Home/Federal/Federal Register/2022-13225

Proposed Rule2022-13225

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Commercial Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

June 30, 2022

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") proposes to amend the test procedures for commercial refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers to reference the latest versions of the applicable industry standards. DOE also proposes to establish definitions and test procedures for new equipment categories, adopt test procedures consistent with recently published waivers and interim waivers, establish product-specific enforcement provisions, allow for volume determinations based on computer aided designs, specify a sampling plan for volume and total display area, and adopt additional clarifying amendments. DOE is seeking comment from interested parties on the proposal.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 125 (Thursday, June 30, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 125 (Thursday, June 30, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39164-39231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13225]

[[Page 39163]]

Vol. 87

Thursday,

No. 125

June 30, 2022

Part II

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Commercial
Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 125 / Thursday, June 30, 2022 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 39164]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008]
RIN 1904-AD83

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Commercial
Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public
meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') proposes to amend the
test procedures for commercial refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers,
and freezers to reference the latest versions of the applicable
industry standards. DOE also proposes to establish definitions and test
procedures for new equipment categories, adopt test procedures
consistent with recently published waivers and interim waivers,
establish product-specific enforcement provisions, allow for volume
determinations based on computer aided designs, specify a sampling plan
for volume and total display area, and adopt additional clarifying
amendments. DOE is seeking comment from interested parties on the
proposal.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposal no later than August 29, 2022. See section [V], ``Public
Participation,'' for details. DOE will hold a webinar on Monday, August
1, 2022, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section V, ``Public
Participation,'' for webinar registration information, participant
instructions, and information about the capabilities available to
webinar participants.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> under docket
number EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008, by any of the
following methods:
(1) Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#793a2b3c4b49484e2d2949494941391c1c571d161c571e160f">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include the docket number
EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008 in the subject line of the message.
(2) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
(3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202)
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section V of this document.
Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts (if a public meeting is held),
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for
review at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. All documents in the docket are listed
in the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> index. However, some documents listed in the
index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public
disclosure, may not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008</a>. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section V for information on how to submit comments through
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.

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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#622312120e0b030c01073116030c060310061133170711160b0d0c112207074c060d074c050d14">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Mr. Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6e3e0b1a0b1c402d010d061c0f002e261f402a010b40290118">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in a public meeting (if
one is held), contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program
staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e8a99898848189868b8dbb9c89868c899a8c9bb99d8d9b9c8187869ba88d8dc68c878dc68f879e">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DOE proposes to maintain previously approved incorporations by
reference and to incorporate by reference the following industry
standards into 10 CFR part 431:
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (``AHRI'')
Standard 1200, ``Performance Rating of Commercial Refrigerated Display
Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets,'' draft version submitted to DOE
with expected publication in 2022 (``AHRI 1200-202X'').
American National Standards Institute (``ANSI'')/AHRI Standard
1320, ``Performance Rating of Commercial Refrigerated Display
Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets for Use With Secondary
Refrigerants,'' approved 2011 (``AHRI 1320-2011'').
ANSI/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (``ASHRAE'') Standard 72, ``Method of Testing
Open and Closed Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers,'' second public
review version with expected publication in 2022 (``ASHRAE 72-2018R'').
ASTM, International (``ASTM'') F2143-16, ``Standard Test Method for
Performance of Refrigerated Buffet and Preparation Tables,'' approved
2016 (``ASTM F2143-16'').
Copies of the draft version of AHRI 1200-202X can be obtained by
going to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008</a>. Copies of
AHRI 1320-2011 can be obtained by going to <a href="http://ahri.net.org/search-standards">ahri.net.org/search-standards</a>. Copies of the second public review version of ASHRAE 72-
2018R can be obtained by going to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008</a>. Copies of ASTM F2143-16 can be purchased at <a href="http://www.astm.org/f2143-16.html">www.astm.org/f2143-16.html</a>.
For a further discussion of these standards, see section IV.M of
this document.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
C. Deviation From Appendix A
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Discussion
A. Scope and Definitions
1. Ice-Cream Freezers
2. High-Temperature CRE
3. Convertible Equipment
B. Updates to Industry Test Standards
1. AHRI 1200
2. ASHRAE 72
3. Secondary Coolants
4. International Standards Development
C. Test Conditions for Specific CRE Categories
1. Salad Bars, Buffet Tables and Refrigerated Preparation Tables
2. Pull-Down Temperature Applications
3. Blast Chillers and Blast Freezers
4. Chef Bases and Griddle Stands

[[Page 39165]]

5. Mobile Refrigerated Cabinets
6. Additional Covered Equipment
D. Harmonization of Efficiency Standards and Testing With NSF 7-
2019 Food Safety
E. Dedicated Remote Condensing Units
F. Test Procedure Clarifications and Modifications
1. Defrost Cycles
2. Total Display Area
G. Alternative Refrigerants
H. Certification of Compartment Volume
I. Test Procedure Waivers
J. Enforcement Provisions
K. Lowest Application Product Temperature
L. Removal of Obsolete Provisions
M. Additional Topics Raised in Comments From Interested Parties
1. Refrigerant Leakages and Life Cycle Performance
2. Refrigerant Collection for Remote Testing
3. Energy Conservation Standards
N. Sampling Plan
O. Test Procedure Costs and Harmonization
1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
2. Harmonization With Industry Standards
P. Compliance Date and Waivers
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
5. Identification of Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With
Other Rules and Regulations
6. A Description of Significant Alternatives to the Rule
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of the Webinar
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

Commercial refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers
(collectively, commercial refrigeration equipment, or ``CRE'') are
included in the list of ``covered equipment'' for which DOE is
authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and
test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311)(1)(E)) DOE's energy conservation
standards and test procedures for CRE are currently prescribed at
subpart C of part 431 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(``CFR''). The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish
test procedures for CRE and relevant background information regarding
DOE's consideration of test procedures for this equipment.

A. Authority

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part C \2\ of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title
IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for
Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve energy efficiency. This equipment includes CRE, the
subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311 (1)(E))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311),
test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315),
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42
U.S.C. 6296).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1)
certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable
energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the
efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must
use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies
with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(s))
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however,
grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or
amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test
results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual
operating cost of a given type of covered equipment during a
representative average use cycle and requires that test procedures not
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
With respect to CRE, EPCA requires DOE to use the test procedures
determined by the Secretary to be generally accepted industry
standards, or industry standards developed or recognized by the
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (``ASHRAE'') or American National Standards Institute
(``ANSI''). (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(A)(i)) With regard to self-contained
CRE to which statutory standards are applicable, the required initial
test procedure is the ASHRAE 117 test procedure in effect on January 1,
2005. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(A)(ii)) Additionally, EPCA requires that if
ANSI 117 is amended, the Secretary shall, by rule, amend the test
procedure for the product as necessary to ensure that the test
procedure is consistent with the amended ASHRAE 117 test procedure,
unless the Secretary makes a determination, by rule, and supported by
clear and convincing evidence, that to do so would not meet the
statutory requirements regarding representativeness and burden. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(E)) Finally, EPCA states if a test procedure other
than the ASHRAE 117 test procedure is approved by ANSI, DOE must review
the relative strengths and weaknesses of the new test procedure
relative to the ASHRAE 117 test procedure and adopt one new test
procedure for use in the standards program. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(6)(F)(i)) \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ In 2005, ASHRAE combined Standard 72-1998, ``Method of
Testing Open Refrigerators,'' and Standard 117-2002 and published
the test method as ASHRAE Standard 72-2005, ``Method of Testing
Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers,'' which was approved by ANSI
on July 29, 2005.

