions for
single speed compressor products and variable speed compressor products
alike. This is further supported by the existence of multiple
provisions in HRF-1-2019 and IEC 62552 regarding cycling compressor
systems (e.g., stabilization requirements and test period selection
requirements). Given that most refrigeration products have compressors
that cycle at this test condition, the single elevated ambient test
method already captures inefficiencies due to cycling losses (and
correspondingly, efficiencies for variable speed compressors avoiding
cycling losses) for refrigeration products, which generally addresses
the primary concerns that commenters raised regarding the test
procedure not adequately capturing efficiency benefits of variable
speed compressors.
As discussed, NEEA presented data from testing six refrigerators
using two ambient test points of 32 [deg]F and 16 [deg]F (as set forth
in IEC 62552), and this data is reproduced in Table III.1. Because the
existing DOE test procedures use an ambient test condition of 90 [deg]F
(approximately 32 [deg]C), DOE has calculated the performance
differentials for these six refrigerators in terms of a percent
decrease in energy use from 32 [deg]C to 16 [deg]C.
Table III.1--NEEA Ambient Test Condition Comparison
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
32 [deg]C annual 16 [deg]C annual decrease in
Unit Compressor type energy energy energy use from
consumption (kWh/ consumption (kWh/ 32 [deg]C to 16
yr) yr) [deg]C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B.................................. Single Speed......... 536.50 243.43 55
C.................................. Single Speed......... 607.19 281.61 54
F.................................. Single Speed......... 563.55 291.21 48
Single Speed Mean.............. ..................... ................ ................ 52
A.................................. Variable Speed....... 625.41 327.61 48
D.................................. Variable Speed....... 467.05 231.36 50
E.................................. Variable Speed....... 451.43 229.32 49
Variable Speed Mean............ ..................... ................ ................ 49
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: 16 [deg]C is approximately equal to 60 [deg]F and 32 [deg]C is approximately equal to 90 [deg]F.
[[Page 56798]]
NEEA's data indicate that the variable speed units exhibited a
smaller decrease in energy use than single speed units when testing at
16 [deg]C compared to 32 [deg]C. Specifically, the average percent
decrease in energy use (from 32 [deg]C to 16 [deg]C) was 52% for single
speed compressor products but only 49% for variable speed compressor
products in NEEA's dataset. This indicates that, on average, variable
speed compressor products did not exhibit additional savings over
single speed compressor products at lower ambient conditions.
In response to comments suggesting that DOE conduct additional
investigative testing on a larger sample of single speed compressor
products and similar variable speed compressor products, DOE tested 16
additional products using appendices A and B test procedures at ambient
conditions of 90 [deg]F and 60 [deg]F to compare the resulting impacts
on variable speed and single speed compressor products. DOE's
investigative testing results are shown in Table III.2.
Table III.2--DOE Ambient Test Condition Comparison
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
90 [deg]F 60 [deg]F decrease in
Total adjusted annual energy annual energy energy use
Unit Product class Compressor type volume (ft\3\) consumption consumption from 90
(kWh/yr) (kWh/yr) [deg]F to 60
[deg]F
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G...................................... 13A.................... Single Speed.......... 4.4 229 76 67
H...................................... 3...................... Single Speed.......... 11.9 312 152 51
I...................................... 3...................... Single Speed.......... 21.9 392 189 52
J...................................... 3A..................... Single Speed.......... 17.6 266 82 69
K...................................... 5A..................... Single Speed.......... 27.7 682 402 41
L...................................... 5A..................... Single Speed.......... 34.7 750 404 46
M...................................... 9...................... Single Speed.......... 35.2 486 288 41
Single Speed Mean.................. ....................... ...................... .............. .............. .............. 52
N...................................... 13A.................... Variable Speed........ 5.2 239 63 74
O...................................... 3...................... Variable Speed........ 24.4 388 161 59
P...................................... 5...................... Variable Speed........ 13.2 306 157 49
Q...................................... 5A..................... Variable Speed........ 27.5 508 309 39
R...................................... 5A..................... Variable Speed........ 28.7 748 432 42
S...................................... 5A..................... Variable Speed........ 39.2 764 541 29
T...................................... 5A..................... Variable Speed........ 39.3 645 418 35
U...................................... 5A..................... Variable Speed........ 40.1 782 480 39
V...................................... 5-BI................... Variable Speed........ 11.9 442 152 66
Variable Speed Mean................ ....................... ...................... .............. .............. .............. 48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Deviation for all Samples (G ....................... ...................... .............. .............. .............. 13
through V).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Test results for product class 5A utilize an automatic icemaker energy adder of 84 kWh per year.
Similar to the test results from NEEA, DOE's test results showed no
clear performance improvement for variable speed compressor products
relative to single speed compressor products at the 60 [deg]F test
condition. Specifically, the average percent decrease in energy use
(from 90 [deg]F to 60 [deg]F) was 52% for single speed compressor
products but only 48% for variable speed compressor products in DOE's
dataset, which closely matches the results from NEEA's dataset. This
suggests that given the current state of compressor technology,
introducing a second low temperature ambient test would have no
significant impact on the relative measured energy use of variable
speed compressor products compared to single speed compressor products.
Therefore, adding a lower ambient temperature test for the purpose of
differentiating the performance of variable speed compressors is not
justified at this time.
In response to comments indicating that a single ambient test
condition introduces the potential for circumvention, DOE provides
principles of interpretation for its test procedures in 10 CFR
430.23(a)(7), 10 CFR 430.23(b)(7) and 10 CFR 430.23(ff)(7) to describe
the intent of the test procedures and the requirements regarding
component operation in the test condition versus typical room
temperature operation. For example, energy consuming components that
operate in typical room conditions (including as a result of door
openings, or a function of humidity), and that are not excluded by the
test procedure, must operate in an equivalent manner during energy
testing under the test procedure, or be accounted for by all
calculations as provided for in the test procedure. 10 CFR
430.23(a)(7)(i). Further, commenters did not provide an explanation for
why a test conducted at the high temperature test condition (i.e., 90
[deg]F) and a second low temperature condition (i.e., 60 [deg]F) would
be any more robust in preventing circumvention attempts.
On December 8, 2020 DOE published an early assessment review and
request for information regarding energy conservation standards for
miscellaneous refrigeration products (the ``December 2020 MREFs RFI'').
85 FR 78964 (December 8, 2020). In response to the December 2020 MREFs
RFI, the CA IOUs raised concerns about the appropriateness of the 90
[deg]F ambient test condition for MREFs that utilize thermoelectric
cooling rather than compressor cooling. The CA IOUs commented that,
compared to other refrigeration products, MREFs have a lower cooling
load and less frequent door openings. The CA IOUs suggested that
alternative testing approaches would be more representative of an
average use cycle for MREFs than the load factor adjustment in DOE's
current test procedure, and these could also lead to more appropriately
engineered solution so that consumers may realize improved real-world
benefits. Specifically, the CA IOUs indicated that the adjustment
factor of 0.55 in Appendix A may be appropriate for MREFs with
compressor cooling, but that there was insufficient evidence presented
by DOE that this same factor would be appropriate for MREFs with
thermoelectric cooling. The CA IOUs noted that this could misrepresent
and
[[Page 56799]]
potentially limit the use of non-compressor cooling technologies (such
as thermoelectric or magnetocaloric systems), which are capable of
operating more efficiently at lower temperature differences between the
cabinet interior and the ambient condition. The CA IOUs referenced data
for coolers provided during the development of DOE's test procedure for
MREFs.\19\ (CA IOUs, December 2020 MREFs RFI, No. 5, pp. 3-4) \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ DOE presented laboratory test data for vapor compression
and thermoelectric wine chillers in a notice of proposed rulemaking
regarding test procedures for MREFs. 79 FR 74893, 74910-74912
(December 16, 2014).
\20\ The December 2020 MREFs RFI and corresponding comments are
located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to consider amended energy
conservation standards for MREFs. (Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039,
which is maintained at https://www.regulations.gov/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the development of the July 2016 Final Rule, DOE considered the
data referenced in the CA IOUs comment and determined that one set of
test requirements was appropriate for testing coolers in appendix A,
regardless of refrigeration technology. 81 FR 46767, 46781-46782. DOE
included the 90 [deg]F ambient test temperature and 0.55 usage factor,
as initially proposed for vapor-compression coolers, to establish
consistent test requirements across all coolers, as this would ensure
that all products offering the same consumer utility and function are
rated on a consistent basis, thus providing consumers with a meaningful
basis on which to compare product energy consumptions. 81 FR 46767,
46782. DOE also stated that manufacturers of products which are unable
to maintain the standard 55 [deg]F cooler compartment temperature when
subject to a 90 [deg]F ambient condition would be required to pursue a
test procedure waiver to determine an appropriate energy use rating for
these products that reflects actual energy use under normal consumer
use. 81 FR 46767, 46781. As of this final rule, DOE has not received
any petitions for waiver regarding non-compressor MREFs.
As such, the 0.55 usage factor applied to calculate energy
consumption for MREFs accounts for the reduced cooling load and less
frequent door openings for cooler compartments, which is a consistent
reduction regardless of refrigeration technology. Furthermore, DOE
notes that these provisions have not precluded the availability of
thermoelectric coolers on the market and certified to DOE. In this
final rule, DOE will maintain the existing approach for testing MREFs,
including instructions for pursuing a test procedure waiver when
appropriate.
For the aforementioned reasons, DOE is maintaining the single
ambient test condition approach by incorporating by reference the most
recent industry test procedure, HRF-1-2019.
2. Updates to AHAM HRF-1-2019
As discussed earlier in section III.B of this document, multiple
commenters recommended that DOE incorporate by reference HRF-1-2019
because it is the latest industry test procedure. (AHAM, No. 18 at p.
2; Whirlpool, No. 19, p. 1; Liebherr, No. 16, p. 1; Sub Zero, No. 17,
p. 1-2)
In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE noted that HRF-1-2019 was not yet
final and provided a link to the public review draft. 84 FR 70842,
70847. Because HRF-1-2019 was not yet available at that time, DOE
proposed incorporating the latest industry standard available at that
time, HRF-1-2016, with additional proposed amendments in Appendices A
and B. 84 FR 70842, 70847-70848. DOE also stated that it would consider
incorporating by reference HRF-1-2019 in its entirety when made
available for public distribution. 84 FR 70842, 70848.
In response to the December 2019 NOPR, AHAM commented that since
posting the draft for public review, AHAM made one non-editorial change
incorporated in the published HRF-1-2019 standard related to the two-
part equation used to account for defrost energy consumption. (AHAM,
No. 18 at pp. 2-3)
For this final rule, DOE reviewed HRF-1-2019 to determine whether
it would be an appropriate reference for the DOE test procedures.
Consistent with AHAM's comment, DOE observed only editorial changes in
HRF-1-2019 compared to the public review draft referenced in the
December 2019 NOPR, except for the two-part calculation updates. These
calculation updates are discussed further in section III.F of this
final rule. Compared to HRF-1-2016, the updates in HRF-1-2019 generally
harmonize with DOE's existing requirements for refrigeration products,
incorporate the proposals made by DOE in the December 2019 NOPR, or
otherwise improve clarity of the industry test method. Other than the
updates discussed in this section and the following sections of this
final rule, the relevant sections of HRF-1-2019 are substantively
consistent with the test procedure proposed in the December 2019 NOPR,
which proposed to incorporate by reference certain sections of HRF-1-
2016 (i.e., except as discussed in this final rule, any minor changes
to terminology, organization, or wording in HRF-1-2019 relative to the
December 2019 NOPR would not change the required testing or
calculations). Accordingly, DOE is incorporating by reference HRF-1-
2019 for its test procedures in appendices A and B.
The following discussion addresses updates resulting from adoption
of HRF-1-2019, generally. Following that discussion, DOE presents the
topics highlighted in the December 2019 NOPR, and provides separate
discussion sections to discuss its proposals, comments received in
response to the December 2019 NOPR, and determinations made for this
final rule (including incorporation by reference of HRF-1-2019 and any
adjustments to the industry standard, as applicable).
Purpose and Scope
Sections 1 and 2 of HRF-1-2019 specify the purpose and scope of the
industry test standard. These sections generally harmonize with DOE's
existing test requirements and scope of coverage in its regulations in
10 CFR 430.2, 10 CFR 430.23, and Appendices A and B, but include
several minor differences. While DOE is incorporating by reference HRF-
1-2019 in its entirety, DOE is not referring to section 1 or 2 for
testing to avoid potential conflicts with the scope and requirements of
DOE's regulations. DOE also states in section 1 of appendices A and B
that DOE's regulations take priority in the case of any conflict with
HRF-1-2019.
Definitions
DOE provides a number of relevant definitions in 10 CFR 430.2 and
in appendices A and B. Additionally, appendices A and B currently
reference Section 3, ``Definitions'', of HRF-1-2008. Section 3 of HRF-
1-2019 includes updates that generally harmonize with the requirements
of the existing DOE test procedures; however, DOE identified certain
substantive definition updates or terms that require further
clarification, and which are addressed in the following paragraphs.
Section 1 of appendices A and B both include definitions for the
term ``through-the-door ice/water dispenser.'' HRF-1-2019 refers to
this term but does not include a definition. Because this term is
likely well understood in the context of conducting testing per HRF-1-
2019, DOE is maintaining the definition for ``through-the-door ice/
water dispenser'' in both appendices A and B. Including this definition
will additionally provide context for differentiating between
refrigeration product classes with and without ``through-the-door ice
service'' as specified in 10 CFR 430.32(a).
[[Page 56800]]
HRF-1-2019 includes definitions for many terms that DOE defines in
10 CFR 430.2. For example, HRF-1-2019 defines ``refrigerator,''
``refrigerator-freezer,'' ``freezer,'' and ``miscellaneous
refrigeration product.'' The definitions in HRF-1-2019 are generally
consistent with DOE's definitions in 10 CFR 430.2, but with minor
differences. DOE is including a statement in section 3 of appendices A
and B that in case of conflicting terms between DOE's regulations and
HRF-1-2019, DOE's definitions take priority.
Compared to the HRF-1-2008 standard, HRF-1-2019 includes a
definition for the term ``compartment,'' as discussed in section III.C
of this final rule. HRF-1-2019 also provides specific definitions for
cooler compartment, freezer compartment, and fresh food compartment.
The current test procedure includes definitions for fresh food
compartment and freezer compartment by reference to HRF-1-2008. The
fresh food compartment and freezer compartment definitions in HRF-1-
2019 include updates to harmonize the definitions with the testing
requirements. For example, HRF-1-2008 defined freezer compartment in a
combination refrigerator-freezer as the compartment(s) designed for
storage of foods at temperatures of 8 [deg]F average or lower, but
appendix A requires testing freezer compartments to a standardized
compartment temperature of 0 [deg]F. (See section 3.2 of appendix A)
HRF-1-2019, by contrast, defines freezer compartment in a refrigerator-
freezer as a compartment capable of maintaining temperatures colder
than 0 [deg]F, which is consistent with the existing test procedure
(and HRF-1-2019) requirement to test freezer compartments in
refrigerator-freezers to a standardized compartment temperature of 0
[deg]F. With this change, a freezer compartment in a refrigerator-
freezer not capable of maintaining a temperature of 0 [deg]F would not
be required to be tested at the 0 [deg]F temperature requirement. DOE
is not aware of any products that would be affected by this definition
change in HRF-1-2019. Because the updated HRF-1-2019 definition better
harmonizes with the existing test requirement, DOE is incorporating it
in its test procedure by way of incorporation by reference to Section
3, Definitions, of HRF-1-2019.
HRF-1-2019's definitions for fresh food compartment and freezer
compartment also remove reference to the design intent of the
compartments included in the HRF-1-2008 definitions. For example, HRF-
1-2008 specifies that the fresh food compartment be designed for the
refrigerated storage of food while HRF-1-2019 refers only to the
capability of compartments to maintain temperatures as specified in the
definitions. This is consistent with the approach DOE uses to define
refrigeration products in 10 CFR 430.2. For example, DOE defines
freezer as a product capable of maintaining compartment temperatures of
0 [deg]F (as determined per the test procedure), without referencing
whether the product is designed for the storage of food. (10 CFR 430.2)
Section 1 of appendix A defines ``cooler compartment'' as a
refrigerated compartment designed exclusively for wine or other
beverages within a refrigeration product that is capable of maintaining
compartment temperatures either (a) no lower than 39 [deg]F (3.9
[deg]C), or (b) in a range that extends no lower than 37 [deg]F (2.8
[deg]C) but at least as high as 60 [deg]F (15.6 [deg]C). HRF-1-2019
also provides a definition for ``cooler compartment'' that specifies
the same temperature operating range as the definition in appendix A
but removes the provision that the compartment be designed exclusively
for wine or other beverages. This update is consistent with the
definitions for fresh food compartment, freezer compartments, and DOE's
product definitions in 10 CFR 430.2, which all refer to the capability
of products to maintain certain compartment temperatures rather than
design intent. To ensure consistency among definitions and to avoid
reliance on design intent, DOE is adopting the definition for ``cooler
compartment'' included in HRF-1-2019 by way of incorporation by
reference of Section 3, Definitions, of HRF-1-2019. DOE does not expect
that this update to the cooler compartment definition would change how
products are currently classified or tested. The ``cooler'' definition
in 10 CFR 430.2 includes no such reference to storage of wine or other
beverages, so this update only applies to cooler compartments in
combination cooler refrigeration products. DOE is only aware of
combination cooler refrigeration products with cooler compartments
designed for refrigerating wine or other beverages, and therefore this
amendment would not affect how these products are currently classified
or tested.
DOE has determined that the updated definitions in HRF-1-2019
better harmonize the test standard definitions with the test
requirements as established in this final rule, improve clarity of the
test procedure, and do not substantively change the test requirements
compared to the existing approach, except as noted in this final rule.
Anti-Sweat Heater Switches
Section 2.3 of appendices A and B provides instructions regarding
anti-sweat heater settings, stating that the anti-sweat heater switch
is to be on during one test and off during a second test (except for
units equipped with variable anti-sweat heater control). For units
shipped with the anti-sweat heater switch in the highest energy use
position, the test instructions in section 2.3 of appendix A require an
additional test beyond what is required to calculate annual energy use,
as described in the following paragraphs.
DOE provides annual energy use calculations for refrigerators and
refrigerator-freezers in 10 CFR 430.23(a)(5); freezers in 10 CFR
430.23(b)(5); and miscellaneous refrigeration products in 10 CFR
430.23(ff)(5). These sections refer to per-cycle energy consumption
(i.e., the energy use per day), as determined in either appendices A or
B, multiplied by 365 days per year to determine annual energy use. For
units with anti-sweat heater switches, the annual energy use
calculations are based on the average of the per-cycle energy
consumption for the standard cycle (i.e., with the anti-sweat heater
switch in the highest energy use position) and the per-cycle energy
consumption for a test cycle type with the anti-sweat heater switch in
the position set at the factory just before shipping. (10 CFR
430.23(a)(5)(ii), 10 CFR 430.23(b)(5)(ii), and 10 CFR
430.23(ff)(5)(ii)) Accordingly, for units with the anti-sweat heater
switch shipped in the highest energy position, only the standard cycle
is required for testing since the as-shipped position represents the
highest energy use position required for the standard cycle. Therefore,
for such units, the requirement in section 2.3 of appendices A and B to
conduct testing with the anti-sweat heater off is unnecessary for
determining annual energy use since only the test with the anti-sweat
heater on (i.e., the highest energy use setting) would be used to
calculate annual energy use per the calculations in 10 CFR 430.23.