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

[[Page 39166]]

EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate
test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including CRE, to
determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or
fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to not be
unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test
results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated
operating costs during a representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(1))
In addition, if the Secretary determines that a test procedure
amendment is warranted, the Secretary must publish proposed test
procedures in the Federal Register, and afford interested persons an
opportunity (of not less than 45 days' duration) to present oral and
written data, views, and arguments on the proposed test procedures. (42
U.S.C. 6314(b)) If DOE determines that test procedure revisions are not
appropriate, DOE must publish its determination not to amend the test
procedures. DOE is publishing this notice of proposed rulemaking
(``NOPR'') in satisfaction of the 7-year review requirement specified
in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii))

B. Background

DOE's current test procedure for CRE appears at 10 CFR part 431,
subpart C, appendix B (``Amended Uniform Test Method for the
Measurement of Energy Consumption of Commercial Refrigerators,
Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers'').
DOE last amended the test procedure for CRE in a final rule
published on April 24, 2014. (``April 2014 Final Rule''). 79 FR 22277.
Specifically, DOE clarified certain terms, procedures, and compliance
dates to improve repeatability and provide additional detail compared
to the prior version of the test procedure. DOE noted that the
amendments in the April 2014 Final Rule would not affect the measured
energy use of CRE as measured under the prior version of the test
procedure. 79 FR 22277, 22280-22281.
The test procedure incorporates by reference the following industry
standards: (1) AHRI Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010, ``Performance Rating of
Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets''
(``AHRI 1200-2010''); (2) ASHRAE Standard 72-2005, ``Method of Testing
Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers'', which was approved by ANSI on
July 29, 2005 (``ASHRAE 72-2005''); and (3) ANSI/Association of Home
Appliances (``AHAM'') Standard HRF-1-2008, ``Energy, Performance, and
Capacity of Household Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and
Freezers'' (``AHAM HRF-1-2008'') for determining refrigerated volumes
for CRE.
On June 11, 2021, DOE published in the Federal Register an early
assessment request for information (``June 2021 RFI'') seeking comments
on the existing DOE test procedure for CRE. 86 FR 31182. In the June
2021 RFI, DOE requested comments, information, and data regarding a
number of issues, including (1) scope and definitions, (2) updates to
industry standards, (3) test conditions for specific CRE categories,
(4) harmonization with food safety standards, (5) remote condensing
units, (6) test procedure clarifications, (7) alternative refrigerants,
(8) compartment volume certification, and (9) test procedure waivers.
DOE received comments in response to the June 2021 RFI from the
interested parties listed in Table I.1.

Table I.1--List of Commenters With Written Comments Received in Response to June 2021 RFI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenter(s) Reference in this NOPR Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITW-Food Equipment Group, LLC........................ ITW......................... Manufacturer.
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration AHRI........................ Trade Association.
Institute.
True Manufacturing Company, Inc...................... True........................ Manufacturer.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance................. NEEA........................ Efficiency Organization.
Continental Refrigerator............................. Continental................. Manufacturer.
Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development... IGSD........................ Efficiency Organization.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California CA IOUs..................... Energy Utilities.
Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric; collectively,
the California Investor-Owned Utilities.
Arneg USA............................................ Arneg....................... Manufacturer.
Hoshizaki America, Inc............................... Hoshizaki................... Manufacturer.
Hussmann Corporation................................. Hussmann.................... Manufacturer.
Appliance Standards Awareness Program, American Joint Commenters............ Efficiency Organizations.
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, and Natural
Resource Defense Council.
Aarin King........................................... King........................ Individual.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
test procedures for CRE. (Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-TP-0008, which is
maintained at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>). The references are arranged as
follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that
document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Deviation From Appendix A

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
appendix A (``appendix A''), applicable to CRE under 10 CFR 431.4, DOE
notes that it is deviating from the provision in appendix A regarding
the pre-NOPR stages for a test procedure rulemaking. Section 8(b) of
appendix A states that if DOE determines that it is appropriate to
continue the test procedure rulemaking after the early assessment
process, it will provide further opportunities for early public input
through Federal Register documents, including notices of data
availability and/or requests for information. DOE is opting to deviate
from this provision due to the substantial feedback and information
supplied by commenters in response to the June 2021 RFI.
As discussed in section I.B of this NOPR, the June 2021 RFI
requested submission of comments, data, and information pertinent to
test procedures

[[Page 39167]]

for CRE. In response to the June 2021 RFI, stakeholders provided
substantial comments and information, which DOE has found sufficient to
identify the need to modify the test procedures for CRE. Additionally,
DOE does not expect that further opportunities for early public input
would result in additional substantive comments from interested
parties. This NOPR discusses the comments received in response to the
June 2021 RFI and considered in forming DOE's proposals to amend the
CRE test procedure.

II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to update subpart C of 10 CFR part 431
as follows:
(1) Establish new definitions for high-temperature refrigerator,
medium-temperature refrigerator, low-temperature freezer, mobile
refrigerated cabinet, and amend the definition for ice-cream freezer;
(2) Incorporate by reference the most current versions of industry
standards AHRI 1200, ASHRAE 72, and AHRI 1320;
(3) Establish definitions and a new appendix C including test
procedures for buffet tables and preparation tables;
(4) Establish definitions and a new appendix D including test
procedures for blast chillers and blast freezers;
(5) Amend the definition for chef base or griddle stand;
(6) Specify refrigerant conditions for CRE that use carbon dioxide
(``CO<INF>2</INF>'') refrigerant;
(7) Allow for certification of compartment volumes based on
computer aided design (``CAD'') models;
(8) Incorporate provisions for defrosts and customer order storage
cabinets currently specified in waivers and interim waivers;
(9) Adopt product-specific enforcement provisions;
(10) Clarify use of the lowest application product temperature
(``LAPT'') provisions;
(11) Remove the obsolete test procedure in appendix A; and
(12) Specify a sampling plan for volume and total display area
(``TDA'').
DOE's proposed actions are summarized in Table II.1 compared to the
current test procedure as well as the reason for the proposed change.