The updated language in HRF-1-2019 harmonizes the test procedure
with the annual energy use calculations. Specifically, section 5.5.2(x)
of HRF-1-2019 specifies testing anti-sweat heater switches in the
highest and lowest energy use positions for each temperature control
setting if the product is shipped with the switch in the lowest energy
use position (e.g., the
[[Page 56801]]
off position); otherwise, it shall be run only in the highest energy
use position for each temperature control setting. Conceptually, this
requirement in HRF-1-2019 could represent a change from the current
testing approach for models in which the as-shipped anti-sweat heater
setting is not at either the highest or lowest energy use position
(i.e., shipped with the anti-sweat heater at an intermediate setting);
however, DOE is not aware of any models with anti-sweat heater control
switches offering intermediate settings. Therefore, DOE does not expect
this update to require re-testing or re-certification for any existing
models.
In summary, the updates included in HRF-1-2019 would avoid the
potential for running unnecessary tests that would not be used in
calculating annual energy use. For this reason, DOE is incorporating
the HRF-1-2019 instructions for anti-sweat heater switch settings with
no modification.
Test Conditions and Setup
Section 2.2 of appendices A and B incorporates by reference HRF-1-
2008 sections 5.3.2 through 5.5.5.5 (excluding section 5.5.5.4) for
certain test setup and operational conditions. These sections provide
requirements for certain test conditions (relative humidity, air
circulation, and radiation), instruments (temperature, electrical,
time, relative humidity, and weight), and general test requirements
(power supply, test setup, including unit settings, loading, and
internal temperature measurements). Section 2 of appendices A and B
otherwise provides additional test condition requirements, including
ambient temperature conditions, anti-sweat heater instructions as
discussed in the previous section, and additional test setup
instructions.
In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference
sections 5.3.2 through 5.5.6.4 of HRF-1-2016, which specify test setup
and operational conditions that are generally the same as those
currently specified in the HRF-1-2008 incorporation by reference, in
appendices A and B. 84 FR 70842, 70869, 70874. Section 5.5.6.5 of HRF-
1-2016, which was not proposed for incorporation by reference in the
December 2019 NOPR, includes instructions for placing a thermocouple in
any ice storage compartment. Section 5.5.6.5 of HRF-1-2019 includes
this same setup requirement. Given that this temperature measurement is
not used elsewhere in the standard, and to avoid unnecessary test setup
requirements, DOE is not referencing this section of HRF-1-2019 for its
test procedures. DOE is otherwise incorporating by reference section 5
of HRF-1-2019, except as noted in this final rule, which generally
maintains the existing test procedure setup and operational condition
requirements.
At the end of section 2.6 in appendix A and 2.4 in appendix B, DOE
specifies that for cases in which setup is not clearly defined by the
test procedure, manufacturers must submit a petition for a waiver. HRF-
1-2019 does not include this instruction, as it is specific to DOE's
requirements. To ensure that models are tested and rated correctly
under DOE's regulations, DOE is maintaining this instruction regarding
test setups requiring petitions for waiver.
Test Measurements
Section 5.1 of appendices A and B provides instructions regarding
temperature measurements. Section 5.1(b) of appendices A and B specify
the recording requirements when the interior temperature sensor
arrangement does not conform to the setups specified in HRF-1-2008 and
specify that the certification report must indicate that non-standard
sensor locations were used. HRF-1-2019 generally includes this same
recording requirement as in sections 5.1(b) of appendices A and B (See,
for example, sections 5.5.6.1, 5.5.6.2, 5.5.6.4, and 5.8.1). However,
DOE is maintaining the existing language from sections 5.1(b) of
appendices A and B, with updated references to HRF-1-2019, to ensure
that the test procedure explicitly specifies DOE's record keeping and
reporting requirements. DOE is also amending the corresponding
certification requirements in 10 CFR 429.14 (for refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers) and 429.61 (for miscellaneous
refrigeration products) to update references to appendices A and B as
amended in this final rule.
Section 2.9 of appendix A, section 2.7 of Appendix B, and section
5.1.1 of both appendices A and B refer to temperature measurement
intervals of 4 minutes or less. Section 5.1.1 of appendix A also
specifies that the measurement intervals for multiple refrigeration
system products shall not exceed one minute. Sections 3.28, 5.5.6.1,
5.5.6.2, 5.5.6.4, and 5.8.1.1 of HRF-1-2019 refer to temperature
measurement intervals not to exceed one minute. Based on DOE's testing
of refrigeration products, the existing one-minute requirement for
multiple refrigeration system products, and the presence of the one-
minute interval requirement in HRF-1-2016, DOE has determined that test
laboratories already have the capability to record data at one-minute
intervals using automated data acquisition systems, and manufacturers
likely already record data at one-minute (or shorter) intervals.
Accordingly, DOE is incorporating by reference this updated requirement
in HRF-1-2019. DOE does not expect that this update will require re-
testing (or re-certification) of products already certified as
complying with the current energy conservation standards when tested to
the existing DOE test procedure, as manufacturers likely already test
in accordance with the updated requirements specified in HRF-1-2019. In
the event manufacturers do not already record data at one-minute
intervals for existing models, DOE expects that any impact of this
amendment on measured energy use would be de minimis, and manufacturers
will not be required to re-test or re-certify performance of the
existing models.
DOE's current test procedures incorporate by reference section
5.5.1 of HRF-1-2008 regarding power supply requirements, stating that,
unless otherwise specified, the electrical power supply shall be 115
1 V, 60 Hz at the product service connection and the
actual voltage shall be recorded as measured at the product service
connection with the compressor motor operating. Section 5.5.1 in HRF-1-
2016 and HRF-1-2019 similarly specify that power supply be maintained
at 115 1 V, 60 Hz at the product service connection, and
that the actual voltage shall be maintained and recorded throughout the
test, excluding instantaneous voltage fluctuations caused by the
turning on or off of electrical components. The updated language in the
more recent versions of HRF-1 is generally consistent with the existing
test approach, with additional clarification to limit the potential for
test variability. DOE does not expect the updated language to affect
current model classifications or energy use ratings. DOE notes that
HRF-1-2019 does not specify the required data recording intervals for
power supply measurements. For consistency with the temperature
measurement intervals and with how DOE expects manufacturers are
currently testing refrigeration products, DOE is specifying in
appendices A and B that the power supply requirements referenced in
HRF-1-2019 section 5.5.1 be determined based on measurement intervals
not to exceed one minute. DOE does not expect that this update will
require re-testing or re-certification of any models, as manufacturers
likely already test in accordance with this requirement, similar to the
temperature
[[Page 56802]]
recording requirements discussed in this section.
Test Conduct
Section 3.2 of both appendices A and B specifies which compartment
temperatures are used to compare to the standardized compartment
temperatures to determine appropriate temperature settings for testing,
as specified in the existing Table 1 in both appendices A and B. HRF-1-
2019 generally includes the same test instructions regarding
temperature settings but does not include the specification at the end
of section 3.2 in both appendices A and B regarding what compartment
temperatures should be compared to standardized compartment
temperatures to determine appropriate temperature settings for testing.
DOE is maintaining the provisions regarding compartment temperatures,
with updated references to HRF-1-2019, to ensure that the test
procedure maintains the existing temperature setting instructions.
In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE proposed to update the formatting of
Table 1 in both appendices A and B and to provide instructions
regarding coverage and test procedure waivers. 84 FR 70842, 70857-
70858. Table 5-1 in HRF-1-2019 includes test instructions that are
generally consistent with DOE's requirements. However, DOE expects that
the amended Table 1 as proposed in the December 2019 NOPR improves
clarity of the test requirements and the potential need for test
procedure waivers by improving the table formatting (i.e., merging
cells to show applicability of settings and results) and referring to
the test procedure waiver provisions rather than a ``no energy use
rating'' outcome from testing. The updated text in Table 5-1 of HRF-1-
2019 improves clarity regarding test results by referring to tested
compartment temperatures relative to standardized compartment
temperatures. Accordingly, DOE is providing an alternate table to be
used in place of Table 5-1 of HRF-1-2019, consistent with the December
2019 NOPR proposal, but including the improved wording from Table 5-1
of HRF-1-2019.
Additionally, section 7 of appendices A and B provides general
instructions regarding the applicability and requirements for test
procedure waivers, while HRF-1-2019 includes no such reference.
Therefore, DOE is maintaining the test procedure waiver instructions as
currently specified in section 7 of appendices A and B.
Section 3.3 of appendix A provides an optional test for models with
two compartments and user-operable controls, which allows for the use
of three tests as specified in Australian/New Zealand Standard
4474.1:2007, ``Performance of household electrical appliances--
Refrigerating appliances, Part 1: Energy consumption and performance''
(``AS/NZS 4474.1:2007''). This optional approach incorporates a three-
test triangulation method to calculate performance at the standardized
compartment temperatures rather than the two-test interpolation
approach otherwise generally applied in appendix A. HRF-1-2019 includes
the same reference to the AS/NZS 4474.1:2007 optional approach as in
section 3.3 of appendix A; however, the instructions for that approach
are included in section 5.6.3(6), within the section for ``Temperature
Settings for Convertible Compartments.'' To ensure proper application
of the optional test method, DOE is providing separate instructions in
appendix A to clarify the use of section 5.6.3(6) of HRF-1-2019 (i.e.,
as an optional alternative test independent from the ``Temperature
Settings for Convertible Compartments'' section in HRF-1-2019).
Additionally, DOE is providing a reference for ``AS/NZS
4474.1:2007'' in appendix A to clarify its use throughout the test
procedure. HRF-1-2019 refers to this test standard, as described in the
previous paragraph, but does not include a full reference.
Calculations
In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE proposed to correct an omission
regarding the calculations for the optional AS/NZS 4474.1:2007 test
approach described in the previous section. 84 FR 70842, 70857. The
energy use calculations associated with the optional test method are
not currently included in appendix A; accordingly, DOE proposed to
reinstate the calculations as previously established for refrigerator-
freezers prior to the inadvertent omission from appendix A. Id. HRF-1-
2019 does not include the energy use calculations associated with the
optional AS/NZS 4474.1:2007 test approach; therefore, DOE is providing
the calculations associated with that test in appendix A, as proposed
in the December 2019 NOPR. Because the AS/NZS 4474.1:2007 approach is
applicable to products with multiple temperature compartments, the
approach is also applicable to combination cooler refrigeration
products (i.e., not only to refrigerator-freezers). Therefore, DOE is
also including energy use calculations for the AS/NZS 4474.1:2007
optional test approach as applied to combination cooler refrigeration
products.
Section 5.10 of HRF-1-2019 provides annual energy consumption
calculations. As discussed earlier in this section of this final rule,
DOE currently provides annual energy use calculations as part of its
test procedures in 10 CFR 430.23(a)(5), 10 CFR 430.23(b)(5), and 10 CFR
430.23(ff)(5). The calculations in section 5.10 of HRF-1-2019 are
consistent with DOE's current calculations. To avoid duplicate
calculation requirements, DOE is updating 10 CFR 430.23(a)(5), 10 CFR
430.23(b)(5), and 10 CFR 430.23(ff)(5) to remove calculation
instructions and to instead reference appendices A or B, as
appropriate, which in turn reference section 5.10 of HRF-1-2019, for
determinations of annual energy use.
Specific Amendments Addressed by DOE
The following sections discuss other specific amendments to the
test procedures for refrigeration products, typically made by reference
to HRF-1-2019. These amendments relate to compartment definitions, test
setup requirements, ambient temperature requirements, stabilization
requirements, defrost energy consumption, icemaking energy consumption,
and other refrigeration product features.
C. Compartment Definitions and Clarifications
Although the term ``compartment'' is used throughout the current
DOE test procedures in appendices A and B, the term is not defined. The
DOE test procedures use the term to refer to both individual enclosed
spaces within a product (e.g., referring to a specific freezer
compartment), as well as all enclosed spaces within a product that meet
the same temperature criteria (e.g., referring to the freezer
compartment temperature--a volume-weighted average temperature for all
individual freezer compartments within a product).
In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE proposed to include a definition for
``compartment'' consistent with AS/NZS 4474.1:2007 but adapted to use
the appropriate DOE terminology for certain terms within the
definition. 84 FR 70842, 70847. Specifically, DOE proposed to define a
``compartment'' as an enclosed space within a refrigeration product
that is directly accessible through one or more external doors and may
be divided into sub-compartments. Id. DOE stated that the proposal
would not affect how compartments would be classified or treated under
the test procedure and, accordingly, DOE did not expect that the
proposed definition
[[Page 56803]]
would impact measured energy consumption. Id.
To provide further detail, DOE proposed to define ``sub-
compartment'' as an enclosed space within a compartment that may have a
different operating temperature from the compartment within which it is
located. Id. DOE stated that this definition, coupled with the proposed
definition for ``compartment,'' would remove the need to separately
define ``separate auxiliary compartment'' and ``special compartment''
because these terms would be redundant with the proposed compartment
definitions; therefore, DOE proposed to remove the terms ``separate
auxiliary compartment'' and ``special compartment'' from appendices A
and B and replace them with ``compartment'' or ``sub-compartment'' as
appropriate. Id.
In response to the December 2019 NOPR, AHAM commented that HRF-1-
2019 includes definitions for ``compartment'' and ``sub-compartment''
consistent with the December 2019 NOPR proposals. (AHAM, No. 18, pp. 7-
8) DOE did not receive any comments in objection to the proposals for
compartment definitions.
For the discussed reasons, DOE is adopting the definitions for
``compartment'' and ``sub-compartment'' through incorporation of
section 3.8 of HRF-1-2019.
Section 5.5.2(s) of HRF-1-2019 includes instructions for testing
products with convertible compartments consistent with DOE's existing
test procedure in appendix A, section 2.7. However, these instructions
specifically pertain to individual compartments within a product that
may operate as fresh food, freezer, or cooler compartments without
affecting the overall product's classification (e.g., as a
``refrigerator'' or ``freezer''). For example, the current instruction
regarding convertible compartments is included in appendix A. If a
model consisting of a single convertible compartment were to be tested
as a freezer compartment, appendix B rather than appendix A would be
the applicable test procedure.
In the April 2014 Final Rule, DOE separately addressed convertible
products, such as those that can switch from ``refrigerator'' to
``freezer'' and for which more than one product class may apply. DOE
stated that, ``in the case of a product for which the convertible
compartment is the only compartment (i.e., the entire product is
convertible), the product effectively meets the definitions of two
different covered products'' and that ``DOE is requiring that
convertible products be tested and certified as both refrigerators and
freezers if the products meet the applicable definition(s).'' 79 FR
22319, 22343.
DOE is aware of products currently available on the market that
indicate capability to be converted between refrigerator operation and
freezer operation, and that are only certified to DOE's Compliance
Certification Management System (``CCMS'') database as freezers.
Hence, DOE is reiterating its position regarding treatment of
convertible products from the April 2014 Final Rule:
DOE will require that manufacturers certify each individual model
as complying with the energy conservation standard applicable to all
product classes identified in Sec. 430.32(a) into which the individual
model falls if the individual model is distributed in commerce as a
model within that product class. The manufacturer must assign a
different basic model number to the units in each product class even if
a manufacturer uses the same individual model number to identify the
product. As an example, if a single individual model were distributed
in commerce as an automatic defrost all-refrigerator (product class 3A)
and as an automatic defrost upright freezer (product class 9), the
manufacturer could use the same individual model number but would be
required to test the model according to the test procedure applicable
to each corresponding product class (i.e., appendix A for class 3A and
appendix B for class 9). The manufacturer would also need to certify
each basic model separately (i.e., in product class 3A and in product
class 9) using a different basic model number for the two product
classes. 79 FR 22319, 22343.
D. Test Setup
In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE discussed multiple aspects of the
test procedure setup requirements, specifically with regard to built-in
products, freezer drawers, test platforms, products with separate
external temperature controls, and vertical ambient temperature
measurement locations. 84 FR 70842, 70852-70854. The following sections
discuss these test setup topics, including the resulting amendments
established in this final rule.
1. Built-In Test Configuration
Built-in refrigeration products generally are products that (1)
have unfinished sides that are not intended to be viewable after
installation; (2) are designed exclusively to be installed totally
encased by cabinetry, fastened to the adjoining cabinetry, walls, or
floor; and (3) are either equipped with a factory-finished face or
accept a custom front panel. (10 CFR 430.2) In the development of the
existing test procedures for refrigeration products, DOE presented data
indicating that performing testing in a built-in enclosure (i.e.,
enclosing the units in simulated cabinetry) may affect measured energy
consumption for certain configurations of built-in products. 78 FR
41610, 41649-41650 (July 10, 2013). Those products that reject
condenser heat at the back of the unit showed a potential increase in
energy use when tested in an enclosure. However, data supplied by
Liebherr \21\ indicated no significant impact on measured energy
consumption when rear-condenser built-in units were tested in an
enclosure consistent with manufacturer recommendations. 78 FR 41610,
41650.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Liebherr provided data as part of the previous test
procedure rulemaking. These documents and corresponding comments are
located in the docket of DOE's previous rulemaking to develop test
procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.
(Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-TP-0016, which is maintained at https://www.regulations.gov/) (See Document No. EERE-2012-BT-TP-0016-0034).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the June 2017 RFI, DOE requested further information on
appropriate testing for built-in products, including energy impacts of
testing in an enclosure, representativeness of test results compared to
actual consumer use, test burden, and any potential alternative test
approaches. 82 FR 29780, 29783-29784. Based on available test data and
stakeholder comments received in response to the June 2017 RFI, in the
December 2019 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that testing built-in
units in enclosures consistent with the manufacturer installation
instructions would result in no significant difference in measured
energy use compared to testing in a freestanding configuration, and
therefore, DOE did not propose to amend the current requirement that
all units be tested in the freestanding configuration. 84 FR 70842,
70851-70852.
In response to the December 2019 NOPR, AHAM, FSI, and Sub Zero
commented that requiring enclosures for built-in testing would be
unduly burdensome without a corresponding benefit to the
representativeness or accuracy of the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 18, p.
7; FSI, No. 21, p. 2; Sub Zero, No. 17, p. 2)
Based on the information gathered throughout the rulemaking process
and consideration of the comments received,
[[Page 56804]]
DOE is maintaining the existing test approach for built-in products by
adopting the test method in HRF-1-2019, which does not require that
built-in products be tested in an enclosure.
2. Thermocouple Configuration for Freezer Drawers
As discussed in section III.B of this document, the current test
procedures for refrigeration products incorporate by reference portions
of HRF-1-2008 for testing requirements. Section 5.5.5.5 of HRF-1-2008
includes figures specifying thermocouple placement for several example
fresh food and freezer compartment configurations. HRF-1-2008 also
provides that in situations where the interior of a cabinet does not
conform to the configurations shown in the example figures,
measurements must be taken at locations chosen to represent
approximately the entire cabinet.
In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference
HRF-1-2016 and the relevant errata, including a clarification to Figure
5-2. 84 FR 70842, 70852-70853. DOE also proposed to amend appendices A
and B to explicitly specify that for freezer drawers, the thermocouple
setup for drawer-type freezer compartments must follow sensor layout
type 6 specified in HRF-1-2016, as the configurations in Figure 5-2 of
HRF-1-2016 (as well as HRF-1-2008) do not specify their applicability
to drawer compartments. Id.
In response to this proposal in the December 2019 NOPR, AHAM
commented that DOE should instead incorporate by reference the
provisions in HRF-1-2019, which are identical to those in HRF-1-2016
but also include the aforementioned errata. (AHAM, No. 18, p. 8)
HRF-1-2019 explicitly indicates in the notes to Figure 5-2 that
freezer compartments less than 2 cubic feet in volume should be tested
with one thermocouple located in the geometric center of the
compartment. HRF-1-2019 also states that the type 5 and type 6 freezer
thermocouple configurations in Figure 5-2 apply to vertical freezers
and freezer compartments with either doors or drawers, addressing the
clarification that DOE had proposed in the December 2019 NOPR.
Based on its review of HRF-1-2019, DOE has determined that the test
requirements in HRF-1-2019 are consistent with the December 2019 NOPR
proposal. Therefore, DOE is adopting these provisions by incorporating
by reference HRF-1-2019.
3. Test Platform Requirements
Section 2.1.3 in both appendices A and B requires that a test
platform be used if the test chamber floor temperature is not within 3
[deg]F of the measured ambient temperature. If a platform is used, it
must have a solid top with all sides open for air circulation
underneath, and its top shall extend at least 1 foot beyond each side
and front of the unit under test and extend to the wall in the rear.
DOE included this requirement in its test procedures to limit the
variability of airflow near the unit during testing. Airflow directly
at the base of the unit may increase heat transfer from the condenser
and compressor compartment, resulting in better measured energy
performance compared to a unit with no airflow at the base of the unit.
As discussed in the December 2019 NOPR, the text of section 2.1.3
in appendices A and B does not explicitly address the setup for a test
chamber floor that has vents for airflow. 84 FR 70842, 70853. DOE
stated that such a test chamber floor is analogous to a ``platform''
because the floor is elevated above an airflow pathway, and therefore,
testing should follow the same procedure required for a test platform.
Id. DOE proposed to specify that for a test chamber floor that allows
for airflow (e.g., through a vent or holes), any airflow pathways
through the floor must be located at least 1 foot away from all sides
of the unit. Id. DOE also stated that, based on experience with third-
party laboratories, the proposal is consistent with current industry
practice and therefore would not impact measured energy use. Id.
In response to the December 2019 NOPR, AHAM supported DOE's
proposal to specify that airflow pathways through the test floor must
be located at least one foot away from all sides of the unit,
indicating that this is consistent with the revised test procedure in
HRF-1-2019. (AHAM, No. 18, p. 8)
Based on the foregoing discussion, DOE is adopting these test
platform requirements through incorporation by reference of section
5.3.1 of HRF-1-2019.
4. Separate External Temperature Controls
In 2014, DOE granted a waiver to Liebherr to allow for testing a
refrigerator intended to be connected to a separate freezer that houses
the controls for both the refrigerator and freezer cabinets. 79 FR
19886 (April 10, 2014; case no. RF-035). Under the waiver approach,
Liebherr must test the subject refrigerator according to appendix A
with the additional requirement that the freezer cabinet (with controls
for both the refrigerator and freezer) be close enough to allow for the
electrical connection to the refrigerator, but far enough away to avoid
interfering with ambient airflow or other test conditions. The freezer
must be set to the ``off'' position for testing. 79 FR 19886, 19887-
19888.
In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE stated that it is not aware of any
other products for which the cabinet controls are housed in a separate
product; however, DOE proposed to amend appendices A and B to address
such products to eliminate the potential need for additional test
procedure waivers. 84 FR 70842, 70853. DOE proposed to follow the
approach specified in the Liebherr waiver, but with revisions to be
applicable to different cabinet configurations. Id.
In response to this proposal, Liebherr commented that Liebherr's
products requiring the test procedure waiver for separate external
temperature controls have been discontinued and Liebherr is likewise
not aware of other such products. (Liebherr, No. 16, p. 1) AHAM
provided a similar comment, and both commenters suggested there is no
longer a need for such an amendment to the DOE test procedures.
(Liebherr, No. 16, p. 1; AHAM, No. 18, pp. 8-9)
HRF-1-2019 does not include the additional instructions that DOE
proposed in the December 2019 NOPR regarding products with external
controls. Based on DOE's review of the market and on the comments from
Liebherr and AHAM indicating that products requiring such instructions
are no longer available, DOE is not amending the test procedure to
include instructions specific for refrigerators intended to be
connected to a separate freezer that houses the controls for both the
refrigerator and freezer cabinets models. The publication of this final
rule terminates the existing Liebherr waiver consistent with 10 CFR
430.27(h)(3) and 10 CFR 430.27(l).
5. Ambient Temperature Measurement Locations
Section 2.1.2 of both appendices A and B requires that a test room
vertical ambient temperature gradient of no more than 0.5 [deg]F per
foot (0.9 [deg]C per meter) must be maintained during testing. To
demonstrate that this requirement has been met, test data must include
measurements taken using temperature sensors at locations 10 inches
from the center of the two sides of the unit under test at heights of 2
[[Page 56805]]
inches and 36 inches above the floor or supporting platform and at a
height of 1 foot above the unit under test. The requirement to measure
temperature 1 foot above the unit under test does not explicitly
address products with components that extend above the top of the
refrigerated storage cabinet (e.g., beer dispensers or ``keg
refrigerators'' with taps on top of the cabinet).
In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE proposed that when measuring the
ambient temperature 1 foot above the unit, the top of the unit should
be determined by the refrigerated cabinet height, excluding any
accessories or protruding components on the top of the unit (e.g., taps
or dispensers). 84 FR 70842, 70854. DOE stated that this proposal would
reduce the potential for testing variability and not impact measured
energy use. Id.
AHAM commented in response to the December 2019 NOPR that DOE's
proposal is consistent with the updates to HRF-1-2019 section 5.3.1.
(AHAM, No. 18, p. 9)
Section 5.3.1 of HRF-1-2019 includes instructions that are
consistent with the previous ambient temperature measurement locations
but does not explicitly clarify that the top of the unit should be
determined by the refrigerated cabinet height, excluding any
accessories or protruding components on the top of the unit, as DOE had
proposed in the December 2019 NOPR. In this final rule, DOE is
incorporating that specification in section 5.1(a) of both appendices A
and B to supplement the reference to HRF-1-2019.
Additionally, HRF-1-2019 includes new provisions for the ambient
temperature measurement locations for units 36 inches or less in
height. Specifically, section 5.3.1 of HRF-1-2019 states that for a
product height of 36 inches (91.5 cm) or less, the ambient temperature
shall be recorded at points located at a distance of the product height
divided by two above the floor or platform and 10 inches (25.4 cm) from
the center of the two sides of the unit under test. This is in contrast
to the provision for products greater than 36 inches in height (and
consistent with the current DOE test procedures), for which HRF-1-2019
states that the ambient temperature be measured at locations 36 inches
above the floor or platform and 10 inches (25.4 cm) from the center of
the two sides of the unit under test, consistent with the existing
requirement for testing all products.
After considering the new provisions for products 36 inches or less
in height, DOE acknowledges that maintaining ambient temperature around
the actual product dimensions rather than above units with height less
than 36 inches would ensure the most repeatable and reproducible
testing. Therefore, DOE is adopting these provisions by incorporating
by reference HRF-1-2019. DOE expects that this update would not affect
measured energy use compared to the existing approach (i.e., with
ambient thermocouples 36 inches above the test floor). Section 2.1.2 of
Appendices A and B requires a maximum vertical ambient temperature
gradient of 0.5 [deg]F per foot, thereby limiting the variability of
the ambient temperature as measured at different heights around the
unit under test. Given that the test procedure amendment is not
expected to change measured energy use, DOE does not expect the
amendment to require re-testing or impact compliance of the affected
products.
E. Test Conditions
1. Ambient Temperature and Vertical Ambient Gradient
Section 2.1.2 of both appendices A and B, which, as discussed in
the previous section, addresses the vertical ambient temperature
gradient, does not specify the period during which the vertical ambient
temperature gradient must be maintained. Section 2.1.1 of both
appendices specifies that the ambient temperature shall be maintained
during both the stabilization period and test period. DOE stated in the
December 2019 NOPR that the vertical ambient temperature gradient
should be maintained during both the stabilization period and test
period to ensure consistent ambient conditions throughout both periods.
84 FR 70842, 70853-70854. Thus, DOE proposed to specify that the
vertical ambient temperature gradient be maintained during both the
stabilization period and test period. Id.
AHAM indicated that this proposal is consistent with the updates to
HRF-1-2019 section 5.3.1. (AHAM, No. 18, p. 9)
Section 5.3.1 of HRF-1-2019 does not explicitly provide that the
vertical ambient temperature gradient should be maintained during both
the stabilization period and test period to ensure consistent ambient
conditions throughout both periods, as DOE had proposed. Additionally,
section 5.3.1 of HRF-1-2019 specifies the ambient temperature
requirement (90.0 1.0 [deg]F) must be maintained during
the test period. This omits the current DOE requirement in section
2.1.1 of appendices A and B that the ambient temperature shall be
maintained during both the stabilization period and test period.
To ensure that appropriate ambient conditions are maintained
throughout testing, including both the stabilization and test periods,
the amendments in this final rule incorporate by reference HRF-1-2019
and additionally provide that both the ambient temperature and vertical
ambient temperature gradient must be maintained during both the
stabilization period and test period.
2. Stabilization
This final rule establishes several amendments to stabilization
criteria included in the test procedures for refrigeration products.
These amendments adopt the relevant provisions in HRF-1-2019, which DOE
is incorporating by reference, and are consistent with the amendments
DOE proposed in the December 2019 NOPR. DOE addresses the specific
topics and amendments regarding the stabilization amendments in the
following sections.
Elapsed Time Between Measurement Periods
Section 2.9 in appendix A and section 2.7 in appendix B provide two
options for determining whether steady-state conditions exist based on
a maximum rate of change of average compartment temperatures for a unit
under test. The first option (``part A stability'') specifies
determining the rate of change of compartment temperatures by comparing
temperature measurements recorded during a period of at least 2 hours
to the measurements recorded over an equivalent time period, with 3
hours elapsing between the two measurement periods. If this first
option cannot be used, a second option (``part B stability'') specifies
that the average of the measurements during a number of complete
repetitive compressor cycles occurring through a period of no less than
2 hours and including the last complete cycle before a defrost period
(or if no cycling occurs, the average of the measurements during the
last 2 hours before a defrost period) are compared to the same
averaging period before the following defrost period.
For test units with cycling compressors, it may not be possible to
measure temperatures over complete compressor cycles while allowing
exactly 3 hours to elapse between the measurement periods, as required
for part A stability. However, as DOE stated in the development of the
April 2014 Final Rule, DOE considers the 3-hour period to represent a
minimum elapsed time between temperature checkpoint periods. 78 FR
41610, 41651 (July 10, 2013). Accordingly, in the December
[[Page 56806]]
2019 NOPR, DOE proposed to clarify that the time elapsed between
measurement periods must be at least 3 hours for the stability check.
84 FR 70842, 70845.
Section 3.28(a) of HRF-1-2019 specifies that 3 hours is the minimum
time that must elapse between measurement periods using this option to
verify steady-state conditions; hence, DOE is adopting this provision
through incorporation by reference of HRF-1-2019.
Use of Stabilization Data for Steady-State Test Period
In response to the June 2017 RFI, multiple interested parties
suggested that for certain products, data recorded during the
stabilization period could be considered part of the test period data.
(AHAM, No. 5 at p. 8; BSH Home Appliances Corporation (``BSH''), No. 2
at p. 2; Sub Zero, No. 4 at p. 2) DOE tentatively agreed that the
stabilization period and part one of a two-part energy test capture
essentially the same unit operation, and in the December 2019 NOPR
proposed to amend the test period requirements in appendices A and B to
provide that, if the part A stabilization criteria is used, that same
period be used for steady-state test period data, where appropriate
(i.e., for the test periods that do not capture defrosts). 84 FR 70842,
70854.
In response to the December 2019 NOPR, AHAM again supported a
change that would allow full stability data to be used for the first
part of the test instead of requiring a separate test part one
test.\22\ (AHAM, No. 18, pp. 9-10) AHAM reiterated at the December 2019
NOPR Public Meeting that using a proven period of stability for both
stabilization and part one test periods is possible now and was not
implemented in earlier versions of HRF-1 because newer data acquisition
technologies allow labs to view and assess data in real time. (AHAM,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 11, p. 67) AHAM also recommended that
DOE adopt the provisions in HRF-1-2019 to address this issue. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ DOE notes that the terms ``part one test'' and ``first part
of the test'' refer to steady-state test periods which do not
capture defrost energy use. ``Part two'' of a two-part test period
captures the energy consumption associated with defrosting
operation. The selection of this data period is described further in
a subsequent subsection of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CA IOUs and CEC expressed concern that data from when the unit
under test is achieving steady state operation should not be used for
test period data. (CA IOUs, No. 23, p. 4; CEC, No. 20, pp. 4-5) These
commenters stated that because the stabilization period is the
timeframe the system takes to achieve steady state, any data collected
during this period is ill-suited for product efficiency ratings. The CA
IOUs and CEC also asked whether there is any precedent for such an
approach and whether there are independent data and analysis that can
validate the data quality of the stabilization period. (Id.)
Section 3.28 of HRF-1-2019 specifies criteria to confirm that the
test unit has achieved stable operation. The reference to stabilization
and steady state periods refer to units that are already in stable
operation rather than units achieving stability. Thus, the use of a
steady state period as the test period ensures that data representing
stable operation is used for the test period.
Data used to confirm stable conditions is used as part of the test
data only in specific circumstances. Section 5.7 of HRF-1-2019 provides
that the data used to confirm steady state conditions is used as data
for part one of the variable defrost control test or as the non-
automatic defrost test period. Section 5.7.2.1.1 also provides that the
steady state data may be used for part one of the long-time automatic
defrost control test if a two-part test period is conducted. In each of
these circumstances, the data confirming steady state conditions
captures the same type of unit operation as the data required for
certain test periods under the existing test procedure approach (i.e.,
normal compressor operation and no operation associated with a
defrost). The approach established in this final rule, by reference to
HRF-1-2019, avoids the requirement for multiple data acquisition
periods capturing the same types of unit operation. Further, the
updated approach specifically requires that steady state conditions be
confirmed on the test period data, whereas the existing approach
requires confirming steady state prior to a test period.
Through incorporation by reference, DOE is adopting the provisions
in section 3.28, section 5.7.1, and section 5.7.2.1.1 of HRF-1-2019,
which use verified stabilization data as the steady-state test periods
for certain product types. These requirements are consistent with DOE's
proposal in the December 2019 NOPR.
Irregular Compressor Cycling
Stabilization determinations may be difficult for products with
multiple compressors or irregular compressor cycling. For these
products, the average compartment temperatures over one complete
compressor cycle may not be representative of the average compartment
temperatures over a longer period of operation with multiple compressor
cycles. For example, a product with a combination of long and short
compressor on cycles during normal operation would likely have either
higher or lower average compartment temperatures over an individual
compressor on/off cycle, when compared to the average compartment
temperatures over a longer period of operation with multiple compressor
cycles.
Figure 1 in appendix A shows the requirements for selecting the
defrost portion of the test for a two-part test, including that the
compressor cycles immediately preceding (i.e., cycle A) and following
(i.e., cycle B) the defrost portion of the test must be within 0.5
[deg]F of the non-defrost part of the test. As discussed in the
December 2019 NOPR, products with irregular compressor cycling may not
be able to meet the requirements for determining the start and end
points for the defrost portion of the test when using the two-part test
as provided in section 4.2.1.1 in appendices A and B (and 4.2.3.4.2 in
appendix A for multiple-compressor products) because the average
temperature of an individual compressor cycle may never match the
average temperature over a longer period of operation that includes
many compressor cycles. 84 FR 70842, 70854-70855. For example, a
product with a combination of long and short compressor on cycles
during normal operation would likely have either higher or lower
average compartment temperatures over an individual compressor on/off
cycle, when compared to the average compartment temperatures over a
longer period of operation with multiple compressor cycles. Id. For
cases of irregular compressor cycling using the two-part test method,
DOE proposed to include an alternate determination of when to start and
end the defrost test period. Id. DOE proposed that the beginning of the
period be determined based on the average compartment temperatures over
one or more complete compressor cycles before a defrost, that the
average temperatures over the multiple complete compressor cycles must
be within 0.5 [deg]F of the average determined over the first part of
the test (``part one'', the steady-state test period), and that all
cycles included in the averaging period would be included within the
defrost test period (``part two''). Id. Similarly, the test period
would end with a period of complete compressor cycles after a defrost
with the average compartment temperatures over that period within
[[Page 56807]]
0.5 [deg]F of the average determined over the first part of the test,
with all compressor cycles included in the averaging period included in
the defrost test period. Id.
AHAM expressed general support for this proposal and suggested that
the updates in HRF-1-2019 would address such issues. (AHAM, No. 18, pp.
9-10)
Compared to DOE's proposed approach in the December 2019 NOPR, HRF-
1-2019 has a similar method for determining the defrost test period.
Section 5.7.2.1.4 of HRF-1-2019 addresses systems with irregular
cycling compressors, stating that when using a compressor cycle pattern
to establish cycle A, cycle B, and the first part of the test, the
compressor cycle pattern shall be the same for all. This is depicted in
Figure 5-4 of HRF-1-2019. The method in section 5.7.2.1.4 of HRF-1-2019
allows for the use of a consistent pattern of irregular compressor
cycles to be used in place of single, regular compressor cycles.
Additionally, whereas the method proposed by DOE would require that all
compressor cycles included in the averaging period be included in the
defrost test period, the method in section 5.7.2.1.4 of HRF-1-2019 is
consistent with the method currently used in section 4.2.1.1 of
appendices A and B, and would exclude cycle A and cycle B (which
themselves may be cycle patterns) from the defrost part of the test
period.
DOE agrees that the method in section 5.7.2.1.4 of HRF-1-2019 is
consistent with the intent of the current test procedures in appendices
A and B and expects that it will improve representativeness,
reproducibility, and repeatability of test results for products with
irregular compressor cycling by ensuring consistent selection of cycle
A and cycle B used to define the defrost portion of the test for these
products. Additionally, the approach in HRF-1-2019 treats regular
repeating sequences of compressor operation as normal compressor
cycles, which ensures that units with regular and irregular compressor
cycling operation are tested in a consistent manner. While the HRF-1-
2019 approach represents a minor change from the method proposed in the
December 2019 NOPR (although it is consistent with the method included
in the draft of HRF-1-2019 for public review, as referenced in the
December 2019 NOPR), it accomplishes the same goal (i.e., ensuring the
part two test period captures all operation associated with a defrost).