Table II.A--Summary of Changes in Proposed Test Procedure Relative to
Current Test Procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed test
Current DOE test procedure procedure Attribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defines commercial Defines high- Improves
refrigerator without temperature representativen
delineating between units refrigerator and ess.
that operate at medium and medium-temperature
high temperatures. refrigerator to
account for new high-
temperature rating
point.
Defines ice-cream freezer as a Defines low- Improves
type of commercial freezer. temperature freezer representativen
to delineate between ess.
ice-cream freezers
and other commercial
freezers.
Ice-cream freezer definition Ice-cream definition Improves
refers only to ``ice cream''. refers more broadly representativen
to ``frozen ess.
desserts''.
References AHRI 1200-2010 for References AHRI 1200- Harmonizes with
rating requirements. 202X for rating most recent
requirements. industry
standard.
References ASHRAE 72-2005 for References ASHRAE 72- Harmonizes with
test requirements. 2018R for test most recent
requirements. industry
standard.
References AHAM HRF-1-2008 for References AHRI 1200- Harmonizes with
volume measurement. 202X for volume most recent
requirements. industry
standard.
Includes a single 38 [deg]F Specifies 38 [deg]F Improves
rating point for commercial rating point for representativen
refrigerators. medium-temperature ess; harmonizes
refrigerators and 55 with industry
[deg]F rating point standard.
for high-temperature
refrigerators.
Does not specify a method for References AHRI 1320- Improves
testing CRE with secondary 2011 for CRE used representativen
coolants. with secondary ess; harmonizes
coolants. with industry
standard.
Does not specify definitions Defines buffet table Improves
or test procedures for buffet and preparation table representativen
tables and preparation tables. and establishes test ess; harmonizes
procedures based on with industry
ASTM F2143-16. standard.
Does not specify definitions Defines blast chiller Improves
or test procedures for blast and blast freezer and representativen
chillers and blast freezers. establishes test ess; harmonizes
procedures based on with industry
expected industry standard.
test method.
Chef bases and griddle stands Clarifies chef base Improves
definition does not refer to and griddle stand representativen
a maximum height. definition by ess.
specifying a maximum
height of 32 inches
for this equipment.
Does not provide procedures References ASHRAE 72- Addresses
for CRE with no automatic 2018R for test existing
defrost or with long duration instructions for waiver;
defrost cycles. units with no harmonizes with
automatic defrost and industry
adopts optional two- standard.
part test for CRE
with defrost cycles
longer than 24 hours.
Includes conflicting Corrects errors in Improves
instructions regarding TDA current test representativen
calculation. procedure by ess,
reference to AHRI repeatability,
1200-202X. and
reproducibility
; harmonizes
with industry
standard.
Provides refrigerant Specifies refrigerant Improves
conditions that applicable to conditions to allow representativen
common refrigerants. for testing with ess; harmonizes
carbon dioxide with existing
refrigerant. waiver.
Requires determining volume Allows the use of Reduces test
based on testing. computer-aided design burden.
(``CAD'') models to
certify volume.
Specifies a single door Defines customer order Improves
opening sequence. storage cabinet representativen
equipment category ess; harmonizes
and specifies an with existing
alternate door waiver.
opening sequence for
this equipment.
Does not specify product- Includes product- Improves
enforcement provisions. enforcement clarity.
provisions for
determining volume
and TDA.

[[Page 39168]]

Specifies LAPT instructions Clarifies use of LAPT Improves
for temperatures above target provisions for clarity.
test temperature. operating
temperatures below
the target test
temperature.
Includes obsolete appendix A Removes obsolete Improves
and current appendix B test appendix A; adds new readability.
procedures. appendix C for
testing buffet tables
and preparation
tables, and new
appendix D for
testing blast
chillers and blast
freezers.
Does not specify a sampling Specifies that volume Improves
plan for volume and TDA. and TDA be determined representativen
based on the mean of ess,
the test sample. repeatability,
and
reproducibility
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments
described in section III of this NOPR would not alter the measured
efficiency of CRE currently subject to energy conservation standards
and would not require retesting or recertification solely as a result
of DOE's adoption of the proposed amendments to the test procedures, if
made final. Additionally, DOE has tentatively determined that the
proposed amendments, if made final, would not increase the cost of such
testing. Additionally, for buffet tables and preparation tables, and
blast chillers and blast freezers, testing according to the proposed
test procedure would not be required until the compliance date of any
energy conservation standards for that equipment. To the extent
manufacturers of these CRE are making voluntary representations
regarding energy use, they would experience costs associated with
retesting. DOE provides a discussion of these testing costs in section
III.O.1 of this NOPR. Discussion of DOE's proposed actions are
addressed in detail in section III of this NOPR.

III. Discussion

A. Scope and Definitions

``Commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer''
means refrigeration equipment that is not a consumer product (as
defined in 10 CFR 430.2); is not designed and marketed exclusively for
medical, scientific, or research purposes; operates at a chilled,
frozen, combination chilled and frozen, or variable temperature;
displays or stores merchandise and other perishable materials
horizontally, semi-vertically, or vertically; has transparent or solid
doors, sliding or hinged doors, a combination of hinged, sliding,
transparent, or solid doors, or no doors; is designed for pull-down
temperature applications or holding temperature applications; and is
connected to a self-contained condensing unit or to a remote condensing
unit. 10 CFR 431.62.
For the purpose of determining applicability of certain test
procedure provisions, DOE is proposing to amend certain existing
definitions and to establish certain new definitions, as discussed in
the following paragraphs. DOE discusses additional equipment
definitions and test procedures for specific equipment categories in
section III.C of this NOPR.
1. Ice-Cream Freezers
DOE defines certain categories of CRE, including ``ice-cream
freezer.'' DOE defines an ``ice-cream freezer'' as a commercial freezer
that is designed to operate at or below -5 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2
[deg]F) (-21 [deg]C <plus-minus> 1.1 [deg]C) and that the manufacturer
designs, markets, or intends for the storing, displaying, or dispensing
of ice cream. 10 CFR 431.62.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on the technical
features that characterize ice-cream freezers and distinguish them from
other categories of commercial freezers capable of operating at or
below -5 [deg]F. 86 FR 31182, 31184.
ITW commented that in general, ice-cream freezers are standard
``commercial freezers'' operating at a modified storage temperature.
(ITW, No. 2, p. 1) True commented that when considering vertical
freezers, there are no features that would distinguish a freezer
storing ice cream from a standard commercial freezer, since both are
designed to maintain the same integrated average temperature
(``IAT'').\5\ (True, No. 4, p. 2) However, True commented that there
are significant differences between a CRE able to maintain an IAT of -
15 [deg]F and one that is only designed to maintain an IAT of 0 [deg]F.
(True, No. 4, p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ Integrated average temperature means the average temperature
of all test package measurements taken during the test. 10 CFR
431.62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITW commented that dipping cabinets (i.e., cabinets intended for
ice cream service) are the obvious model type that can be easily
distinguished from other freezers and are generally characterized by
product visibility and accessories sold with the unit. (ITW, No. 2, p.
1)
Hussmann, AHRI, and Continental commented that ice-cream freezers
often have a manual defrost to maintain frozen products, which may be a
distinguishing feature for most ice-cream freezers. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 2;
Hussmann, No. 14, p. 2; Continental, No. 6, p. 1) Hussmann, AHRI, and
Continental commented that many of these models are of a cold wall
design rather than forced air evaporation. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 2;
Hussmann, No. 14, p. 2; Continental, No. 6, p. 1) Hussmann and AHRI
stated that in ice cream applications it is imperative to avoid
formation of ice crystals by maintaining temperature, particularly
surrounding defrost cycles. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 2; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 2)
Continental commented that features such as manual defrost and cold
wall evaporators minimize temperature fluctuations. (Continental, No.
6, p.1)
Dipping cabinets are one configuration of CRE that likely is
readily understood to be an ice-cream freezer; however, not all ice-
cream freezers are dipping cabinets. As such DOE is not proposing to
limit the definition of ``ice-cream freezer'' to those units.
Additionally, while ice-cream freezers may implement manual defrosts or
cold wall evaporators, DOE is aware of these equipment designs in other
commercial freezers, such that they do not uniquely distinguish ice-
cream freezers. DOE has not identified any technical features that
would allow for distinguishing ice-cream freezers from other commercial
freezers capable of operating at low temperatures and is therefore not
proposing to include any additional equipment characteristics in the
ice-cream freezer definition.
DOE notes that the equipment term and definition reference ``ice
cream,'' but ``ice cream'' is not defined. DOE understands that other
frozen products may be similarly stored and displayed. For example,
gelato, frozen yogurt, sorbet, and other ice-cream-like