Therefore, DOE is adopting this method through incorporation by
reference of HRF-1-2019.
Multiple Compressor Products
For products with multiple compressors, the asynchronous cycling of
the different compressors may make it more difficult to determine
whether average compartment temperatures are within 0.5 [deg]F of the
average temperatures for the first part of the test (the cycle A and
cycle B requirements discussed in the previous section). To address
this issue, DOE proposed in the December 2019 NOPR that if a multiple
compressor product cannot meet the 0.5 [deg]F criteria, the test period
shall include precool, defrost, and recovery time for the defrosted
compartment, as well as sufficient dual compressor cycles to allow the
length of the test period to be at least 24 hours, unless a second
defrost occurs prior to completion of 24 hours, in which case the
second part of the test shall include a whole number of complete
primary compressor cycles comprising at least 18 hours. 84 FR 70842,
70855. Under the proposed approach, the test period would start at the
end of a regular freezer compressor on-cycle after the previous defrost
occurrence (refrigerator or freezer). Id. The test period would also
include the target defrost and following freezer compressor cycles,
ending at the end of a freezer compressor on-cycle before the next
defrost occurrence (in either the refrigerator or freezer). Id. This
proposed approach is consistent with an existing waiver test method for
a multiple compressor product.\23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ In the notice granting the waiver, DOE determined that the
specified multiple-compressor models would not be able to reach the
temperature stability conditions specified in Appendix A. 80 FR
7851, 7853. (See case number RF-042) On November 18, 2020, DOE
extended the waiver to another GEA multiple-compressor combination
cooler refrigeration product basic model to address the same issue
of determining stability. 85 FR 73466. (See case number 2020-007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The updates in HRF-1-2019 incorporate methods for verifying steady
state conditions for multiple compressor products. Section 3.28(c) of
HRF-1-2019 instructs for multiple compressor products that the test
shall start after a minimum 24-hour stabilization run for each
temperature control setting or when the conditions of section 3.28(a)
(``part A stability'') are met. This is consistent with the existing
DOE steady-state condition requirement for multiple compressor
products, as specified in appendix A, section 4.2.3.2.
Section 5.7.2.4 of HRF-1-2019 provides test period selection
instructions for multiple compressor products in a manner consistent
with the proposed approach in the December 2019 NOPR. Section 5.7.2.4
specifies that a two-part test period shall be used for multiple
compressor products with automatic defrost; and for cycling compressor
systems, each part shall comprise at least 24 hours, unless a defrost
occurs prior to completion of 24 hours, in which case the test shall
comprise at least 18 hours. Additionally, section 5.7.2.4 of HRF-1-2019
clarifies that if at least one compressor cycles on and off, test
periods shall be based on compressor cycles associated with the primary
compressor system (these are referred to as ``primary compressor
cycles''), and if the freezer compressor cycles on and off, it shall be
the primary compressor system.
AHAM encouraged DOE to adopt the provisions in HRF-1-2019 in order
to improve the clarity of the testing instruction for multiple
compressor products. (AHAM, No. 18, pp. 9-10)
The new sections in HRF-1-2019 are generally consistent with DOE's
existing approach and the provisions included in an existing waiver.
In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE had also proposed regulatory text
that would allow for considering multiple compressor cycles if
individual cycles never meet the existing temperature criteria for test
period part two, similar to the approach described in the previous
irregular compressor cycling section. See 84 FR 70842, 70871. However,
the irregular compressor cycling issue is addressed by the existing
test procedure waiver provisions, which are incorporated into HRF-1-
2019, and does not require separate consideration in the test period
instructions.
Accordingly, DOE is adopting the multiple compressor test period
and stability provisions through incorporation by reference of HRF-1-
2019.
F. Defrost Energy Consumption
In addition to the changes discussed in section III.B.2 of this
final rule, HRF-1-2019 also includes a substantial revision to the two-
part energy use equations currently used to account for defrost energy
consumption for long-time automatic defrost control, variable defrost
control, and multiple defrost types in sections 5.8.2.1.2, 5.8.2.1.3,
and 5.8.2.1.6, respectively of HRF-1-2019. As stated in AHAM's comments
in response to the December 2019 NOPR, this change to the two-part
energy use equations is the one non-editorial change incorporated in
the published HRF-1-2019 compared to the public draft for review as
referenced in the December 2019 NOPR. (AHAM, No. 18 at pp. 2-3)
[[Page 56808]]
The updated two-part equation determines the defrost energy
consumption based on the compressor run-time between defrost periods
and the compressor run-time ratio as measured during testing. The
methodology currently in appendices A and B assumes a compressor run-
time ratio of 50 percent, or, 12 hours per day.
In response to the December 2019 NOPR, AHAM stated that using the
actual measured compressor run-time ratio in the equation improves the
reproducibility of the energy test procedure by harmonizing the two
methods (defrost-to-defrost method and two-part method) for testing
long time automatic defrost models. AHAM commented that this is a
significant improvement on the current DOE equation without introducing
additional test burden, as it only changes the way the data collected
under the current method is used. (AHAM, No. 18, pp. 2-3)
AHAM acknowledged that this change would result in increased energy
use ratings for certain products. AHAM collected data from
manufacturers to estimate the impact of this change on the energy use
measurement for models in product classes 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9, and
suggested corresponding changes to DOE's energy conservation standards
for these product classes. AHAM noted that its recommendations were
based on data from both minimally compliant and ENERGY STAR rated
products, as well as both variable speed compressor models and single
speed compressor models. AHAM indicated that the change in the equation
impacts ratings for variable speed compressor models and single speed
compressor models differently. (AHAM, No. 28, p. 1-4) A part of AHAM's
data summary and recommendation for adjustment of the standards is
reproduced in Table III.3.
Table III.3--Summary of AHAM Energy Use Impacts Based on Two-Part Equation Update
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact on annual energy usage rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-mount Bottom-mount Side-mount
refrigerator- refrigerator- refrigerator- Upright freezers
freezers (product freezers (product freezers (product (product class 9)
class 3) (%) class 5) (%) classes 4 & 7) (%) (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum.......................... -1.04 -1.37 -0.33 0.00
Maximum.......................... 1.59 5.38 3.27 3.79
Mean............................. 0.34 0.76 1.19 1.83
AHAM Recommendation for 0.00 2.50 1.50 2.50
Adjustment to Energy
Conservation Standards..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samsung requested that DOE maintain the reference to the equation
in AHAM HRF-1-2016, as proposed in the December 2019 NOPR, and not
update it with the equation in AHAM HRF-1-2019. Samsung commented that
it had informed AHAM of its findings that the updated energy
consumption equation for variable defrost systems in HRF-1-2019 is
technically incorrect and fails to accurately measure the defrost
energy consumption of refrigerators with variable defrost systems,
which in turn would result in higher defrost energy estimates for
refrigerators that have variable speed compressors and lower defrost
energy estimates for defrost systems using single speed compressors.
(Samsung, No. 24, pp. 3-4)
Samsung asserted that the equation in HRF-1-2019 is technically
incorrect because, unlike long-time automatic defrost control
algorithms, variable defrost control algorithms utilize a variety of
parameters in order to determine the timing of the next defrost
sequence, including: Compressor run time, number of door openings,
previous defrost length, room humidity, etc. Samsung stated that a
long-time automatic defrost control algorithm determines the timing of
the next defrost sequence simply based on the compressor time elapsed,
so it is appropriate to use an observed compressor run-time to predict
the number of defrosts per day if this is the control algorithm.
Samsung stated that the new HRF-1-2019 equation assumes that the number
of defrosts per day using a variable defrost control algorithm is
similarly dependent upon only the compressor time elapsed, which
Samsung claims is not true for most variable defrost control
algorithms. Samsung additionally showed that this calculation method
benefits cycling single-speed compressor systems over variable-speed
compressor systems. (Samsung, No. 24, pp. 4-8)
DOE agrees that the premise of the updated equation, which would
rely on test data rather than an assumption, would appear to improve
representativeness of the test procedure. However, DOE also
acknowledges Samsung's concern that variable defrost frequency is
determined not only by compressor run-time, and thus the updated
equation may not be representative for such products.
Furthermore, DOE notes that section 5.8.2.1.5 of HRF-1-2019, which
details the two-part energy use calculation for multiple-compressor
products with automatic defrost, still maintains an assumption of 50
percent run-time ratio.
Thus, using the HRF-1-2019 updated equation for single-compressor
products would cause a discrepancy between the calculations for single-
compressor and multiple-compressor products.
As stated in AHAM's comments, the average overall impact of the
calculation update included in HRF-1-2019 is expected to be small (2.5%
or less for the impacted product classes). Given the small expected
impact on measured energy use but significant questions regarding
representativeness, as indicated in Samsung's comments, DOE is not
incorporating this calculation update in this final rule. DOE is
specifying in section 5.3 of both appendices A and B that the existing
calculations be used in place of the equations in sections 5.8.2.1.2
through 5.8.2.1.6 of HRF-1-2019. Maintaining the existing calculations
is consistent with the approach as proposed in the December 2019 NOPR.
The current DOE test procedures do not include provisions for
calculating the two-part energy use for freezers with multiple
compressors or for freezers with multiple defrost cycle types, and DOE
is not aware of any such freezer products available on the market at
this time. Therefore, DOE is maintaining the existing approach and not
including provisions for multiple compressors or multiple defrost cycle
types in its amendments to appendix B (consistent with the approach as
proposed in the December 2019 NOPR).
HRF-1-2019 additionally includes updated provisions for the valid
range of CTL and CTM values (as described in the
following paragraph), which are used for the calculation of CT, the
compressor-on time between defrosts.
In both appendices A and B, the CTL value is designated
as the shortest compressor run-time between defrosts
[[Page 56809]]
used in the variable defrost control algorithm (greater than or equal
to 6 but less than or equal to 12 hours), or the shortest compressor
run time between defrosts observed for the test (if it is shorter than
the shortest run time used in the control algorithm and is greater than
6 hours), or 6 hours (if the shortest observed run time is less than 6
hours). (See section 5.2.1.3 of appendix A and section 5.2.1.3 of
appendix B) In the same section of both appendices, the CTM
value is designated as the maximum compressor run-time between defrosts
in hours (greater than CTL but not more than 96 hours).
(Id.) Hence, the current test procedures require that 6 <
CTL < 12 and CTL < CTM <= 96, in
hours.
By contrast, section 5.8.2.1.3 of HRF-1-2019 provides that 0 <
CTL < CTM <= 96, in hours. DOE notes that this
allows CTL values less than 6 hours, potentially resulting
in adjustments to the CT values currently used in the energy use
equations for current products. For example, if the shortest compressor
run-time between defrosts observed for the test is 4 hours, the
CTL value used in the current DOE test procedure would be 6
hours, whereas the CTL value used in HRF-1-2019 would be 4
hours. Such a change would typically increase the rated annual energy
use of the product by increasing the estimated defrost energy use
contribution in overall energy use.
At this time, DOE does not have information to indicate to what
extent manufacturer variable defrost control algorithms incorporate
CTL parameters less than 6 hours. As a result, DOE cannot
estimate to what extent current products would be affected by this
change. Also, absent information as to whether manufacturer defrost
control algorithms incorporate CTL parameters less than 6
hours, DOE cannot determine whether the current approach is less
representative than the approach taken in HRF-1-2019. Given the lack of
information on the extent to which the industry update impacts product
ratings and test procedure representativeness, DOE is not adopting the
new provisions for CTL and CTM in HRF-1-2019.
Instead, DOE is maintaining the current provisions, which specify that
6 < CTL < 12 and CTL < CTM <= 96, in
hours, consistent with the approach as proposed in the December 2019
NOPR.
G. Icemaking Energy Consumption
The current DOE test procedures for refrigeration products utilize
a standardized energy adder of 84 kWh per year to account for the
energy consumption of automatic icemakers. This adder approach was
originally proposed in 2010 based on data available at that time and is
based on data from AHAM \24\ suggesting an icemaking efficiency of
0.128 kWh/lb \25\ and an assumed ice consumption (i.e. icemaking
demand) of 1.8 lbs/day (0.128 kWh/lb x 1.8 lbs/day x 365 days/yr = 84
kWh/yr). 75 FR 29824 (May 27, 2010). As discussed in the December 2019
NOPR, since the establishment of the 84 kWh per year adder, DOE has
received information indicating that the actual icemaking demand is
considerably lower than the 1.8 lbs/day assumed as the basis for the 84
kWh per year adder. 84 FR 70842, 70848. DOE has also considered
incorporation of a test method to directly measure the icemaking energy
consumption. 79 FR 22319, 22341-22342.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The AHAM data consisted of 51 samples from a variety of
product classes and icemaker configurations.
\25\ The average icemaking efficiency was originally reported as
128 Wh per lb of ice produced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the June 2017 RFI, DOE presented the history of the icemaking
energy use adder, including all data gathered to that point and the
potential consideration of an active icemaking energy use test
procedure, and again requested comment on how its test procedures
should account for automatic icemaking energy consumption and on the
availability of any additional consumer use data. 82 FR 29780, 29782-
29783.
Based on comments received in response to the June 2017 RFI, DOE
proposed in the December 2019 NOPR that the icemaker energy use adder
be based on a lower value of daily ice consumption as identified
through data submitted by commenters. 84 FR 70842, 70849. Specifically,
DOE proposed an amended icemaking energy use adder of 28 kWh per year
based on an ice consumption value of 0.59 lbs/day, which represented
the median ice consumption from the provided data. Id. DOE also
initially determined that based on the reduced daily ice consumption,
the benefits of any laboratory-based test procedure to measure
icemaking energy use would likely not outweigh the burdens associated
with this testing (an estimated 50 percent increase in total testing
time). Id. DOE also proposed that the same fixed adder would apply for
any products with automatic icemaking, regardless of the number of
icemakers in the product. 84 FR 70842, 70850.
1. Icemaking Energy Use Adder
In response to the December 2019 NOPR, DOE received multiple
comments on the appropriateness of the proposals, which are addressed
in the following discussion.
NEEA, the CA IOUs, and CEC did not support DOE's proposed reduction
to 28 kWh per year, asserting that the median ice usage of 0.59 lbs/day
is too low to use for the icemaker adder. (NEEA, No. 26, pp. 5-6; CA
IOUs, No. 23, p. 2; CEC, No. 20, p. 2) Instead, NEEA and the CA IOUs
recommended that DOE account for the higher-volume ice users found in
the study by using the mean ice usage of 0.83 lbs/day. (CA IOUs, No.
23, p. 2; NEEA, No. 26, pp. 5-6) CEC additionally commented that DOE's
proposal does not differentiate between through-the-door and in-freezer
icemaker models, and CEC stated that studies showed differences in
rates of ice use. (CEC, No. 20, p. 2)
At the December 2019 NOPR Public Meeting, GEA stated that the
median value of 0.59 lbs/day assumed by DOE is based on a sample of
over 5,000 data points from across the 48 contiguous states, and that
this value was representative because the distribution of icemaking
values was skewed towards a larger population of lower values. GEA also
stated that its results were consistent with the studies by NEEA. (GEA,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 11, p. 35) AHAM reiterated its comments
on the previous rulemaking and supported DOE's proposal to amend the
adder to 28 kWh per year. Similar to the comment by GEA, AHAM commented
that the data from the NEEA and AHAM field use studies show that about
60-70% of users use less ice than the average, and that therefore the
median ice usage rate is a better value to use for the adder. (AHAM,
No. 18, p. 5)
AHAM also stated that it has no indication that consumer ice
consumption rates have changed since 2014, so the previous field use
studies still support a lower adder. AHAM also agreed with DOE's
proposal to use the same fixed icemaker adder for all products with
icemakers regardless of the number of icemakers. AHAM stated its
understanding that consumer ice consumption rates do not change based
on the number of automatic icemakers their product has. (AHAM, No. 18,
p. 6)
The comments received in response to the December 2019 NOPR refer
to the same data regarding ice consumption that DOE used to develop its
initial determination in the December 2019 NOPR. Absent any new data,
DOE is maintaining its preliminary conclusion from the December 2019
NOPR that the median ice consumption rate, 0.59 lbs/day, is appropriate
for the calculation of the icemaking energy use adder because of the
prevalence of lower ice consumption rates found in field use studies
(i.e., the median provides a more
[[Page 56810]]
representative value of consumer use than the mean).
In addition to discussing the representative daily ice use rate,
commenters also discussed icemaking efficiency and other factors that
may influence the corresponding energy use of an automatic icemaker.
The CA IOUs and CEC both stated that the current ice maker energy
use adder assumed a relatively high efficiency ice maker based on a
2011 study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(``NIST'') that showed a range of efficiencies in measured icemakers,
including units using over twice as much energy as assumed in DOE's
adder. (CA IOUs, No. 23, pp. 2-3; CEC, No. 20, p. 2) The CA IOUs
commented that should DOE decide to keep a no-test adder, they would
support an adder in the range of 43 to 50 kWh per year, based on the
average ice making consumption of 0.83 lbs/day with an ice making
efficiency of 0.142 to 0.165 kWh per lb of ice, which CA IOUs
characterized as being in alignment with the ice making efficiencies
found in the NOPR published on July 10, 2013 (See 78 FR 41610). (CA
IOUs, No. 23, pp. 2-3) NEEA supported an adder of 55 kWh per year based
on 0.83 lbs/day, but provided additional test data for six products for
which the average energy consumption was 35.53 kWh per year based on
the existing assumption of an icemaking rate of 0.59 lbs/day. (NEEA,
No. 26, pp. 5-6)
AHAM, Sub Zero, and FSI recommended DOE incorporate the 28 kWh per
year adder as specified in HRF-1-2019. (Sub Zero, No. 17, p. 2; AHAM,
No. 18, p. 4-5; FSI, No. 21, p.1)
DOE revisited the icemaker energy use data provided by AHAM,\26\
applying an updated assumption of daily ice consumption of 0.59 lbs/day
(in place of AHAM's original assumption of 1.8 lbs/day), which produced
a revised estimate of annual energy use of 27.6 kWh/year (0.128 kWh/lb
x 0.59 lbs/day x 365 days/yr = 27.6 kWh/yr). As noted, the AHAM data
consisted of 51 data samples from a variety of product classes and
icemaker configurations. Combining this revised estimate based on
AHAM's 51 data points with the 6 additional sample points provided by
NEEA results in an average energy use of 28.4 kWh/year across all 57
data points (using the current estimated icemaking rate of 0.59 lbs/
day). This combined set of available data supports the 28 kWh per year
adder as proposed in the December 2019 NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ As part of the development of the April 2014 Final Rule,
AHAM presented data derived from three consumer surveys and three
separate field tests which indicated a representative icemaking
energy use adder of 84 kWh per year based on a production rate of
1.8 lbs/day. This data summary, ``AHAM Update to DOE on Status of
Ice Maker Energy Test Procedure--November 19, 2009'' is filed under
Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-TP-0016 and can be found online at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2012-BT-TP-0016/document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on DOE's consideration of the data submitted by stakeholders
and for the reasons discussed, DOE is adopting an icemaker adder value
of 28 kWh per year by referencing HRF-1-2019.