[[Page 39169]]

products are typically displayed, stored, and dispensed in the same
manner as ice-cream. The CRE used for these food products is likely
similar, if not identical, to equipment used to store, display, or
dispense ice cream. In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on
whether further specificity is needed for the term ``ice-cream.'' 86 FR
31182, 31184.
ITW commented that ice-cream and ice-cream like products can be
divided into 3 temperature classes: (1) -5 [deg]F to 5 [deg]F,
equipment designed to hold ice cream for immediate consumption; (2) -10
[deg]F to -15 [deg]F, equipment designed to hold ice cream for short
term storage or retail sale; (3) -20 [deg]F to -40 [deg]F, equipment
designed to hold ice cream for long term storage. (ITW, No. 2, p. 1)
Hussmann and AHRI agreed that the term ``ice cream'' does not
exclusively apply to products that are designed to and tested at -15
[deg]F, and that simply including or excluding the term ``ice cream''
does not accurately distinguish the appropriate product category.
(Hussmann, No. 14, p. 2-3; AHRI, No. 3, p. 2) AHRI and Hussmann stated
that they do not support the removal of the term ``ice cream,'' but
support differentiating temperature categories for the various uses of
ice-cream applications. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 2-3; AHRI, No. 3, p. 2)
Hussmann and AHRI commented that the product category should be
based on the designed, marketed, and intended use of the equipment.
(Hussmann, No. 14, p. 2-3; AHRI, No. 3, p. 2) Hussmann and AHRI
commented that there is an important distinction between many products
that operate in the 0 [deg]F to -5 [deg]F range that are not designed
to operate at -15 [deg]F. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 2-3; AHRI, No. 3, p. 2)
True commented that the use of the term ``ice-cream'' to
distinguish a different equipment category does not make sense given
the range of operating temperatures for different types of ice-cream
and ice-cream like products, and that more generic terms should be used
such as ``commercial low temperature freezer'' (IAT of 0 [deg]F) and
``commercial lower temperature freezer'' (IAT of -15 [deg]F). (True,
No. 4, p. 2-3)
DOE recognizes that the reference to ``ice cream'' in the ice-cream
freezer definition does not itself distinguish this equipment from
other commercial freezers, and that the additional descriptors
specified in the definition (i.e., designed to operate at or below -5
[deg]F) together classify a unit as an ice-cream freezer. However, to
clarify the equipment classification and to avoid a potential
understanding that the term is limited to equipment associated with ice
cream and not other similar products, DOE is proposing to amend the
ice-cream freezer definition to refer to equipment designed, marketed,
or intended for the storing, displaying, or dispensing of ``frozen
desserts,'' rather than ice cream specifically. DOE does not expect
this proposal to affect testing or certifications for existing CRE
because equipment designed for frozen desserts other than ice cream
that otherwise meets the ice-cream freezer definition are likely
already tested and certified as an ice-cream freezer.
DOE requests comment on the proposed amended definition of ice-
cream freezer, and on whether any additional characteristics may better
differentiate this equipment from other commercial freezers.
Appendix B requires testing all ice-cream freezers to an IAT of -15
[deg]F. However, the term ``ice-cream freezer'' includes a variety of
equipment with a range of typical operating temperatures during normal
use. For example, certain ice-cream freezers are designed to operate
considerably below -5 [deg]F (sometimes referred to as ``hardening''
cabinets and specifically designed for ice cream storage), while other
ice-cream freezers are designed to operate closer to 0 [deg]F during
typical use (e.g., ``dipping cabinets'' and other equipment used to
hold ice cream intended for immediate consumption). Ice-cream freezers
intended for higher-temperature operation are often not capable of
achieving an IAT of -15 [deg]F. In such an instance, appendix B
requires testing the units to the LAPT.
If certain ice-cream freezers not capable of reaching an IAT of -15
[deg]F should instead be tested at an IAT of 0 [deg]F, there may be an
opportunity to better distinguish between ice-cream freezers and other
freezers, as discussed earlier in this section. For example, the ice-
cream freezer definition could be revised to refer to any freezer
capable of operating at an IAT of -15 [deg]F, regardless of the
intended end use of the equipment. Any other equipment currently
meeting the ice-cream freezer definition but not capable of reaching an
IAT of -15 [deg]F could instead be classified and tested as freezers,
rather than ice-cream freezers. Such an approach would use the measured
IAT of the equipment as the basis for this equipment definition, thus
eliminating the reliance on manufacturer intent or the end use of the
equipment.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether equipment
that meets the current ice-cream freezer definition but cannot operate
at an IAT of -15 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]F should be tested at an
IAT of 0 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]F instead of the LAPT. 86 FR 31182,
31184. DOE additionally requested comment on whether the ice-cream
freezer definition should refer only to equipment that is capable of
achieving an IAT of -15 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]F without reference
to the manufacturer's designed, marketed, or intended use. Id.
The Joint Commenters, True, and NEEA supported changing the
definition of ``ice-cream freezer'' to refer to operating capabilities
instead of design intent, or replacing ``ice-cream'' with a more
generic term, to remove ambiguity of equipment classes and ensure a
standardized temperature (-15 [deg]F or 0 [deg]F). (Joint Commenters,
No. 8, p. 1; True, No. 4, p. 3; NEEA, No. 5, p. 4) ITW, NEEA, and CA
IOUs further supported testing at standard IATs instead of LAPT to
create a more direct comparison of daily energy consumption. (ITW, No.
2, p. 1; NEEA, No. 5, p. 4-5) True commented that the test procedure,
in specifying IATs of 0 [deg]F and -15 [deg]F, is acceptable. True also
commented that CRE capable of maintaining an IAT of -15 [deg]F should
have a greater energy allowance than CRE only capable of maintaining an
IAT of 0 [deg]F. (True, No. 4, p. 3)
Hussmann, AHRI, Hoshizaki, and True agreed that ``ice-cream''
freezers that are not designed, marketed, and intended to operate at -
15 [deg]F could be tested at an IAT of 0 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]F
instead of the LAPT. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 2-3; AHRI, No. 3, p. 2;
Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 1; True, No. 4, p. 3) Hussmann, AHRI, Hoshizaki,
and Continental disagreed that the ice-cream freezer definition should
only refer to equipment that can achieve an IAT of -15 [deg]F <plus-
minus> 2 [deg]F without reference to the manufacturer's designed,
marketed, or intended use, asserting that the product category and
definition should be based on these factors. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 2-3;
AHRI, No. 3, p. 2, Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 1; Continental, No. 6, p. 1)
Continental added that this terminology is commonly used by
manufacturers and dealers to identify the appropriate equipment for
these applications. (Continental, No. 6, p. 1)
NEEA commented that as of July 16, 2021, there were 434 commercial
ice-cream freezers listed in DOE's compliance certification database,
with 410 rated for operation at either -10 [deg]F or -15 [deg]F, and
the remaining 24 units with an LAPT of -5 [deg]F. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 4)
NEEA added that the 24 units rated at -5 [deg]F were all service over
counter (``SOC'') units, demonstrating that their intended use is for
immediate consumption, whereas the other 410 units' primary function
was for hardening. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 4) The CA IOUs commented on this
same dataset;