2. Icemaking Energy Test Method Impacts
Certain commenters urged DOE to consider using a test to directly
determine the icemaking energy use instead of using a fixed energy
adder.
CEC opposed reducing the adder based on human behavior rather than
testing the efficiency of the ice maker. CEC claimed that by lowering
the icemaking energy use adder, DOE is artificially lowering the
efficiency of the entire refrigerator, which will negatively impact
consumers' ability to choose efficient refrigeration products. (CEC,
No. 20, p. 2)
NEEA, the CA IOUs, and CEC all commented that a no-test adder will
limit innovation in efficient automatic ice making techniques and may
lead to less efficient operating units. These parties recommended that
DOE reconsider a test method to directly measure the energy consumption
associated with automatic icemaking rather than permanently use an
energy adder. (NEEA, No. 26, p. 6; CA IOUs, No. 23, p. 3; CEC, No. 20,
pp. 2-3) The CA IOUs reiterated that the fixed adder was not intended
to be a permanent measure, and the original product testing did not
constitute a representative sample of products that would justify a
permanent simplification to persist in the test procedure. (CA IOUs,
No. 23, p. 3)
AHAM commented that because ice consumption is so low, there is
limited opportunity for energy savings, and the icemaker energy use is
a small percent (2.5-4.5%) of the rated energy use of typical
refrigeration products. Furthermore, AHAM stated that much of the
energy use associated with icemaking comes from the thermodynamic
energy required for freezing 90 [deg]F water. According to AHAM, there
are limited icemaker technologies that could be employed to improve
icemaker energy use, and some could sacrifice consumer utility (e.g.
speed of ice production) in order to improve efficiency. AHAM stated
that manufacturers are not likely to make a trade-off compromising
consumer utility (and, under EPCA, must not be required to) in pursuit
of energy efficiency. (AHAM, No. 18, p. 5)
NEEA also commented that the energy used by the ice maker appears
to be determined by the time required to produce the ice, and that
faster production requires a lower freezer compartment temperature and
corresponding increase in compressor operation time or speed. (NEEA,
No. 26, p. 5)
In addition to these potential efficiency impacts, commenters also
discussed costs directly associated with a potential test method for
measuring ice maker energy use.
CEC recommended that DOE incorporate the icemaker energy test
included in IEC 62552, indicating that manufacturers have not found the
costs of this test to be unduly burdensome. CEC asserted that the
explicit instructions for automatic ice makers in IEC 62552 would
guarantee repeatability of the test, and manufacturers would not incur
an additional burden to separately test the efficiency of the automatic
ice maker when present. According to CEC, the IEC 62552 test provides a
better representation of real-world conditions, lowers the testing
burden on manufacturers, and is more likely to lead to a measurement of
a representative average use cycle. (CEC, No. 20, pp. 3-4)
NEEA commented that a test to measure the energy use of an icemaker
should be optional. NEEA suggested that DOE provide the option of
allowing manufacturers to test an ice maker to the NIST test procedure
in place of the default value of the icemaker adder.\27\ (NEEA, No. 26,
p. 6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ NEEA did not specify the NIST test procedure referenced in
its comments. DOE is aware of a 2012 publication from NIST titled
Development of a Method to Measure the Energy Consumption of
Automatic Icemakers in Domestic Refrigerators with Single Speed
Compressors, as discussed further in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHAM commented that the burden of testing icemaker energy use is
high, resulting in a 50% increase in test time and a subsequent 25%
decrease in test capacity. AHAM stated that depending on the test
facility, the increased test time may also require the addition of test
rooms in order to recoup that lost capacity. AHAM asserted that this
was not cost-effective, specifying that the cost to operate an icemaker
for a year is low, about $2.92 per year based on a rate of 10.65[cent]
per kWh. (AHAM, No. 18, pp. 4-6) Sub Zero similarly commented that an
icemaker energy test was not justified for such a low contribution to
overall product energy use, and Sub
[[Page 56811]]
Zero supported the amended value of the adder, stating that it is
representative of field use data. (Sub Zero, No. 17, p. 2) FSI strongly
supported the continuation of using an adder instead of requiring
testing, stating that many smaller businesses do not have the means to
fix water temperature and pressure for consistent icemaker energy test
results and would have to outsource these tests at great cost. (FSI,
No. 21, p. 1)
DOE generally maintains its preliminary determination made in the
December 2019 NOPR that, based on more recent and complete data
suggesting a lower rate of daily ice consumption than had been
previously assumed, the benefits of any laboratory-based test procedure
to measure icemaking energy use would not outweigh the burdens
associated with this testing (an estimated 50 percent increase in total
testing time).
In its review of the IEC 62552 test method for measuring the energy
used to make ice, DOE notes that Annex F.3 of IEC 62552-3:2015
specifies: (1) The test is usually undertaken adjacent to (following or
prior to) a normal energy consumption test, and (2) the test is
conducted at ambient temperatures of 16 [deg]C and 32 [deg]C.
Conducting an icemaker test at two ambient temperatures would result in
a significant increase in test time in comparison to the current DOE
test procedure.
Furthermore, DOE found the IEC 62552 method to be limited in its
applicability to refrigeration products. The method in Annex F.3 of IEC
62552-3:2015 is specifically applicable only to tank-type automatic
icemakers, in which fresh water is used from an internal tank that is
manually filled by the user. IEC 62552:2015 does not provide a test
procedure for products that are connected to a mains water supply for
automatic icemaking, which represents nearly all automatic icemaking
models available on the market.
The NIST method,\28\ which is similar to that used by AHAM to
collect data on icemaker energy use, relies upon additional
measurements of ice production rates and covers products that connect
to a mains water supply. However, this test would represent an
estimated 50% increase in test duration for products with automatic
icemakers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ DOE reviewed the publication Development of a Method to
Measure the Energy Consumption of Automatic Icemakers in Domestic
Refrigerators with Single Speed Compressors, by David A. Yashar
(September 18, 2012). Available online at https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/TechnicalNotes/NIST.TN.1759.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE appreciates the comprehensive information provided by
interested parties on this topic. DOE has reviewed the additional test
method options but has concluded that the adoption of a 28 kWh per year
adder through the incorporation by reference of HRF-1-2019 is
justified. DOE has determined that based on the currently established
methods for measuring icemaking energy consumption, adopting a test
method to determine icemaking energy use would significantly increase
test burden with little potential to improve representativeness of
measured energy use. Thus, DOE concludes that a test procedure
incorporating the fixed energy use adder of 28 kWh per year results in
a measure of annual energy consumption that is representative of actual
consumer use while not being unduly burdensome to conduct.
For the aforementioned reasons, in this final rule, DOE is adopting
the 28 kWh per year icemaker adder through incorporation by reference
of HRF-1-2019, which includes in section 5.9 a constant adder of 0.0767
kWh per cycle (i.e., per day) for products with automatic icemakers.
3. Amended Energy Conservation Standards
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1), DOE is required to determine whether an
amended test procedure will alter the measured energy use of any
covered product. If an amended test procedure does alter measured
energy use, DOE is required to make a corresponding adjustment to the
applicable energy conservation standard to ensure that minimally-
compliant covered products remain compliant. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) In
the December 2019 NOPR, DOE stated that because the energy adder for
automatic icemakers would be reduced by 56 kWh per year (the difference
between the current value of 84 kWh per year and the proposed value of
28 kWh per year), the measured energy use of minimally-compliant
products with automatic icemakers would also decrease by 56 kWh per
year. 84 FR 70842, 70850. As a result, DOE proposed in the December
2019 NOPR to amend the energy conservation standards for refrigeration
products with automatic icemakers to reflect a reduction of 56 kWh per
year in the equations for maximum energy use. 84 FR 70842, 70850-70851.
DOE also proposed a one-year lead-time period for the required use of
the revised icemaker energy use adder and corresponding amended energy
conservation standards to reduce the burden on manufacturers of re-
certifying and re-labeling their products. 84 FR 70842, 70850-70851.
In response to the December 2019 NOPR, AHAM opposed a one-year lead
time to implement the change to the icemaker adder, stating that it
could lead to stranded investments and additional costs for
manufacturers to re-certify products and change EnergyGuide labels.
AHAM recommended that DOE not require compliance until the compliance
date of the next amended standards. AHAM asserted that this would be
consistent with DOE's previous rulemaking approach and makes sense to
address any impacts on measured energy. (AHAM, No. 18, p. 6-7) Sub Zero
stated that the amended icemaking energy use adder would be best
implemented on the effective date of the next standard. (Sub Zero, No.
17, p. 2) Whirlpool commented that any modifications to the icemaker
energy fixed adder should not be adopted before the compliance date for
the next amended energy conservation standard. (Whirlpool, No. 19, p.
1)
In response to the December 2019 NOPR, FSI encouraged DOE to make
no administrative changes that do not directly benefit the environment
or energy consumption. FSI asserted that changing the energy use adder
for icemakers in DOE's energy conservation standards would require
companies to spend time making changes to certifications for no real
change or benefit. FSI suggested that amendments of this nature could
be deferred until after recovery from the COVID-19 crisis. (FSI, No.
21, p. 1)
DOE recognizes the concerns raised by the commenters that the
proposal would create burden associated with this updated calculation,
including costs to re-certify products, re-label products, and update
marketing materials. In consideration of these comments, DOE will not
require testing with the amended icemaking energy use adder until the
compliance dates of the next amended energy conservation standards for
refrigeration products.\29\ Newly amended section 5.3 of both
appendices A and B specifies an exception to the application of Section
5.8.2, Energy Consumption, of HRF-1-
[[Page 56812]]
2019 to substitute an icemaking energy use adder of 0.23 kWh/cycle
(i.e., 84 kWh/year) to demonstrate compliance with the existing energy
conservation standards for refrigeration products at 10 CFR 430.32(a)
and (aa). As such, DOE is not amending energy conservation standards in
this final rule, and manufacturers will not be required to update
certification and labeling of products with automatic icemakers as a
result of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ DOE is addressing Energy Conservation Standards for
Consumer Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers in
Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0003 (maintained at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0003). DOE is separately
addressing Energy Conservation Standards for Miscellaneous
Refrigeration Products in Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039
(maintained at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Features Not Directly Addressed in Appendix A or Appendix B
The current test procedures in appendices A and B do not include
provisions specific to products with door-in-door designs (or other
features that reduce the thermal load on the product by limiting the
need for door openings) and smart functions such as display screens and
network-connected functionality.\30\ The following sections discuss
these features.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ The current DOE test procedures require that consumer
refrigeration products that have a communication module specifically
for demand-response functions be tested with the communication
module in the ``as shipped'' configuration. Section 2.10 of appendix
A and section 2.8 of appendix B. Section 5.5.2(g) of HRF-1-2008,
which is incorporated by reference into the existing DOE test
procedures, requires testing with customer-accessible features not
required for normal operation and which are electrically powered,
manually initiated, and manually terminated--which typically
includes any connected functions other than demand response-- set at
their lowest energy usage positions when adjustment is provided
(i.e., typically the off position).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Door-in-Door Designs
As discussed in section III.B of this final rule, the current DOE
test procedures for refrigeration products represent operation in
typical room conditions with door openings by testing at an elevated
ambient temperature with no door openings. (10 CFR 430.23(a)(7)) The
increased thermal load from the elevated ambient temperature represents
the thermal load associated with door openings--as warmer ambient air
mixes with the refrigerated air inside the cabinet--as well as the
loading of warmer items in the cabinet. This approach is maintained in
the updated industry test procedure, HRF-1-2019, which DOE is
incorporating by reference in this final rule.
As discussed in the June 2017 RFI, DOE is aware of certain products
available on the market that incorporate a door-in-door design, which
could reduce energy consumption during actual use by minimizing the
amount of cool cabinet air escaping to the room and being replaced by
warmer ambient air during door openings. 82 FR 29780, 29782.
In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE noted that door-in-door features,
and other systems such as camera display systems (which show the user
the interior of the cabinet without needing to open the door), have
some potential to reduce energy consumption associated with door
openings for these products. 84 FR 70842, 70855-70856. However, DOE
initially determined that there was not sufficient data regarding
consumer usage patterns of these features to warrant revisions to the
test procedures and did not propose amendments to address their use in
the December 2019 NOPR. Id.
In response to the December 2019 NOPR, Samsung commented that more
consumer use data must be collected to fully understand user behavior
before considering such changes in the test procedures. Samsung
recommended that separate product classes and energy conservation
standard levels be considered based on additional door designs.
(Samsung, No. 24, p. 4) AHAM agreed with DOE's proposed approach not to
amend the test procedure to account for newly developing features such
as door-in-door designs, display screens, and connected functions
without national, statistically significant, field use data on consumer
use. AHAM commented that these features are still developing, as are
consumers' use and understanding of them. (AHAM, No. 18, p. 10)
Specifically, AHAM indicated that it does not currently have data
regarding consumer use of the door-in-door feature or corresponding
energy impacts of different types of door openings; and that guesses,
estimations, or unsupported assumptions are not enough to justify test
procedure amendments as per the Data Quality Act.\31\ AHAM reiterated
that it would oppose any proposed change that would alter the closed-
door test, which it stated is based on data regarding ambient
conditions and door openings, and because door openings are difficult
to control and introduce significant variation. AHAM commented that
when statistically significant consumer data from field studies are
available, DOE should evaluate possible calculation or other approaches
that do not add test burden or change the representativeness,
repeatability, or reproducibility of the test. (AHAM, No. 18, p. 10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ DOE understands AHAM's reference to the ``Data Quality
Act'' to refer to section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat.
2763) and the associated implementing guidelines. DOE's implementing
guidelines are available at https://www.energy.gov/cio/downloads/2019-final-updated-version-doe-information-quality-guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHAM and Sub Zero also stated that regulating such features now
would likely stifle innovation and could in some cases prevent
manufacturers from including such features. (AHAM, No. 18, p. 10; Sub
Zero, No. 17, p. 2) Sub Zero commented that these features may offer a
consumer utility, and there is no data at present to determine if there
is an appreciable energy impact. Sub Zero suggested that DOE may want
to revisit this issue when data is available in the future, but HRF-1-
2019 currently provides appropriate instruction on how these features
are to be tested. (Sub Zero, No. 17, p. 2)
DOE does not currently have consumer usage data to support
amendments to the test procedures for refrigeration products with door-
in-door or camera display designs, which may reduce door openings. In
order to limit testing burden and avoid affecting the
representativeness, repeatability, or reproducibility of the test
procedure, DOE is maintaining the closed-door methodology as specified
in HRF-1-2019 and consistent with the approach proposed in the December
2019 NOPR. DOE would consider whether separate product classes and
energy conservation standards would be appropriate for products with
special door designs as part of an energy conservation standards
rulemaking.
2. Display Screens, Connected Functions, and Demand Response
Refrigeration products that include user control panels or displays
located on the front of the product are currently available on the
market. Many products incorporating these more advanced user interfaces
also include internet connections to allow for additional functions,
which can control the product's operation and provide additional
attributes, such as television or internet access. These attributes can
operate with many different control schemes, including activation by
proximity sensors.
The current DOE test procedures require that refrigeration products
with a communication module for demand-response functions be tested
with the communication module in the ``as shipped'' configuration.
Section 2.10 of appendix A and section 2.8 of appendix B. Additionally,
the current DOE test procedures, through reference to HRF-1-2008,
require testing with customer-accessible features not required for
normal operation and which are electrically powered, manually
[[Page 56813]]
initiated, and manually terminated, set at their lowest energy usage
positions when adjustment is provided.
In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE acknowledged that some consumers
will use connected functions if offered on a product; however,
connected products are in the early stages of development and
meaningful data on consumer use for connected functions or display
screens are currently unavailable. 84 FR 70842, 70856. DOE stated that
it does not want to limit innovation or hinder manufacturers from
offering these functions to consumers or impede the ability to provide
potential utility that these functions may offer. Id. Additionally, DOE
noted that connected functions vary by model, and that further
specifying a test to reflect the energy consumption of the various
connected functions would likely introduce test variability and
increase test burden. Id. For these reasons, DOE did not propose any
amendments to the existing test procedure approach to address connected
functions. Id.
In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE did propose to remove sections 2.10
of Appendix A and 2.8 of Appendix B, which state that products ``that
have a communication module for demand response functions that is
located within the cabinet shall be tested with the communication
module in the configuration set at the factory just before shipping,''
which would result in such communication modules being set to their
lowest energy usage positions (off). 84 FR 70842, 70856-70857. This
proposal was intended to maintain consistency between the
specifications for demand response functions and other features not
required for maintaining compartment temperatures per AHAM HRF-1-2016.
Id.
In response to the December 2019 NOPR, the Joint Commenters
encouraged DOE to investigate the energy consumption of display screens
and connected functions and how consumers use these functions so that
they can be captured in the test procedure in the future. The Joint
Commenters stated that DOE should maintain the existing approach of
testing demand-response function communication modules in the as-
shipped configuration and adopt a similar approach for other consumer-
accessible functions. The Joint Commenters claimed that with the
amendment proposed in the December 2019 NOPR, manufacturers may ship
products with demand-response function communication modules in a
position other than off, and yet that energy use would not be captured
in the product's rating. The Joint Commenters stated that consumers
could unknowingly end up paying more to operate the product without
receiving any benefit from the added functionality (e.g., if the
consumer's electric utility does not offer any demand response
program). The Joint Commenters added that by encouraging (but not
requiring) manufacturers to ship modules in the off position, the
existing approach does not impede innovation, and that the same would
apply for other consumer-accessible functions such as display screens.
(Joint Commenters, No. 22, p. 2-3)
NEEA recommended that DOE include network power consumption and
connected function modes in the test procedures by connecting the
appliance to a network for testing as recommended for normal use by the
supplier where such smart functions are provided. According to NEEA,
network connected devices with display panels are increasing in usage.
Data presented by NEEA showed that 75% of the ENERGY STAR refrigerator
sales from 2015 to 2019 are bottom-mount and 9.9% of those have
connected capability. NEEA stated that connected appliances offer
energy savings opportunities and opportunities for grid interaction to
reduce the demand on the grid. (NEEA, No. 26, p. 6)
The CA IOUs opposed DOE's proposal to set connected functionality
to the ``off'' position during testing and instead recommended a method
of incorporating the energy usage into the test procedures because the
active-mode power mode of smart functions may meaningfully add to the
unit's overall electrical load. The CA IOUs did not agree that that
measurement and disclosure of smart devices could limit innovation. The
CA IOUs referred to BSH's comment on the June 2017 RFI \32\ as evidence
that a method could be developed with low test burden and thus
encouraged DOE to reconsider incorporating a method to measure
networked functionality and, at the very least, test products in their
``as-shipped'' mode. (CA IOUs, No. 23, p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ In response to the June 2017 RFI, BSH commented that
display screens consume energy in normal use and that energy is not
captured during the existing test procedure. BSH supported including
some portion of the energy consumed by these features in the energy
test, if they do not add burden to the test procedure. BSH noted
that Appendix A refers to products with demand-response capability
and recommends that the test procedure instead refer to all
connected products. BSH stated that connected communication modules
consume a small amount of energy and can be easily captured during
the energy test. BSH recommended testing with the communication
module in the on position but not connected, consistent with the
European energy test. (BSH, No. 2 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CEC supported the comments from the CA IOUs and recommended that
standby mode and off mode of connected devices be measured, stating
that such measurements are required under EPCA. According to the CA
IOUs, DOE provided insufficient rationale excluding the measurement of
energy consumption associated with connected functions in the test
procedures. (CEC, No. 20, p. 4) The CA IOUs supported alignment with
the California Energy Commission's Low Power Modes Roadmap, based on
IEC Standard 62301:2011, which identifies data collection procedures
for standby power draw of several products. The CA IOUs recommended
that DOE should: (1) Collect data on power draw of smart functions in
all operational modes, (2) isolate the power required for network
connectivity in various covered smart appliances, (3) incorporate
standby and off-mode energy usage into the standard metrics. The CA
IOUs predicted that growth will not only occur among smart device
functions for higher end products where they currently exist, but
across the market, pushed in part by California Senate Bill No. 49:
Clean Power, Smart Power. (CA IOUs, No. 23, pp. 3-4)
At the December 2019 NOPR Public Meeting, NRDC stated that testing
connected functions in the off position--and assuming their component
energy consumption is 0 kWh/yr--is not representative of actual
consumer usage, and thus opposed DOE's proposed amendment. (NRDC,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 11, pp. 78 & 89)
AHAM commented that it is too soon to address display screens and
connected functions given the currently limited market penetration.
AHAM supported DOE's proposal to have these functions tested in their
lowest energy use positions to avoid stifling innovation and reduce
cumulative regulatory burden. AHAM also suggested that DOE could
incorporate by reference HRF-1-2019, which requires that devices with
communication modules be tested with the device on but not connected to
any communication network. AHAM asserted that this approach would not
impact measured energy use. (AHAM, No. 18, pp. 10-11) Whirlpool agreed
that the test procedure should not be amended for features like door-
in-door designs, display screens, and connected features at this time.
(Whirlpool, No. 19, p. 1) Both Whirlpool and Sub Zero supported AHAM's
recommendation to incorporate by reference HRF-1-2019.
[[Page 56814]]
(Whirlpool, No. 19, p. 1; Sub Zero, No. 17, p. 2)
Based on consideration of the industry test standard HRF-1-2019 and
of comments received in response to the December 2019 NOPR, DOE is
incorporating by reference section 5.5.2(r) of HRF-1-2019, which
specifies testing units with communication modules with the
communication modules on but not connected to any communication
network. DOE has determined that the adopted approach provides a
representative measure of the energy use during an average period of
use. DOE acknowledges that manufacturers market connected functions
available on refrigeration products and consumers purchasing such
products will likely use the connected functions to some extent.
However, the range of functions available varies by model and DOE lacks
information on how consumers use such functions (e.g., which connected
functions consumers choose to use, how frequently consumers access such
functions, etc.). Accordingly, DOE has determined that measuring energy
consumed by the communication module rather than any specific connected
function provides a representative, repeatable, and reproducible test
procedure for these products. Additionally, this approach reflects
current industry practice--as it is the approach specified in the
industry test procedure--and therefore does not add an undue burden.
In response to AHAM's concern, the adopted procedure for testing
communication modules measures energy consumed by the communication
module while not connected to a network rather than the energy consumed
while the unit is performing any connected functions. Therefore, the
test procedure would not introduce any additional burden associated
with testing multiple connected functions or modes that manufacturers
may choose to introduce in products with communication modules.
With regard to comments suggesting that DOE incorporate standby and
off-mode energy use into the standard metrics for refrigerators, as
discussed, EPCA requires that DOE amend its test procedures for
refrigeration products to integrate measures of standby mode and off
mode energy consumption into the overall energy efficiency, energy
consumption, or other energy descriptor, unless the current test
procedure already incorporates the standby mode and off mode energy
consumption, or if such integration is technically infeasible. (42
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) If an integrated test procedure is technically
infeasible, DOE must prescribe separate standby mode and off mode
energy use test procedures for the covered product, if a separate test
is technically feasible. (Id.) Any such amendment must consider the
most current versions of the IEC Standard 62301 and IEC Standard 62087
as applicable. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
As described in the April 2014 Final Rule, the DOE test procedures
for refrigeration products measure the energy use of these products
during extended time periods that include periods when the compressor
and other key components are cycled off. All of the energy these
products use during the ``off cycles'' is already included in the
measurements. 79 FR 22320, 22345. The approach of testing with
connected functions on but not connected to a network accounts for
energy consumption of such functions as part of active mode testing,
and as a result, this method provides consumers with representative
estimates of energy consumption. DOE reiterates its conclusion from the
April 2014 Final Rule that by measuring the energy use during ``off
cycles,'' the current test procedures already address EPCA's
requirement to include standby mode and off mode energy consumption in
the overall energy descriptor for refrigeration products. Id.
Through incorporation by reference of HRF-1-2019, DOE is adopting
the provision in section 5.5.2(r) of HRF-1-2019, which states that
units shipped with communication devices shall be tested with the
communication device on but not connected to any communication network.
This approach also requires testing communication modules for demand-
response functions on but not connected to a network, amending the
current requirements in sections 2.10 of appendix A and 2.8 of appendix
B that such communication modules be tested in the as-shipped position.
DOE does not currently have test data as to the extent of energy
use of connected functions. DOE did not receive such data from
stakeholders. DOE is adopting the amended approach in HRF-1-2019 as it
is reflective of the industry consensus for testing refrigeration
products with communication modules. Absent data which would suggest
otherwise, DOE agrees with AHAM's comment indicating that the HRF-1-
2019 approach is not expected to impact measured energy use and thus
would not impact compliance of these products. Hence DOE has also
concluded that an amendment to the energy conservation standards with
respect to this amendment is not necessary.
I. Corrections
In the December 2019 NOPR, DOE proposed several corrections to the
test procedures in appendices A and B, which included amendments to
improve clarity and consistency with the industry test procedure
proposed to be incorporated by reference (i.e., AHAM HRF-1-2016). 84 FR
70842, 70857-70858.
The inadvertent omission of calculations associated with the
optional test for models with two compartments and user-operable
controls according to AS/NZS 4474.1:2007 is discussed in section
III.B.2 of this final rule. Similarly, the updates to Table 1 in
appendices A and B, as proposed in the December 2019 NOPR, are
discussed in section III.B.2 of this final rule.
In this final rule, DOE is incorporating by reference HRF-1-2019,
which resolves the need to issue separate corrections regarding other
issues identified in the December 2019 NOPR. Re-ordering of definitions
in Appendix A is no longer necessary given the updated incorporation by
reference of HRF-1-2019. Similarly, updating appendix B, as proposed,
to ensure consistent terminology and instructions as appendix A is no
longer necessary given that the volume instructions for both Appendices
are now included by reference to HRF-1-2019. Additionally, HRF-1-2019
includes the proposed clarification to the instructions in section
3.2.1 of appendices A and B, which would have clarified the
instructions regarding electronic control settings for the median test.
DOE identified one additional error, which is corrected in this
final rule. In 10 CFR 429.14(d)(1), the instructions regarding
compartment volumes used to determine product category refer to 10 CFR
429.72(d) rather than (c). 10 CFR 429.72(d) provides the alternative
method for determining volume in miscellaneous refrigeration products.
10 CFR 429.72(c) provides this method for refrigerators, refrigerator-
freezers, and freezers. DOE is amending 10 CFR 429.14(d)(1) to
correctly refer to 10 CFR 429.72(c).
J. Effective Date, Compliance Date, and Waivers
The effective date for the adopted test procedure amendments will
be 30 days after publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. EPCA prescribes that all representations of energy efficiency
and energy use, including those made on marketing materials and product
[[Page 56815]]
labels, must be made in accordance with an amended test procedure,
beginning 180 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)) EPCA provides an allowance for
individual manufacturers to petition DOE for an extension of the 180-
day period if the manufacturer may experience undue hardship in meeting
the deadline. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3)) To receive such an extension,
petitions must be filed with DOE no later than 60 days before the end
of the 180-day period and must detail how the manufacturer will
experience undue hardship. (Id.)
As discussed in section III.G.3, compliance with the amended
icemaking energy use adder for products with one or more automatic
icemakers will be required for representations of energy use on or
after the compliance date of any amended energy conservation standards
for refrigeration products.
Upon the compliance date of test procedure provisions in this final
rule, any waivers that had been previously issued and are in effect
that pertain to issues addressed by such provisions are terminated. (10
CFR 430.27(h)(3)) Recipients of any such waivers are required to test
the products subject to the waiver according to the amended test
procedure as of the compliance date of the amended test procedure. The
amendments adopted in this document pertain to issues addressed by a
waiver granted to GEA (case nos. RF-042 and 2020-007). Per 10 CFR
430.27(l), the publication of this final rule eliminates the need for
the continuation of granted waivers. As discussed previously, DOE is
not amending the test procedure to address the waiver granted to
Liebherr (case no. RF-035), as the products for which the waiver was
required are no longer available and the waiver is no longer necessary.
The publication of this final rule terminates this waiver consistent
with 10 CFR 430.27(h)(3) and 10 CFR 430.27(l). Under 10 CFR
430.27(h)(3), the waiver automatically terminates on the date on which
use of the test procedure is required to demonstrate compliance.
K. Test Procedure Costs
In this document, DOE amends the existing test procedures for
refrigeration products by incorporating by reference the current
version of an industry standard, with minor modifications as discussed
in the previous sections of this final rule. This updated reference
results in the following substantive changes compared to the existing
test approach: (1) Clarifying test setup provisions; (2) specifying
certain test condition measurements and applicability to data recording
periods; (3) allowing for stabilization data to also serve as test data
for certain product types; (4) specifying stabilization requirements
for products not able to meet the existing requirements; (5) revising
the automatic icemaking energy consumption adder; and (6) requiring
connected function communication modules to be on, but not connected to
a network, for testing.
DOE's analysis of these amendments indicates a resulting net cost
savings to manufacturers. Further discussion of the cost impacts of the
test procedure amendments are presented in the following paragraphs.
1. Amendment Regarding the Stabilization and Test Periods
DOE is adopting the provisions in HRF-1-2019 to combine the
stabilization period with the test period for certain models of
refrigeration products. This would decrease test burden by shortening
the test duration for any model with stabilization currently determined
according to sections 2.9(a) of appendix A or 2.7(a) of appendix B and
with non-automatic defrost, or that would be tested to using the two-
part test period. This amendment would apply to all refrigeration
products.
Based on review of the CCMS, DOE has identified 3,618 models of
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, and 583 models of
MREFs that would be impacted by this amendment.
DOE expects that this amendment would decrease test duration by at
least 6 hours for these models (reflecting the 3-hour minimum test
period duration at two temperature settings) and up to 48 hours
(reflecting 24-hour test periods at each setting). Based on an
estimated decreased test duration of at least 6 hours (i.e., a decrease
in test time of greater than ten percent), DOE assumed a cost savings
of approximately ten percent (i.e., $500 per test).\33\ Additionally,
based on data from DOE's Compliance Certification Database, DOE
anticipates that manufacturers would replace or modify existing models
every 3.5 years. Therefore, on average, refrigerator, refrigerator-
freezer, and freezer and MREF manufacturers would introduce
approximately 1,200 new or modified covered models each year that would
use these shorter overall testing periods. Because DOE requires
manufacturers to test at least two units per model, manufacturers would
on average conduct 2,400 tests annually using these shorter overall
testing periods. Using these estimates, DOE anticipates industry cost
savings of approximately $1,200,000 per year for refrigeration product
manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ DOE expects that costs would decrease by a smaller
percentage than the total reduction in test time due to fixed
overhead and labor requirements for testing (i.e., test set up and
data analysis would be unchanged). The total cost per test is based
on FSI's comment stating between $4,500 and $5,000 per refrigerator
test conducted at outside laboratories. (FSI, No. 6 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE expects that the amendment would not impact the representations
of energy efficiency or energy use for refrigeration products currently
on the market. Manufacturers would be able to rely on data generated
under the current test procedure. As such, manufacturers would not be
required to retest refrigeration products as a result of DOE's adoption
of the amendment to the test procedure stabilization period.
2. Amendment Regarding Energy Use Associated With Automatic Icemaking
DOE is amending the automatic icemaker energy use adder in the test
procedures for refrigeration products with automatic icemakers (these
amendments would reflect an energy use reduction of 56 kWh per year).
As discussed in section III.G.3 of this document, DOE is not requiring
use of the amended automatic icemaker energy use adder until the
compliance dates of any amended energy conservation standards for
refrigeration products that account for the amended energy use value.
Therefore, manufacturers will not be required to re-certify or re-label
products with automatic icemakers as a result of the amended automatic
icemaker energy use adder adopted in this final rule and will incur no
corresponding costs.
3. Impact of the Other Amendments
DOE anticipates that the remainder of the amendments would not
impact manufacturers' test or certification costs. Most of the
amendments provide additional specificity to the applicability and
conduct of the test procedures. These amendments include: (1)
Clarifying test setup provisions; (2) specifying certain test condition
measurements and applicability to data recording periods; (3)
specifying stabilization requirements for products not able to meet the
existing requirements; and (4) requiring connected function
communication modules to be on, but not connected to a network, for
testing.
While these amendments are not expected to impact measured energy
use compared to the existing test procedure, manufacturers may opt to
re-test models according to the amended test procedure. Because DOE
requires
[[Page 56816]]
manufacturers to test at least two units per model to determine
ratings, DOE estimates this optional re-testing cost would be $9,000
per re-tested model.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Based on the initial $5,000 per unit testing cost estimate
and the $500 savings due to the stabilization criteria proposed in
this amended test procedure. DOE estimates that the stabilization
period time savings would apply to most consumer refrigeration
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has determined that these other amendments would not require
changes to the designs of refrigeration products, and that the
amendments would not impact the utility or availability of these
products. The other amendments would not impact the representations of
energy efficiency or energy use of refrigeration products. As a result,
manufacturers would be able to rely on data generated under the current
test procedure. Manufacturers would not be required to re-test
refrigeration products as a result of DOE's adoption of the other
amendments to the test procedure.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has determined this
test procedure rulemaking does not constitute ``significant regulatory
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive order (``E.O.'') 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993).
Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the Executive
Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in
OMB.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any
final rule where the agency was first required by law to publish a
proposed rule for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the
rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order
13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,''
67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on
February 19, 2003 to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on
small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking
process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available
on the Office of the General Counsel's website: https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
DOE reviewed this adopted rule to amend the test procedures for
refrigeration products under the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February
19, 2003. This final rule amends DOE's refrigeration products test
procedures to incorporate by reference AHAM HRF-1-2019, which includes
the following substantive changes compared to the existing test
procedures: (1) Clarifying test setup provisions; (2) specifying
certain test condition measurements and applicability to data recording
periods; (3) allowing for stabilization data to also serve as test data
for certain product types; (4) specifying stabilization requirements
for products not able to meet the existing requirements; (5) revising
the automatic icemaking energy consumption adder; and (6) requiring
connected function communication modules to be on, but not connected to
a network, for testing. DOE concludes that this final rule will not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities,
and the factual basis for this certification is set forth in the
following paragraphs.
DOE uses the Small Business Administration's (``SBA'') small
business size standards to determine whether manufacturers qualify as
small businesses, which are listed by the North American Industry
Classification System (``NAICS'').\35\ The SBA considers a business
entity to be a small business, if, together with its affiliates, it
employs less than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR
part 121. The 2017 NAICS code for refrigeration products is 335220,
major household appliance manufacturing.\36\ The threshold number for
NAICS code 335220 is 1,500 employees. This employee threshold includes
all employees in a business's parent company and any other
subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Available online at: https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards.
\36\ The NAICS Association updated its industry classification
codes in early 2017. The previous 2012 NAICS code for consumer
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers was 335222,
household refrigerator and home freezer manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the manufacturers supplying refrigeration products are
large multinational corporations. DOE conducted a focused inquiry into
small business manufacturers of products covered by this rulemaking.
DOE used the CCMS Database \37\ for miscellaneous refrigeration
products and for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers to
create a list of companies that sell refrigeration products covered by
this rulemaking in the United States. DOE identified a total of 42
original equipment manufacturers that sell refrigeration products in
the United States market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data. Accessed
September, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE then reviewed these companies to determine whether the entities
met the SBA's definition of ``small business'' and screened out any
companies that do not offer products covered by this rulemaking, do not
meet the definition of a ``small business,'' or are foreign-owned and
operated. Based on this review, DOE has identified five domestic
manufacturers of refrigeration products that are potential small
businesses. Through this analysis, DOE has determined the expected
effects of this rulemaking on these covered small businesses and
whether a FRFA was needed (i.e., whether DOE could certify that this
rulemaking would not have a significant impact).
As described, DOE is incorporating by reference the latest version
of the industry standard HRF-1-2019, which results in certain
substantive changes in the test procedure compared to the existing
approach, some of which may impact costs incurred by manufacturers.
DOE is combining the stabilization period with the test period for
certain products. This change would likely decrease test duration by at
least 6 hours for these models (reflecting the 3-hour minimum test
period duration at two temperature settings) and up to 48 hours
(reflecting 24-hour test periods at each setting). 84 FR 70842, 70862.
DOE estimated that this would translate to a cost savings of $500 per
test for these models (an estimated 10 percent of total testing costs).
Id. Based on review of the CCMS Database, DOE identified 325 models
affected by the amendment of the stabilization period, representing
five small domestic manufacturers. Id. Additionally, based on data from
DOE's CCMS Database, DOE anticipated that small domestic manufacturers
would replace or modify existing models every 3.5 years; therefore, on
average, small domestic manufacturers would introduce approximately 93
new or modified models each year that would use these shorter overall
testing periods. Id. Given that DOE requires manufacturers to test at
least two units per model, small manufacturers would on average conduct
186 tests annually using these shorter overall testing periods. Id.
Using these estimates, DOE anticipated the stabilization amendment
would save small domestic manufacturers approximately $93,000 per year.
Id. Therefore, DOE determined that this proposed amendment to the test
procedure would lead to cost savings for small domestic manufacturers.
Id.
[[Page 56817]]
FSI commented in response to the December 2019 NOPR that DOE energy
tests for small companies without their own test facilities may cost
$5,000 per test, and this cost is an impediment to innovation. FSI
further supported the use of computer-aided design (``CAD'') instead of
volume measurements to reduce costs and improve accuracy and
reproducibility of testing. FSI strongly urged DOE to simplify setup
and test procedures to drive this cost down. FSI observed that
innovation often comes from new and small companies and that increasing
regulatory burden or complexity is a significant barrier to the kind of
innovation taking place in these businesses. (FSI, No. 21, p. 2)
DOE recognizes these comments and notes they are similar to those
submitted by FSI in response to the June 2017 RFI (FSI, No. 6, pp. 2-
3), which DOE considered in the December 2019 NOPR. 84 FR 70842, 70862.