[[Page 39170]]

however, they noted that 88 percent (382 units) of models were tested
at -15 [deg]F, with the remaining 12 percent (52 units) tested at -5
[deg]F or -10 [deg]F. (CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 5)
NEEA commented that DOE should define ice-cream freezers as those
able to operate at -10 [deg]F, and that -10 [deg]F is appropriate for
both testing and the definition, since it is more representative of
field usage and is low enough to achieve ice cream hardening. (NEEA,
No. 5, p. 4-5) NEEA commented that the definitions in both 10 CFR
431.62 and ENERGY STAR define ice-cream freezers as designed to operate
at or below -5 [deg]F, further supporting a temperature higher than -15
[deg]F for testing, and that this higher temperature (i.e., -10 [deg]F)
would capture a greater number of units under one definition and test.
(Id.)
The CA IOUs commented that there are two distinct uses for ice-
cream freezers: ice cream storage cabinets (with a cold holding
temperature of -15 [deg]F) and ice cream dipping cabinets (which
provide malleable ice cream serving at -5 [deg]F). (CA IOUs, No. 10, p.
5) The CA IOUs commented that in their investigation they found that
models tested at non-standard temperatures (i.e., above -15 [deg]F)
occurred primarily in horizontal closed solid (``HCS'') equipment, of
which 30 percent of products were tested at -10 [deg]F; and service
over counter equipment, of which 51 percent of products were tested at
-5 [deg]F. (CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 5-6). The CA IOUs commented that the
DOE should consider renaming the HCS ice-cream freezers to ``solid door
ice cream dipping cabinet'' and SOC ice-cream freezer to ``glass door
ice cream dipping cabinet'' to better align with industry terms and
differentiate between products tested at -15 [deg]F. (Id.) The CA IOUs
suggested testing these two equipment classes for ice cream dipping
applications at -5 [deg]F. (Id.)
DOE participated in the committee meetings to consider updates to
AHRI 1200-2013, eventually leading to the development of AHRI 1200-
202X. During these meetings, the committee discussed ice-cream freezer
rating temperatures and considered additional or alternate rating
temperatures for ice-cream freezer applications. The committee
determined that the existing rating points for commercial freezers
(i.e., -15 [deg]F for ice-cream freezers and 0 [deg]F for freezers) are
appropriate rating points for the range of typical commercial freezer
operation and maintained these rating points in section 3.15 ``Product
Temperature'' of AHRI 1200-202X. Consistent with the latest industry
rating standard, DOE is not proposing to amend the commercial freezer
target IATs for testing.
Of the 418 ice-cream freezer models certified to DOE,\6\ 50 are
rated based on LAPTs higher than -15 [deg]F, including 24 models with a
rating temperature of -5 [deg]F. Many of these models have a horizontal
or service over counter configuration and are intended to hold ice
cream for immediate consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ Based on review of DOE's Compliance Certification Database,
available at <a href="http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data">www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data</a> (accessed
February 1, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE recognizes that testing and rating certain commercial freezers
to 0 [deg]F may be more appropriate than testing and rating to -15
[deg]F. DOE already requires a 0 [deg]F rating temperature for
commercial freezers. Based on comments from interested parties and a
review of the commercial freezer market, DOE has tentatively determined
that ice-cream freezers that meet the current ice-cream freezer
definition but cannot operate as low as an IAT of -15 [deg]F <plus-
minus> 2 [deg]F can be tested at an IAT of 0 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2
[deg]F. Therefore, DOE is proposing to amend the ice-cream freezer
definition in this NOPR to specify that the designed operating
temperature is required to be at or below -15.0 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2.0
[deg]F), upon the compliance date(s) of any amended energy conservation
standard(s) for ice-cream freezers.
To clarify which commercial freezers are required to test at an IAT
of 0 [deg]F according to appendix B, DOE is proposing to define the
term ``low-temperature freezer'' to mean a commercial freezer that is
not an ice-cream freezer.
DOE requests comment on the proposed amended definition for ice-
cream freezer and the proposed definition for low-temperature freezer.
2. High-Temperature CRE
DOE defines ``commercial refrigerator as'' a unit of commercial
refrigeration equipment in which all refrigerated compartments in the
unit are capable of operating at or above 32 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2
[deg]F). 10 CFR 431.62.
Section 2.1 of appendix B requires testing commercial refrigerators
to an IAT of 38 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]F. DOE is aware of equipment
that meets the definition of a commercial refrigerator but is capable
of operating only at temperatures above the 38 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2
[deg]F IAT required for testing. Examples of these types of equipment
include CRE designed for storing or displaying chocolate and/or wine,
with typical recommended storage temperatures around 55 [deg]F.
Consistent with the current test procedure, manufacturers certify such
equipment using the LAPT setting. LAPT can vary by model, so this
approach which does not rely on a uniform operating temperature can
result in measured energy consumptions that are not necessarily
comparable between models.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE stated that it was considering adding a
definition for ``high-temperature refrigerator'' to better delineate
commercial refrigerators not capable of operating at the IAT required
for testing a commercial refrigerator. 86 FR 31182, 31184.
The Joint Commenters, NEEA, CA IOUs, AHRI, and Hussmann supported
DOE establishing a new definition for ``high-temperature refrigerator''
and separate test requirements for this equipment. (Joint Commenters,
No. 8, p. 1-2; NEEA, No. 5, p. 6; CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 5; AHRI, No. 3,
p. 3; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 4)
AHRI and Hussmann commented that they support a higher temperature
category and requested that it be representative of the higher
temperature ranges used in the marketplace (e.g., floral, wine, cigars,
meat aging, etc.). (AHRI, No. 3, p. 3; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 4)
ITW commented that it is desirable to maintain consistent testing
criteria between DOE equipment families to eliminate errors and
misunderstandings between nationally recognized testing laboratories
(``NRTLs''), DOE, manufacturers, and consumers. (ITW, No. 2, p. 2) ITW
commented that changes to the test procedure for high-temperature
refrigerators would account for only nominal differences in the
measured energy consumption rate, while adding complexity. (Id.)
NEEA commented that DOE should develop a definition and test
procedure for high temperature commercial cabinets as a parallel to
DOE's definition of residential high temperature refrigerators, and
stated that there is a the potential for energy savings in this
equipment category. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 6-7)
DOE is aware of certain commercial refrigerators that are intended
for use only at IATs higher than the 38 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]F
required by the existing DOE test procedure. For example, 133 models of
single-compartment commercial refrigerators are rated at LAPTs at or
above 40 [deg]F. By definition, these models are not capable of
operating at the required test integrated average temperature. 10 CFR
431.62. As indicated in comments from interested parties, categorizing
these commercial refrigerators in a separate high-temperature category
would allow DOE to consider test procedures for this

[[Page 39171]]