DOE is not establishing any amendments to the test procedures for
refrigeration products that would increase the cost of these tests at
third-party or manufacturer test laboratories. DOE also understands
that relying on CAD to calculate volumes decreases test burden compared
to physically measuring volume on each test unit. Accordingly, DOE
already allows manufacturers to use such designs in certifying product
volumes. In 10 CFR 429.72, DOE states that total refrigerated volume of
a basic model may be determined by performing a calculation of the
volume based upon CAD models of the basic model in lieu of physical
measurements of a production unit of the basic model, according to the
applicable provisions in the test procedures for measuring volume.
Regarding complexity of the test procedures, DOE notes that the
amendments established in this final rule harmonize with the industry
test method, improve clarity, and overall are expected to decrease
costs associated with testing.
As discussed in section III.K of this document, DOE does not expect
any other amendments established in this final rule to impact testing,
certification, or labelling costs for manufacturers.
Overall, DOE estimates that the amendments for small businesses
would translate to a cost savings of approximately $93,000 each year.
Therefore, DOE concludes that the cost effects accruing from the
final rule would not have a ``significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,'' and that the preparation of a
FRFA is not warranted. DOE has submitted a certification and supporting
statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of refrigeration products must certify to DOE that
their products comply with any applicable energy conservation
standards. To certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test
data for their products according to the DOE test procedures, including
any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established
regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for
all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including
refrigeration products. (See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The
collection-of-information requirement for the certification and
recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''). This requirement has been approved
by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for
the certification is estimated to average 35 hours per response,
including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this final rule, DOE establishes test procedure amendments that
it expects will be used to develop and implement future energy
conservation standards for refrigeration products. DOE has determined
that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically
excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10
CFR part 1021. Specifically, DOE has determined that adopting test
procedures for measuring energy efficiency of consumer products and
industrial equipment is consistent with activities identified in 10 CFR
part 1021, appendix A to subpart D, A5 and A6. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4,
1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that
have federalism implications. The Executive order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the states and
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final
rule and determined that it will not have a substantial direct effect
on the states, on the relationship between the national government and
the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the
products that are the subject of this final rule. States can petition
DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on
criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is
required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines
key terms; and (6) addresses
[[Page 56818]]
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations
in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine
whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them.
DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the
extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards
of Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each federal agency to assess the effects of federal
regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of state, local, and tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997,
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available
at https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this
final rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined
that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a
mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in
any year, so these requirements do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity
of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it
is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation will not
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant
to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information
Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which
are available at https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final
rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy
supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has
it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator
of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and,
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788;
``FEAA'') Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where
a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the
notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and
background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE
to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC
concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on
competition.
The modifications to the test procedures for refrigeration products
adopted in this final rule incorporate testing methods contained in
certain sections of HRF-1-2019. DOE has evaluated this standard and is
unable to conclude whether it fully complies with the requirements of
section 32(b) of the FEAA (i.e., whether it was developed in a manner
that fully provides for public participation, comment, and review.) DOE
has consulted with both the Attorney General and the Chairman of the
FTC about the impact on competition of using the methods contained in
these standards and has received no comments objecting to their use.
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
In this final rule, DOE incorporates by reference the test
procedure published
[[Page 56819]]
by AHAM, titled ``Energy and Internal Volume of Consumer Refrigeration
Products,'' HRF-1-2019. HRF-1-2019 is an industry-accepted test
procedure for measuring the energy consumption of electric (single-
phase, alternating current) refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers,
freezers or miscellaneous refrigeration products. Specifically, the
test procedure codified by this final rule references various sections
of HRF-1-2019 that address test setup, instrumentation, test conduct,
and calculations.
Copies of HRF-1-2019 can be obtained from the Association of Home
Appliance Manufacturers, 1111 19th Street NW, Suite 402, Washington, DC
20036, (202) 872-5955, or go to https://www.AHAM.org.
The incorporation by reference of AS/NZS 4474.1:2007 in appendix A
to subpart B of part 430 has already been approved by the Director of
the Federal Register and there are no changes in this final rule.
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
rule.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 429
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small
businesses.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on September
29, 2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of
Energy. That document with the original signature and date is
maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance
with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on September 30, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and
430 of chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth
below:
PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
2. Section 429.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(3) and (d) to
read as follows:
Sec. 429.14 Consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and
freezers.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Pursuant to Sec. 429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall
include the following additional product-specific information: Whether
the basic model has variable defrost control (in which case,
manufacturers must also report the values, if any, of CTL
and CTM (See section 5.3 of appendix A and appendix B to
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430) used in the calculation of energy
consumption), whether the basic model has variable anti-sweat heater
control (in which case, manufacturers must also report the values of
heater Watts at the ten humidity levels (5%, 15%, 25%, 35%, 45%, 55%,
65%, 75%, 85%, and 95%) used to calculate the variable anti-sweat
heater ``Correction Factor''), and whether testing has been conducted
with modifications to the standard temperature sensor locations, as
specified in section 5.1(g) of appendices A and B to subpart B of 10
CFR part 430, as applicable.
* * * * *
(d) Product category determination. Each basic model shall be
certified according to the appropriate product category as defined in
Sec. 430.2 based on compartment volumes and compartment temperatures.
(1) Compartment volumes used to determine product category shall be
the mean of the measured compartment volumes for each tested unit of
the basic model according to the provisions in section 4.1 of appendix
A of subpart B of part 430 of this chapter for refrigerators and
refrigerator-freezers and section 4.1 of appendix B of subpart B of
part 430 of this chapter for freezers, or the compartment volumes of
the basic model as calculated in accordance with Sec. 429.72(c); and
(2) Compartment temperatures used to determine product category
shall be the mean of the measured compartment temperatures at the
coldest setting for each tested unit of the basic model according to
the provisions of appendix A of subpart B of part 430 of this chapter
for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers and appendix B of subpart B
of part 430 of this chapter for freezers.
0
3. Section 429.61 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(3) and (d) to
read as follows:
Sec. 429.61 Consumer miscellaneous refrigeration products.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Pursuant to Sec. 429.12(b)(13), a certification report coolers
or combination cooler refrigeration products shall include the
following additional product-specific information: Whether the basic
model has variable defrost control (in which case, manufacturers must
also report the values, if any, of CTL and CTM
(See section 5.3 in appendix A to subpart B of part 430 of this
chapter) used in the calculation of energy consumption), whether the
basic model has variable anti-sweat heater control (in which case,
manufacturers must also report the values of heater Watts at the ten
humidity levels (5%, 15%, 25%, 35%, 45%, 55%, 65%, 75%, 85%, and 95%)
used to calculate the variable anti-sweat heater ``Correction
Factor''), and whether testing has been conducted with modifications to
the standard temperature sensor locations, as specified in section
5.1(g) of appendix A to subpart B of part 430 of this chapter.
* * * * *
(d) Product category determination. Each basic model of
miscellaneous refrigeration product must be certified according to the
appropriate product category as defined in Sec. 430.2 based on
compartment volumes and compartment temperatures.
(1) Compartment volumes used to determine product category shall be
the mean of the measured compartment volumes for each tested unit of
the basic model according to the provisions in section 4.1 of appendix
A to subpart B of part 430 of this chapter, or the compartment volumes
of the basic model as calculated in accordance with Sec. 429.72(d);
and
[[Page 56820]]
(2) Compartment temperatures used to determine product category
shall be the mean of the measured compartment temperatures at the
coldest setting for each tested unit of the basic model according to
the provisions of appendix A to subpart B of part 430 of this chapter.
For cooler compartments with temperatures below 39 [deg]F (3.9 [deg]C)
but no lower than 37 [deg]F (2.8 [deg]C), the compartment temperatures
used to determine product category shall also include the mean of the
measured compartment temperatures at the warmest setting for each
tested unit of the basic model according to the provisions of appendix
A to subpart B of part 430 of this chapter.
0
4. Section 429.134 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (l)(2)
to read as follows:
Sec. 429.134 Product-specific enforcement provisions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Test for models with two compartments, each having its own
user-operable temperature control. The test described in section 5.2(b)
of the applicable test procedure for refrigerators or refrigerator-
freezers in appendix A to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 shall be used
for all units of a tested basic model before DOE makes a determination
of noncompliance with respect to the basic model.
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(2) Test for models with two compartments, each having its own
user-operable temperature control. The test described in section 5.2(b)
of the applicable test procedure in appendix A to subpart B part 430 of
this chapter shall be used for all units of a tested basic model before
DOE makes a determination of noncompliance with respect to the basic
model.
* * * * *
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
0
5. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
6. Section 430.3 is amended by revising paragraph (i)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 430.3 Materials incorporated by reference.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(4) AHAM HRF-1-2019 (``HRF-1-2019''), Energy and Internal Volume of
Consumer Refrigeration Products, Copyright (copyright) 2019, IBR
approved for appendices A and B to subpart B of this part.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 430.23 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(ii),
(a)(2)(ii), (a)(3)(ii), (a)(4) and (5), (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(ii),
(b)(3)(ii), (b)(4) and (5); (ff)(1)(ii), (ff)(2)(ii), (ff)(3)(ii), and
(ff)(4) and (5) to read as follows:
Sec. 430.23 Test procedures for the measurement of energy and water
consumption.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The average per-cycle energy consumption for the standard
cycle in kilowatt-hours per cycle, determined according to appendix A
of this subpart; and
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Half the sum of the average per-cycle energy consumption for
the standard cycle and the average per-cycle energy consumption for a
test cycle type with the anti-sweat heater switch in the position set
at the factory just before shipping, each in kilowatt-hours per cycle,
determined according to appendix A of this subpart; and
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) The average per-cycle energy consumption for the specified
cycle type, determined according to appendix A of this subpart; and
* * * * *
(4) The energy factor, expressed in cubic feet per kilowatt-hour
per cycle, shall be:
(i) For models without an anti-sweat heater switch, the quotient
of:
(A) The adjusted total volume in cubic feet, determined according
to appendix A of this subpart, divided by--
(B) The average per-cycle energy consumption for the standard cycle
in kilowatt-hours per cycle, determined according to appendix A of this
subpart, the resulting quotient then being rounded to the second
decimal place; and
(ii) For models having an anti-sweat heater switch, the quotient
of:
(A) The adjusted total volume in cubic feet, determined according
to appendix A of this subpart, divided by--
(B) Half the sum of the average per-cycle energy consumption for
the standard cycle and the average per-cycle energy consumption for a
test cycle type with the anti-sweat heater switch in the position set
at the factory just before shipping, each in kilowatt-hours per cycle,
determined according to appendix A of this subpart, the resulting
quotient then being rounded to the second decimal place.
(5) The annual energy use, expressed in kilowatt-hours per year and
rounded to the nearest kilowatt-hour per year, shall be determined
according to appendix A of this subpart.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The average per-cycle energy consumption for the standard
cycle in kilowatt-hours per cycle, determined according to appendix B
of this subpart; and
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Half the sum of the average per-cycle energy consumption for
the standard cycle and the average per-cycle energy consumption for a
test cycle type with the anti-sweat heater switch in the position set
at the factory just before shipping, each in kilowatt-hours per cycle,
determined according to appendix B of this subpart; and
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) The average per-cycle energy consumption for the specified
cycle type, determined according to appendix B of this subpart; and
* * * * *
(4) The energy factor, expressed in cubic feet per kilowatt-hour
per cycle, shall be:
(i) For models without an anti-sweat heater switch, the quotient
of:
(A) The adjusted total volume in cubic feet, determined according
to appendix B of this subpart, divided by--
(B) The average per-cycle energy consumption for the standard cycle
in kilowatt-hours per cycle, determined according to appendix B of this
subpart, the resulting quotient then being rounded to the second
decimal place; and
(ii) For models having an anti-sweat heater switch, the quotient
of:
(A) The adjusted total volume in cubic feet, determined according
to appendix B of this subpart, divided by--
(B) Half the sum of the average per-cycle energy consumption for
the standard cycle and the average per-cycle energy consumption for a
test cycle type with the anti-sweat heater switch in the position set
at the factory just before shipping, each in kilowatt-hours per cycle,
determined according to appendix B of this subpart, the resulting
quotient then being rounded to the second decimal place.
[[Page 56821]]
(5) The annual energy use, expressed in kilowatt-hours per year and
rounded to the nearest kilowatt-hour per year, shall be determined
according to appendix B of this subpart.
* * * * *
(ff) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The average per-cycle energy consumption for the standard
cycle in kilowatt-hours per cycle, determined according to appendix A
of this subpart; and
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Half the sum of the average per-cycle energy consumption for
the standard cycle and the average per-cycle energy consumption for a
test cycle type with the anti-sweat heater switch in the position set
at the factory just before shipping, each in kilowatt-hours per cycle,
determined according to appendix A of this subpart; and
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) The average per-cycle energy consumption for the specified
cycle type, determined according to appendix A of this subpart; and
* * * * *
(4) The energy factor, expressed in cubic feet per kilowatt-hour
per cycle, shall be:
(i) For models without an anti-sweat heater switch, the quotient
of:
(A) The adjusted total volume in cubic feet, determined according
to appendix A of this subpart, divided by--
(B) The average per-cycle energy consumption for the standard cycle
in kilowatt-hours per cycle, determined according to appendix A of this
subpart, the resulting quotient then being rounded to the second
decimal place; and
(ii) For models having an anti-sweat heater switch, the quotient
of:
(A) The adjusted total volume in cubic feet, determined according
to appendix A of this subpart, divided by--
(B) Half the sum of the average per-cycle energy consumption for
the standard cycle and the average per-cycle energy consumption for a
test cycle type with the anti-sweat heater switch in the position set
at the factory just before shipping, each in kilowatt-hours per cycle,
determined according to appendix A of this subpart, the resulting
quotient then being rounded to the second decimal place.
(5) The annual energy use, expressed in kilowatt-hours per year and
rounded to the nearest kilowatt-hour per year, shall be determined
according to appendix A of this subpart.
* * * * *
0
8. Appendix A to subpart B of part 430 is revised to read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and
Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products
Note: Prior to April 11, 2022, any representations of volume and
energy use of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and
miscellaneous refrigeration products must be based on the results of
testing pursuant to either this appendix or the procedures in
appendix A as it appeared at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A,
in the 10 CFR parts 200 to 499 edition revised as of January 1,
2019. Any representations of volume and energy use must be in
accordance with whichever version is selected. On or after April 11,
2022, any representations of volume and energy use must be based on
the results of testing pursuant to this appendix.
For refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, the rounding
requirements specified in sections 4 and 5 of this appendix are not
required for use until the compliance date of any amendment of
energy conservation standards for these products published after
October 12, 2021.
1. Referenced Materials
DOE incorporated by reference AHAM HRF-1-2019, Energy and
Internal Volume of Consumer Refrigeration Products (``HRF-1-2019''),
and AS/NZS 4474.1:2007, Performance of Household Electrical
Appliances--Refrigerating Appliances; Part 1: Energy Consumption and
Performance, Second Edition (``AS/NZS 4474.1:2007''), in their
entirety in Sec. 430.3; however, only enumerated provisions of
these documents are applicable to this appendix. If there is any
conflict between HRF-1-2019 and this appendix or between AS/NZS
4474.1:2007 and this appendix, follow the language of the test
procedure in this appendix, disregarding the conflicting industry
standard language.
(a) AHAM HRF-1-2019, (``HRF-1-2019''), Energy and Internal
Volume of Consumer Refrigeration Products:
(i) Section 3--Definitions, as specified in section 3 of this
appendix;
(ii) Section 4--Method for Determining the Refrigerated Volume
of Consumer Refrigeration Products, as specified in section 4.1 of
this appendix;
(iii) Section 5--Method for Determining the Energy Consumption
of Consumer Refrigeration Products (excluding Table 5-1 and sections
5.5.6.5, 5.8.2.1.2, 5.8.2.1.3, 5.8.2.1.4, 5.8.2.1.5, and 5.8.2.1.6),
as specified in section 5 of this appendix; and
(iv) Section 6--Method for Determining the Adjusted Volume of
Consumer Refrigeration Products, as specified in section 4.2 of this
appendix;
(b) AS/NZS 4474.1:2007, (``AS/NZS 4474.1:2007''), Performance of
Household Electrical Appliances--Refrigerating Appliances; Part 1:
Energy Consumption and Performance, Second Edition:
(i) Appendix M--Method of Interpolation When Two Controls are
Adjusted, as specified in sections 5.2(b) and 5.3(e) of this
appendix.
(ii) [Reserved]
If there is any conflict between HRF-1-2019 and this appendix or
between AS/NZS 4474.1:2007 and this appendix, follow the language of
the test procedure in this appendix, disregarding the conflicting
industry standard language.
2. Scope
This appendix provides the test procedure for measuring the
annual energy use in kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/yr), the total
refrigerated volume in cubic feet (ft\3\), and the total adjusted
volume in cubic feet (ft\3\) of refrigerators, refrigerator-
freezers, and miscellaneous refrigeration products.
3. Definitions
Section 3, Definitions, of HRF-1-2019 applies to this test
procedure. In case of conflicting terms between HRF-1-2019 and DOE's
definitions in this appendix or in Sec. 430.2, DOE's definitions
take priority.
Through-the-door ice/water dispenser means a device incorporated
within the cabinet, but outside the boundary of the refrigerated
space, that delivers to the user on demand ice and may also deliver
water from within the refrigerated space without opening an exterior
door. This definition includes dispensers that are capable of
dispensing ice and water or ice only.
4. Volume
Determine the refrigerated volume and adjusted volume for
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and miscellaneous
refrigeration products in accordance with the following sections of
HRF-1-2019, respectively:
4.1. Section 4, Method for Determining the Refrigerated Volume
of Consumer Refrigeration Products; and
4.2. Section 6, Method for Determining the Adjusted Volume of
Consumer Refrigeration Products.
5. Energy Consumption
Determine the annual energy use (``AEU'') in kilowatt-hours per
year (kWh/yr), for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and
miscellaneous refrigeration products in accordance with section 5,
Method for Determining the Energy Consumption of Consumer
Refrigeration Products, of HRF-1-2019, except as follows.
5.1. Test Setup and Test Conditions
(a) In section 5.3.1 of HRF-1-2019, the top of the unit shall be
determined by the refrigerated cabinet height, excluding any
accessories or protruding components on the top of the unit.
(b) The ambient temperature and vertical ambient temperature
gradient requirements specified in section 5.3.1 of HRF-1-2019 shall
be maintained during both the stabilization period and the test
period.
(c) The power supply requirements as specified in section 5.5.1
of HRF-1-2019 shall be maintained based on measurement intervals not
to exceed one minute.
(d) The ice storage compartment temperature requirement as
specified in
[[Page 56822]]
section 5.5.6.5 in HRF-1-2019 is not required.