equipment that may better represent actual use.
To allow for differentiating typical commercial refrigerators from
commercial refrigerators that operate only at higher temperature, DOE
proposes to define ``high-temperature refrigerator'' as a commercial
refrigerator that is not capable of operating with an integrated
average temperature as low as 38.0 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2.0 [deg]F). DOE
recognizes that certain commercial refrigerators may be capable of
operating with IAT of 38.0 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2.0 [deg]F) but are
intended for use at higher storage temperatures. However, DOE is
proposing to define ``high-temperature refrigerator'' based on
operating capability rather than intended use to ensure consistent
application of DOE's definitions and to ensure that CRE currently
tested and rated with IATs of 38.0 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2.0 [deg]F)
would continue to be categorized, tested, and rated at that operating
condition.
To clarify the classification of commercial refrigerators overall,
DOE is also proposing to define the term ``medium-temperature
refrigerator'' to refer to commercial refrigerators capable of
operating with IATs of 38.0 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2.0 [deg]F) or lower.
As discussed further in section III.B.1.b of this document, DOE is
proposing to require testing high-temperature refrigerators according
to AHRI 1200-202X, which requires an IAT of 55 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2.0
[deg]F. Under the proposed approach, a commercial refrigerator would be
tested and rated as either a medium-temperature refrigerator (if
capable of operating with an IAT of 38.0 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2.0
[deg]F)) or as a high-temperature refrigerator (if not capable of
operating with an IAT as low as 38.0 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2.0 [deg]F)).
DOE recognizes that certain commercial refrigerators may be capable
of operating at both IATs of 38 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2.0 [deg]F) and 55
[deg]F (<plus-minus>2.0 [deg]F). In the April 2014 Final Rule, DOE
stated that CRE capable of operating at IATs that span multiple
equipment categories must be certified and comply with DOE's
regulations for each applicable equipment category. 79 FR 22277, 22291.
The proposed definition of high-temperature refrigerator would exclude
CRE capable of operating at medium temperatures (i.e., an IAT of 38
[deg]F), and therefore would exclude models capable of operating at
both IATs. Thus, as proposed, a unit of CRE capable of operating at
both IATs of 38 [deg]F and 55 [deg]F would meet the definition of only
a medium-temperature refrigerator.
As an alternative to the proposed definition, DOE could instead
define high-temperature refrigerator based only on the capability of a
commercial refrigerator to operate at IATs of 55 [deg]F (<plus-
minus>2.0 [deg]F). Under such an alternate approach, a unit of CRE
capable of operating at both IATs of 38 [deg]F and 55 [deg]F would meet
the definition of both a medium-temperature refrigerator and a high-
temperature refrigerator.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definitions for high-
temperature refrigerator and medium-temperature refrigerator, including
whether the terms should be mutually exclusive or constructed such that
equipment could be considered to meet both definitions.
DOE discusses proposed test requirements for this equipment in
section III.B.1.b of this NOPR.
3. Convertible Equipment
In the April 2014 Final Rule, DOE noted that some basic models of
CRE may have operating characteristics that include an operating
temperature range that spans multiple equipment classes and
subsequently required that self-contained equipment or remote
condensing equipment with thermostats capable of operating at IATs that
span multiple equipment categories be certified and comply with DOE's
regulations for each applicable equipment category. 79 FR 22277, 22291.
Similarly, DOE adopted requirements for remote condensing equipment
without a thermostat that specify that if a given basic model of CRE is
marketed, designed, or intended to operate at IATs spanning multiple
equipment categories, the CRE basic model must be certified and comply
with the relevant energy conservation standards for all applicable
equipment categories. Id.
DOE is proposing to specify in 10 CFR 429.42 the requirements from
the April 2014 Final Rule that require basic models of CRE that operate
in multiple equipment classes to certify and comply with the energy
conservation standards for each applicable equipment class. This
proposal is consistent with the notice of petition for a test procedure
waiver that DOE published on May 26, 2017, for AHT Cooling Systems GmbH
and AHT Cooling Systems USA Inc. (``AHT'') in which DOE declined to
grant AHT an interim waiver that would allow for testing only in the
ice-cream freezer equipment class for AHT's specified multi-mode CRE
basic models. 82 FR 24330.
DOE requests comment on the proposal to specify the requirements
from the April 2014 Final Rule regarding basic models of CRE that
operate in multiple equipment classes.

B. Updates to Industry Test Standards

DOE's test procedure for CRE currently adopts through reference
certain provisions of AHRI 1200-2010, ASHRAE 72-2005, and AHAM HRF-1-
2008. 10 CFR 431.63. With regard to the provisions relevant to the DOE
test procedure, AHRI 1200-2010 references certain provisions of ASHRAE
72-2005 and AHAM HRF-1-2008.
Since establishing the DOE test procedure in appendix B, AHRI,
ASHRAE, and AHAM have published updated versions of the referenced test
standards. On October 1, 2013, ANSI approved an updated version of AHRI
1200, ANSI/AHRI Standard 1200 (I-P), ``2013 Standard for Performance
Rating of Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandizers and Storage
Cabinets,'' (``AHRI 1200-2013''). On August 1, 2018, ANSI approved an
updated version of ASHRAE 72, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72-2018, ``Method of
Testing Open and Closed Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers,''
(``ASHRAE 72-2018''). AHAM more recently approved and published an
updated version of its industry test standard, AHAM HRF-1-2019,
``Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances,'' (``AHAM
HRF-1-2019''). For each of these industry test standards, DOE has
initially determined that the changes within these updated industry
test standards are either editorial, improve clarity, better harmonize
with the DOE test procedure, or not relevant to CRE (e.g., relevant to
products such as consumer refrigerators). Based on DOE's initial
assessment, the changes in the updated versions of the industry test
standards would not impact the measured energy consumption, volume, or
TDA of CRE, as applicable.
DOE is also aware of updates being considered for AHRI 1200-2013
and ASHRAE 72-2018. DOE has participated in the industry committee
meetings in which updates to these industry standards are being
developed. Based on these meetings, the changes being considered by the
industry committee appear intended largely to improve the clarity,
consistency, and representativeness of the industry test methods. DOE
discusses these changes further in sections III.B.1 and III.B.2 of this
NOPR.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether it should
reference the most recent versions of AHRI 1200 or ASHRAE 72 and
whether any of the updates to these standards would have an impact on
the measured energy consumption of CRE, and if so, how. 86 FR 31182,
31185. DOE additionally

[[Page 39172]]