(e) For cases in which setup is not clearly defined by this test
procedure, manufacturers must submit a petition for a waiver (See
section 6 of this appendix).
(f) If the interior arrangements of the unit under test do not
conform with those shown in Figures 5-1 or 5-2 of HRF-1-2019, as
appropriate, the unit must be tested by relocating the temperature
sensors from the locations specified in the figures to avoid
interference with hardware or components within the unit, in which
case the specific locations used for the temperature sensors shall
be noted in the test data records maintained by the manufacturer in
accordance with 10 CFR 429.71, and the certification report shall
indicate that non-standard sensor locations were used. If any
temperature sensor is relocated by any amount from the location
prescribed in Figure 5-1 or 5-2 of HRF-1-2019 in order to maintain a
minimum 1-inch air space from adjustable shelves or other components
that could be relocated by the consumer, except in cases in which
the Figures prescribe a temperature sensor location within 1 inch of
a shelf or similar feature (e.g., sensor T3 in Figure 5-1), this
constitutes a relocation of temperature sensors that must be
recorded in the test data and reported in the certification report
as described in this paragraph.
5.2. Test Conduct
(a) Standard Approach
(i) For the purposes of comparing compartment temperatures with
standardized temperatures, as described in section 5.6 of HRF-1-
2019, the freezer compartment temperature shall be as specified in
section 5.8.1.2.5 of HRF-1-2019, the fresh food compartment
temperature shall be as specified in section 5.8.1.2.4 of HRF-1-
2019, and the cooler compartment temperature shall be as specified
in section 5.8.1.2.6 of HRF-1-2019.
(ii) In place of Table 5-1 in HRF-1-2019, refer to Table 1 of
this section.
Table 1--Temperature Settings: General Chart for All Products
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First test Second test Energy calculation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- based on:
Setting Results Setting Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid for all Compartments........ All compartments Warmest for all All compartments Second Test Only.
below standard Compartments. below standard
reference reference
temperature. temperature.
One or more First and Second
compartments Test.
above standard
reference
temperature.
One or more Coldest for all All compartments First and Second
compartments Compartments. below standard Test.
above standard reference
reference temperature.
temperature.
One or more Model may not be
compartments certified as
above standard compliant with
reference energy
temperature. conservation
standards based
on testing of
this unit.
Confirm that unit
meets product
definition. If
so, see section 6
of this appendix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Three-Point Interpolation Method (Optional Test for Models
with Two Compartments and User-Operable Controls). As specified in
section 5.6.3(6) of HRF-1-2019, and as an optional alternative to
section 5.2(a) of this appendix, perform three tests such that the
set of tests meets the ``minimum requirements for interpolation'' of
AS/NZS 4474.1:2007 appendix M, section M3, paragraphs (a) through
(c) and as illustrated in Figure M1. The target temperatures txA and
txB defined in section M4(a)(i) of AS/NZ 4474.1:2007 shall be the
standardized temperatures defined in section 5.6 of HRF-1-2019.
5.3. Test Cycle Energy Calculations
Section 5.8.2, Energy Consumption, of HRF-1-2019 applies to this
test procedure, except as follows:
(a)(i) For refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers: To
demonstrate compliance with the energy conservation standards at 10
CFR 430.32(a) applicable to products manufactured on or after
September 15, 2014, IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle,
equals 0.23 for a product with one or more automatic icemakers and
otherwise equals 0 (zero).
(ii) For miscellaneous refrigeration products: To demonstrate
compliance with the energy conservation standards at 10 CFR
430.32(aa) applicable to products manufactured on or after October
28, 2019, IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle, equals 0.23
for a product with one or more automatic icemakers and otherwise
equals 0 (zero).
(b) In place of section 5.8.2.1.2 of HRF-1-2019, use the
calculations provided in this section. For units with long-time
automatic defrost control using the two-part test period, the test
cycle energy shall be calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12OC21.001
Where:
ET = test cycle energy expended in kilowatt-hours per day;
1440 = conversion factor to adjust to a 24-hour average use cycle in
minutes per day;
K = dimensionless correction factor of 1.0 for refrigerators and
refrigerator-freezers and 0.55 for miscellaneous refrigeration
products.
EP1 = energy expended in kilowatt-hours during the first part of the
test;
EP2 = energy expended in kilowatt-hours during the second part of
the test;
T1 and T2 = length of time in minutes of the first and second test
parts, respectively;
CT = defrost timer run time or compressor run time between defrosts
in hours required to go through a complete cycle, rounded to the
nearest tenth of an hour;
12 = factor to adjust for a 50-percent run time of the compressor in
hours per day.
(c) In place of sections 5.8.2.1.3 and 5.8.2.1.4 of HRF-1-2019,
use the calculations provided in this section. For units with
variable defrost control, the test cycle energy shall be calculated
as set forth in section 5.3(a) of this appendix with the following
addition:
CT shall be calculated equivalent to:
[[Page 56823]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12OC21.002
Where:
CTL = the least or shortest compressor run time between
defrosts used in the variable defrost control algorithm (greater
than or equal to 6 but less than or equal to 12 hours), or the
shortest compressor run time between defrosts observed for the test
(if it is shorter than the shortest run time used in the control
algorithm and is greater than 6 hours), or 6 hours (if the shortest
observed run time is less than 6 hours), in hours rounded to the
nearest tenth of an hour;
CTM = the maximum compressor run time between defrosts in
hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour (greater than
CTL but not more than 96 hours);
For variable defrost models with no values of CTL and
CTM in the algorithm, the default values of 6 and 96
shall be used, respectively.
F = ratio of per day energy consumption in excess of the least
energy and the maximum difference in per-day energy consumption and
is equal to 0.20.
(d) In place of section 5.8.2.1.5 of HRF-1-2019, use the
calculations provided in this section. For multiple-compressor
products with automatic defrost, the two-part test method in section
5.7.2.1 of HRF-1-2019 shall be used, and the test cycle energy shall
be calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12OC21.003
Where:
ET, 1440, 12, and K are defined in section 5.3(a) of this appendix;
EP1, and T1 are defined in section 5.3(a) of this appendix;
i = a subscript variable that can equal 1, 2, or more that
identifies each individual compressor system that has automatic
defrost;
D = the total number of compressor systems with automatic defrost;
EP2i = energy expended in kilowatt-hours during the
second part of the test for compressor system i;
T2i = length of time in minutes of the second part of the
test for compressor system i;
CTi = compressor run time between defrosts of compressor
system i, rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour, for long-time
automatic defrost control equal to a fixed time in hours, and for
variable defrost control equal to:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12OC21.004
Where:
CTL,i = for compressor system i, the shortest cumulative
compressor-on time between defrost heater-on events used in the
variable defrost control algorithm (CTL for the
compressor system with the longest compressor run time between
defrosts must be greater than or equal to 6 but less than or equal
to 12 hours), in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour;
CTM,i = for compressor system i, the maximum compressor-
on time between defrost heater-on events used in the variable
defrost control algorithm (greater than CTL,i but not
more than 96 hours), in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an
hour;
For defrost cycle types with no values of CTL and
CTM in the algorithm, the default values of 6 and 96
shall be used, respectively.
F = ratio of per day energy consumption in excess of the least
energy and the maximum difference in per-day energy consumption and
is equal to 0.20.
(e) In place of section 5.8.2.1.6 of HRF-1-2019, use the
calculations provided in this section. For units with long-time
automatic defrost control and variable defrost control with multiple
defrost cycle types, the two-part test method in section 5.7.2.1 of
HRF-1-2019 shall be used, and the test cycle energy shall be
calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12OC21.005
Where:
ET, 1440, 12, and K are defined in section 5.3(a) of this appendix;
EP1, and T1 are defined in section 5.3(a) of this appendix;
i = a subscript variable that can equal 1, 2, or more that
identifies the distinct defrost cycle types applicable for the
product;
D = the total number of defrost cycle types;
EP2i = energy expended in kilowatt-hours during the
second part of the test for defrost cycle type i;
T2i = length of time in minutes of the second part of the
test for defrost cycle type i;
CTi = defrost timer run time or compressor run time
between instances of defrost cycle type i, rounded to the nearest
tenth of an hour;
12 = factor to adjust for a 50-percent run time of the compressor in
hours per day.
(i) For long-time automatic defrost control, CTi shall be equal
to a fixed time in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour.
For cases in which there are more than one fixed CT value for a
given defrost cycle type, an average fixed CT value shall be
selected for this cycle type.
(ii) For variable defrost control, CTi shall be calculated
equivalent to:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12OC21.006
Where:
CTL,i = the least or shortest compressor run time between
instances of the defrost cycle type i in hours rounded to the
nearest tenth of an hour (CTL for the defrost cycle type
with the longest compressor run time between defrosts must be
greater than or equal to 6 but less than or equal to 12 hours);
CTM,i = the maximum compressor run time between instances
of defrost cycle type i in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an
hour (greater than CTL,i but not more than 96 hours);
For cases in which there are more than one CTM and/or
CTL value for a given defrost cycle type, an average of
the CTM and CTL values shall be selected for
this defrost cycle type. For defrost cycle types with no values of
CTL and CTM in the algorithm, the default
values of 6 and 96 shall be used, respectively.
[[Page 56824]]
F = ratio of per day energy consumption in excess of the least
energy and the maximum difference in per-day energy consumption and
is equal to 0.20.
(f) If the three-point interpolation method of section 5.2(b) of
this appendix is used for setting temperature controls, the average
per-cycle energy consumption shall be defined as follows:
E = Ex + IET
Where:
E is defined in 5.9.1.1 of HRF-1-2019;
IET is defined in 5.9.2.1 of HRF-1-2019; and
Ex is defined and calculated as described in appendix M,
section M4(a) of AS/NZS 4474.1:2007. The target temperatures
txA and txB defined in section M4(a)(i) of AS/
NZS 4474.1:2007 shall be the standardized temperatures defined in
section 5.6 of HRF-1-2019.
6. Test Procedure Waivers
To the extent that the procedures contained in this appendix do
not provide a means for determining the energy consumption of a
basic model, a manufacturer must obtain a waiver under Sec. 430.27
to establish an acceptable test procedure for each such basic model.
Such instances could, for example, include situations where the test
setup for a particular basic model is not clearly defined by the
provisions of this appendix. For details regarding the criteria and
procedures for obtaining a waiver, please refer to Sec. 430.27.
0
9. Appendix B to subpart B of part 430 is revised to read as follows:
Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Freezers
Note: Prior to April 11, 2022, any representations of volume and
energy use of freezers must be based on the results of testing
pursuant to either this appendix or the procedures in appendix B as
it appeared at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix B, in the 10 CFR
parts 200 to 499 edition revised as of January 1, 2019. Any
representations of volume and energy use must be in accordance with
whichever version is selected. On or after April 11, 2022, any
representations of volume and energy use must be based on the
results of testing pursuant to this appendix.
For freezers, the rounding requirements specified in sections 4
and 5 of this appendix are not required for use until the compliance
date of any amendment of energy conservation standards for these
products published after October 12, 2021.
1. Referenced Materials
DOE incorporated by reference HRF-1-2019, Energy and Internal
Volume of Consumer Refrigeration Products (``HRF-1-2019'') in its
entirety in Sec. 430.3; however, only enumerated provisions of this
document are applicable to this appendix. If there is any conflict
between HRF-1-2019 and this appendix, follow the language of the
test procedure in this appendix, disregarding the conflicting
industry standard language.
(a) AHAM HRF-1-2019, (``HRF-1-2019''), Energy and Internal
Volume of Consumer Refrigeration Products:
(i) Section 3--Definitions, as specified in section 3 of this
appendix;
(ii) Section 4--Method for Determining the Refrigerated Volume
of Consumer Refrigeration Products, as specified in section 4.1 of
this appendix;
(iii) Section 5--Method for Determining the Energy Consumption
of Consumer Refrigeration Products (excluding Table 5-1 and sections
5.5.6.5, 5.8.2.1.2, 5.8.2.1.3, 5.8.2.1.4, 5.8.2.1.5, and 5.8.2.1.6),
as specified in section 5 of this appendix; and
(iv) Section 6--Method for Determining the Adjusted Volume of
Consumer Refrigeration Products, as specified in section 4.2 of this
appendix.
(b) Reserved.
If there is any conflict between HRF-1--2019 and this appendix,
follow the language of the test procedure in this appendix,
disregarding the conflicting industry standard language.
2. Scope
This appendix provides the test procedure for measuring the
annual energy use in kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/yr), the total
refrigerated volume in cubic feet (ft\3\), and the total adjusted
volume in cubic feet (ft\3\) of freezers.
3. Definitions
Section 3, Definitions, of HRF-1-2019 applies to this test
procedure. In case of conflicting terms between HRF-1-2019 and DOE's
definitions in this appendix or in Sec. 430.2, DOE's definitions
take priority.
Through-the-door ice/water dispenser means a device incorporated
within the cabinet, but outside the boundary of the refrigerated
space, that delivers to the user on demand ice and may also deliver
water from within the refrigerated space without opening an exterior
door. This definition includes dispensers that are capable of
dispensing ice and water or ice only.
4. Volume
Determine the refrigerated volume and adjusted volume for
freezers in accordance with the following sections of HRF-1-2019,
respectively:
4.1. Section 4, Method for Determining the Refrigerated Volume
of Consumer Refrigeration Products; and
4.2. Section 6, Method for Determining the Adjusted Volume of
Consumer Refrigeration Products.
5. Energy Consumption
Determine the annual energy use (``AEU'') in kilowatt-hours per
year (kWh/yr), for freezers in accordance with section 5, Method for
Determining the Energy Consumption of Consumer Refrigeration
Products, of HRF-1-2019, except as follows.
5.1. Test Setup and Test Conditions
(a) In section 5.3.1 of HRF-1-2019, the top of the unit shall be
determined by the refrigerated cabinet height, excluding any
accessories or protruding components on the top of the unit.
(b) The ambient temperature and vertical ambient temperature
gradient requirements specified in section 5.3.1 of HRF-1-2019 shall
be maintained during both the stabilization period and the test
period.
(c) The power supply requirements as specified in section 5.5.1
of HRF-1-2019 shall be maintained based on measurement intervals not
to exceed one minute.
(d) The ice storage compartment temperature requirement as
specified in section 5.5.6.5 in HRF-1-2019 is not required.
(e) For cases in which setup is not clearly defined by this test
procedure, manufacturers must submit a petition for a waiver (See
section 6 of this appendix).
(f) If the interior arrangements of the unit under test do not
conform with those shown in Figure 5-2 of HRF-1-2019, as
appropriate, the unit must be tested by relocating the temperature
sensors from the locations specified in the figures to avoid
interference with hardware or components within the unit, in which
case the specific locations used for the temperature sensors shall
be noted in the test data records maintained by the manufacturer in
accordance with 10 CFR 429.71, and the certification report shall
indicate that non-standard sensor locations were used. If any
temperature sensor is relocated by any amount from the location
prescribed in Figure 5-2 of HRF-1- 2019 in order to maintain a
minimum 1-inch air space from adjustable shelves or other components
that could be relocated by the consumer, except in cases in which
the Figure prescribes a temperature sensor location within 1 inch of
a shelf or similar feature, this constitutes a relocation of
temperature sensors that must be recorded in the test data and
reported in the certification report as described in this paragraph.
5.2. Test Conduct
(a) For the purposes of comparing compartment temperatures with
standardized temperatures, as described in section 5.6 of HRF-1-
2019, the freezer compartment temperature shall be as specified in
section 5.8.1.2.5 of HRF-1-2019.
(b) In place of Table 5-1 in HRF-1-2019, refer to Table 1 of
this section.
[[Page 56825]]
Table 1--Temperature Settings for Freezers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First test Second test
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Energy calculation
Setting Results Setting Results based on:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid................... Below standard Warmest.............. Below standard Second Test Only.
reference reference
temperature. temperature.
Above standard First and Second
reference Test.
temperature.
Above standard Coldest.............. Below standard First and Second
reference reference Test.
temperature. temperature.
Above standard Model may not be
reference certified as
temperature. compliant with
energy conservation
standards based on
testing of this
unit. Confirm that
unit meets product
definition. If so,
see section 6 of
this appendix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.3. Test Cycle Energy Calculations
Section 5.8.2, Energy Consumption, of HRF-1-2019 applies to this
test procedure, except as follows:
(a) For freezers: To demonstrate compliance with the energy
conservation standards at 10 CFR 430.32(a) applicable to products
manufactured on or after September 15, 2014, IET, expressed in
kilowatt-hours per cycle, equals 0.23 for a product with one or more
automatic icemakers and otherwise equals 0 (zero).
(b) In place of section 5.8.2.1.2 of HRF-1-2019, use the
calculations provided in this section. For units with long-time
automatic defrost control using the two-part test period, the test
cycle energy shall be calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12OC21.007
Where:
ET = test cycle energy expended in kilowatt-hours per day;
1440 = conversion factor to adjust to a 24-hour average use cycle in
minutes per day;
K = dimensionless correction factor of 0.7 for chest freezers and
0.85 for upright freezers.
EP1 = energy expended in kilowatt-hours during the first part of the
test;
EP2 = energy expended in kilowatt-hours during the second part of
the test;
T1 and T2 = length of time in minutes of the first and second test
parts, respectively;
CT = defrost timer run time or compressor run time between defrosts
in hours required to go through a complete cycle, rounded to the
nearest tenth of an hour;
12 = factor to adjust for a 50-percent run time of the compressor in
hours per day.
(c) In place of sections 5.8.2.1.3 and 5.8.2.1.4 of HRF-1-2019,
use the calculations provided in this section. For units with
variable defrost control, the test cycle energy shall be calculated
as set forth in section 5.3(a) of this appendix with the following
addition:
CT shall be calculated equivalent to:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12OC21.008
Where:
CTL = the least or shortest compressor run time between
defrosts used in the variable defrost control algorithm (greater
than or equal to 6 but less than or equal to 12 hours), or the
shortest compressor run time between defrosts observed for the test
(if it is shorter than the shortest run time used in the control
algorithm and is greater than 6 hours), or 6 hours (if the shortest
observed run time is less than 6 hours), in hours rounded to the
nearest tenth of an hour;
CTM = the maximum compressor run time between defrosts in
hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour (greater than
CTL but not more than 96 hours);
For variable defrost models with no values of CTL and
CTM in the algorithm, the default values of 6 and 96
shall be used, respectively.
F = ratio of per day energy consumption in excess of the least
energy and the maximum difference in per-day energy consumption and
is equal to 0.20.
6. Test Procedure Waivers
To the extent that the procedures contained in this appendix do
not provide a means for determining the energy consumption of a
basic model, a manufacturer must obtain a waiver under Sec. 430.27
to establish an acceptable test procedure for each such basic model.
Such instances could, for example, include situations where the test
setup for a particular basic model is not clearly defined by the
provisions of this appendix. For details regarding the criteria and
procedures for obtaining a waiver, please refer to Sec. 430.27.
[FR Doc. 2021-21663 Filed 10-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P