requested comment on whether the CRE test procedure should reference
the most current version of AHAM HRF-1 and whether any of the updates
to that standard would have an impact on measured volume, and if so,
how. Id.
Hoshizaki and Continental commented in support of referencing AHRI
1200-2013 and ASHRAE 72-2018. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 1; Continental,
No. 6, p. 1) The CA IOUs commented in support of referencing ASHRAE 72-
2018. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 1; Continental, No. 6, p. 1CA IOUs, No.
10, p. 2) ITW commented that the DOE should only consider the ANSI
approved versions of AHRI 1200-2013, ASHRAE 72-2018, and AHAM HRF-1-
2008 \7\ standards, stating that any reference to standards not yet
approved would be premature and would not consider the final impact.
(ITW, No. 2, p. 2) AHRI and Hussmann commented that DOE should
incorporate by reference the upcoming versions of AHRI 1200 and ASHRAE
72. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 3-4; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 5) AHRI and Hussmann
commented that both draft standards are in the review phase and that
draft copies were available to DOE upon request. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ ITW and other commenters did not reference a specific ANSI
approved version of AHRI 1200, ASHRAE 72, and AHAM HRF-1. DOE
assumed commenters referenced the most recent ANSI approved versions
of these standards--AHRI 1200-2013 and ASHRAE 72-2018--unless
otherwise specified by the commenter. DOE assumed commenters
referenced the ANSI approved version of AHAM HRF-1 (i.e., HRF-1-
2008) referenced by ASHRAE 72-2018 and AHRI 1200-2013, unless
otherwise specified by the commenter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AHRI and Hussmann commented that the AHAM HRF-1-2008 volume
calculations have been incorporated into the latest version of AHRI
1200 and ASHRAE 72 and that the appropriate volume requirements are
covered in appendix C of AHRI Standard 1200 to avoid referencing a
standard that does not specifically apply to industry equipment. (AHRI,
No. 3, p. 3-4; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 5) AHRI and Hussmann also commented
that appendix C of AHRI 1200 encourages the use of computer models to
determine measured volumes. (Id.)
Hoshizaki and Continental commented that DOE should not require
retesting and recertification of already certified products, as doing
so would create additional burden on manufacturers. (Hoshizaki, No. 13,
p. 1; Continental, No. 6, p. 1) AHRI and Hussmann commented that DOE
would need to evaluate if the updated standards would require retesting
of already certified equipment or reevaluation of energy efficiency
metrics and levels. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 3-4; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 5)
DOE is aware that revisions to AHRI 1200-2013 and ASHRAE 72-2018
are underway. Specifically, DOE expects the ongoing revision to AHRI
1200-2013 to be near complete and has considered a draft version \8\ of
the updated standard for the purposes of the proposals in this NOPR
(referred to as ``AHRI 1200-202X'' to distinguish this from existing
versions of the standard). Similarly, DOE expects that the ongoing
revision to ASHRAE 72 is also nearly complete. On April 22, 2022,
ASHRAE published a second public review draft of the revision to ASHRAE
72-2018 (referred to as ``ASHRAE 72-2018R'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ On August 17, 2021, AHRI shared with DOE a draft version of
AHRI 1200 for the purposes of referencing. AHRI indicated an
expected publication date by the end of 2021. The updated AHRI 1200
has not yet published, so DOE is referencing the draft standard in
this NOPR. As indicated in the AHRI correspondence, AHRI Standard
1200-202X is in draft form and its text was provided to the
Department for the purposes of review only during the drafting of
this NOPR. Free copies of published AHRI Standards and a listing of
documents open for Public Comment are available on the AHRI website.
The draft of AHRI 1200 is available in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking on <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference the most current
versions of AHRI 1200 and ASHRAE 72, as discussed in the following
sections. For the purposes of this NOPR, DOE references AHRI 1200-202X
and ASHRAE 72-2018R to indicate the language in the available draft
updates. DOE has participated in the committee processes to develop the
revised standards for both AHRI 1200 and ASHRAE 72. Based on this
participation, DOE does not expect that substantive revisions will be
made to AHRI 1200-202X and ASHRAE 72-2018R in the final published
versions of the standards. DOE's intent is to adopt the final versions
of these industry standards (with deviations as proposed in this NOPR)
when they are available, to the extent that they are consistent with
the review drafts discussed in this document. DOE will review and
consider the final published versions of each standard when available.
DOE acknowledges that the versions of the industry test standards
proposed for incorporation by reference in this NOPR are not yet ANSI
approved. However, DOE has tentatively determined that these standards
provide an appropriate basis for testing that would produce test
results which reflect energy use of CRE during a representative average
use cycle and would not be unduly burdensome to conduct as required by
42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2).
The following sections discuss the revisions made in each of these
industry test standards and DOE's proposed adoption of certain
provisions of the industry standards into the DOE test procedure.
1. AHRI 1200
As stated in the June 2021 RFI, the 2013 revision to AHRI 1200
provides editorial, clarifying, or harmonizing updates that would not
impact the measured energy consumption, volume, or TDA of CRE as
compared to the current test procedure. 86 FR 31182, 31184. As compared
to AHRI 1200-2013, DOE has tentatively determined that the revisions in
AHRI 1200-202X are largely to improve clarity of the test standard.
These draft updates address application of the standard and its use in
relation to other industry standards (i.e., ASHRAE 72-2018).
Specifically, AHRI 1200-202X includes the following updates: harmonized
definitions for consistency with ASHRAE 72-2018 and DOE's existing
regulations; updated definitions for consistency with the use of the
rating standard; removal of test requirements that were duplicative
with ASHRAE 72-2018; clarified measurement requirements and the use of
calculations; inclusion of direct refrigerated volume measurement
instructions (rather than referencing the AHAM test standard); and
detailed total display area requirements and examples.
DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference AHRI 1200-202X for use
in the DOE test procedure because DOE has tentatively determined that
the updates compared to AHRI 1200-2013 would improve the clarity of the
test standard, ensure consistent testing, and as a result would improve
reproducibility of the test procedure. As stated, AHRI 1200-202X
includes procedures for measuring refrigerated volume rather than
referring to the AHAM standard (although the procedures are consistent
between these standards). Therefore, DOE is proposing to remove the
incorporation by reference of AHAM HRF-1-2008 and instead refer to AHRI
1200-202X directly for refrigerated volume measurement. Based on DOE's
review of AHRI 1200-202X, the updates included in the standard are
primarily editorial and are not expected to change test results as
compared to the existing test procedure, except for the specific
updates as discussed in the following paragraphs. Therefore, DOE has
tentatively determined that any existing test data for CRE currently
available on the market are expected to be consistent with the proposed
test procedure.

[[Page 39173]]

DOE requests comment on the proposal to incorporate by reference
AHRI 1200-202X and on whether the use of the updated test method would
impact CRE ratings based on the current DOE test procedure.
In addition to the clarifying revisions that would not
substantively change testing as compared to the current approach using
the DOE test procedure and AHRI 1200-2013, AHRI 1200-202X also includes
two substantive additions: addressing the use of high glide
refrigerants and providing an additional temperature rating point for
``high temperature'' applications. DOE is proposing to adopt these
provisions in its test procedure, as discussed in the following
sections.
a. High Glide Refrigerants
For remote condensing CRE, AHRI 1200 provides calculations to
estimate the compressor energy consumption necessary to provide the
cooling to the refrigerator or freezer. These calculations are based on
the dew point of the refrigerant during testing, which is intended to
be representative of the evaporator temperature. See Table 1 and
Section 5.2.1 of AHRI 1200-2013 and AHRI 1200-202X.
For certain refrigerants, the saturated vapor temperature (i.e.,
the dew point) can be different from the saturated liquid temperature
at a given pressure, in which case the refrigerant is considered to
have ``glide.'' AHRI 1200-202X includes a definition for ``high glide
refrigerant'' as a zeotropic refrigerant blend whose temperature glide
is greater than 2 [deg]F. ASHRAE defines ``glide'' as the absolute
value of the difference between the starting and ending temperatures of
a phase-change process by a refrigerant within a component of a
refrigerating system, exclusive of any subcooling or superheating. This
term usually describes condensation or evaporation of a zeotrope.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ See ASHRAE's glossary of defined terms at <a href="http://xp20.ashrae.org/terminology/">xp20.ashrae.org/terminology/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For high glide refrigerants, the refrigerant dew point is not
necessarily representative of the overall evaporator temperature. AHRI
1200-202X specifies that for high glide refrigerants, the temperature
used to calculate compressor energy consumption is based on an adjusted
mid-point evaporator temperature rather than an adjusted dew point
temperature.
Because the evaporator provides cooling to the CRE over the entire
heat exchanger surface, using the evaporator mid-point temperature
would ensure that the temperature used to calculate compressor energy
consumption is more representative of the overall evaporator
temperature. DOE has initially determined that the AHRI 1200-202X
approach of using the evaporator mid-point temperature rather than
refrigerant dew point is more representative of actual remote
condensing CRE use for which the equipment uses high glide refrigerants
and would improve consistency of remote testing using different
refrigerants. Additionally, this approach would improve consistency
when testing a given remote condensing CRE model with either high glide
or low glide refrigerants by ensuring that the evaporator mid-point
temperature for a high glide refrigerant is similar to the refrigerant
dew point for a low glide refrigerant.
DOE is proposing to adopt through reference the high glide
refrigerant provisions of AHRI 1200-202X. Because the existing DOE test
procedure, by reference to AHRI 1200-2013, only references adjusted dew
point for calculating compressor energy consumption, this proposed
amendment would result in different test results for remote condensing
CRE models tested with a high glide refrigerant. However, DOE expects
that current remote condensing CRE models are typically tested and
rated using low glide refrigerants (most commonly R-404A); therefore,
DOE has tentatively determined that this proposed test procedure
amendment is not expected to result in changes to rated energy
consumption for any currently available remote CRE models.
DOE requests comment on the proposal to incorporate by reference
AHRI 1200-202X, including the new provisions regarding high glide
refrigerants. DOE also requests information on whether any remote
condensing CRE are currently tested and rated using high glide
refrigerants and whether the proposed test procedure would impact the
rated energy consumption for such models.
b. High Temperature Applications
As discussed in section III.A.2 of this NOPR, DOE is proposing a
definition for ``high-temperature refrigerator.'' In the context of
consumer refrigeration products, DOE established the miscellaneous
refrigeration product category to capture similar consumer products,
with ``coolers'' tested at a standardized cabinet temperature of 55
[deg]F.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether an IAT of 55
[deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]F is an appropriate test condition for high-
temperature CRE and data on the typical operating temperatures for this
equipment. 86 FR 31182, 31184. DOE also requested comment on whether
any additional clarifications to the test procedure are needed (i.e.,
appropriate loading and door-opening requirements for high-temperature
CRE). Id.
AHRI, Hussmann, NEEA, and CA IOUs commented that an IAT of 55
[deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]F is an appropriate test condition for
commercial high-temperature refrigerators. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 4;
Hussmann, No. 14, p. 3; NEEA, No. 5, p. 7; CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 5) AHRI
and Hussmann commented that this test condition was incorporated into
the latest draft version of AHRI Standard 1200. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 4;
Hussmann, No. 14, p. 4)
NEEA also commented that higher-temperature CRE are sometimes
designed to have a highly specific end use such as the following: high
humidity floral cabinets (~35 [deg]F), wine chillers (~55 [deg]F), low
humidity chocolate cabinets (~65 [deg]F), higher humidity (~70 percent
relative humidity) cigar cabinets (~70 [deg]F). (NEEA, No. 5, p. 7)
NEEA commented in support of the 55 [deg]F IAT, but encouraged DOE to
identify whether more than one IAT is needed to effectively represent
higher-temperature CRE. (Id.) The CA IOUs also commented in support of
the DOE testing high temperature CRE products at a consistent operating
temperature rather than at an LAPT. (CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 5)
AHRI and Hussmann commented that the door openings and loadings
outlined in the ASHRAE 72-2018 are an adequate representation of high
temperature CRE systems. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 3; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 4)
NEEA recommended that DOE evaluate if the International
Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'') standard 62552:2015, ``Household
refrigerating appliances--Characteristics and test methods'' (``IEC
62552:2015'') can be used with high temperature CRE. (NEEA, No. 5, p.
6-7)
Section 3.15.1 of AHRI 1200-202X specifies that CRE intended for
high temperature applications shall have an integrated average
temperature of 55 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2.0 [deg]F. As stated, DOE
requires testing high-temperature consumer refrigeration products
(i.e., ``coolers'') at a standardized cabinet temperature of 55 [deg]F.
10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A.
Based on consideration of comments from interested parties, the
industry rating method, and the analogous existing test procedure for
consumer refrigeration products, DOE is proposing

[[Page 39174]]

to require testing high-temperature refrigerators according to AHRI
1200-202X, which requires an integrated average temperature of 55
[deg]F <plus-minus> 2.0 [deg]F.
As noted by commenters, high-temperature refrigerators may serve
many distinct applications, each with specific intended storage
conditions. However, DOE has initially determined that the IAT
specified in AHRI 1200-202X is most representative of high-temperature
refrigerator operating conditions overall because the high-temperature
refrigerators that DOE identified have operating temperature ranges
which include 55 [deg]F and allows for consistent measurements of
energy use for equipment in this category.
In referencing AHRI 1200-202X, the DOE test procedure would also
require that high-temperature refrigerators be tested according to the
same procedure as other CRE, other than the IAT. Supported by comments
from AHRI and Hussmann, DOE has tentatively determined that the door
opening and loading procedures in ASHRAE 72-2018R are appropriate for
high-temperature refrigerators. Following the proposed test approach
would also ensure consistent test methods across CRE categories, albeit
at different IATs.
In response to NEEA's comment regarding the use of IEC 62552:2015
for high-temperature refrigerators, DOE notes that IEC 62552:2015 is
intended for testing household refrigerating appliances. Additionally,
DOE's test procedures for consumer refrigeration products do not follow
the approach in IEC 62552:2015 and instead reference AHAM HRF-1-2019.
See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A and appendix B. Based on
available industry standards and for consistency with existing DOE test
procedures, DOE has tentatively determined that testing according to
AHRI 1200-202X would be more appropriate for high-temperature CRE than
IEC 62552:2015.
DOE requests comment on the proposal to adopt a rating point of 55
[deg]F <plus-minus> 2.0 [deg]F for high-temperature refrigerators by
adopting through reference certain provisions of AHRI 1200-202X.
Because the proposed test procedure for high-temperature
refrigerators would amend the current test approach for certain
commercial refrigerators (i.e., those currently rated using the LAPT),
DOE is proposing that the high-temperature refrigerator provisions in
AHRI 1200-202X would not be required for use until the compliance date
of any energy conservation standards established for high-temperature
refrigerators based on the proposed test procedure. Under this
approach, CRE that would be defined as high-temperature refrigerators
would continue to be tested and rated at the LAPT and subject to the
current DOE energy conservation standards for CRE.
2. ASHRAE 72
As stated in the June 2021 RFI, the 2014 and 2018 revisions to
ASHRAE 72 provide editorial, clarifying, or harmonizing revisions that
would not impact the measured energy consumption, volume, or TDA of CRE
as compared to the existing DOE test procedure. 86 FR 31182, 31184.
The revisions in ASHRAE 72-2018R as compared to the most recent
2018 version are largely to improve clarity of the test standard and
include substantial re-organization of the test standard. Specifically,
the foreword to ASHRAE 72-2018R states that the revision reorganizes
the standard to make it easier to read and use; includes updates in the
loading of test simulators and filler material; revises the sequence of
operations during the test; provides instructions for certain
measurements; and adds provisions for roll-in racks. The following
paragraphs describe these revisions in more detail.
The reorganization of the test standard in ASHRAE 72-2018R is not
expected to substantively change any test requirements as compared to
the current test procedure. DOE understands that the intent of the
reordering was to more closely align the test standard with the order
of operations that a test facility would follow when conducting
testing.
The updates to the loading of test simulators (a small package with
temperature measuring device) and filler material (material loaded
between test simulators for additional product mass, intended to
approximate food product loading) in ASHRAE 72-2018R revise certain
requirements included in ASHRAE 72-2005. These updates change certain
instructions regarding loading, but DOE has tentatively determined that
these updates are either clarifying in nature or more closely align
ASHRAE 72 with the capability of test facilities to conduct testing.
Specifically, ASHRAE 72-2018R would improve the clarity of the
simulator loading location instructions, more clearly define net usable
volume to determine the loaded volume, and adjust the fill volumes from
70 to 90 percent of the net usable volume to 60 to 80 percent. See
Section 5.4 of ASHRAE 72-2018R.
DOE has tentatively determined that in principle the update to the
fill volume requirement would be a substantive change to the current
DOE test procedure. However, DOE understands that ASHRAE implemented
this revision because test facilities currently may have difficulty
loading to more than 80 percent of the net usable volume. Based on this
difficulty, DOE expects that most tests are currently conducted with
loads between 70 to 80 percent of the net usable volume. Additionally,
the revision to allow loading as low as 60 percent of net usable volume
would allow additional flexibility for test facilities when loading
equipment for testing and any impact on measured energy use is expected
to be minimal. DOE also expects that to the extent that testing with a
lower load percentage would have any impact on measured energy use, it
would likely increase measured energy use as CRE with doors would have
more internal compartment volume occupied by air rather than the test
load, allowing for more internal air to exchange with warm ambient air
during the test procedure's door opening period. Therefore, DOE has
tentatively determined that this proposed amendment to the test
procedure would not allow any CRE not currently complying with DOE's
energy conservation standards to become compliant.
Section 7.1 of ASHRAE 72-2018R specifies the sequence of operations
for conducting a test. The overall sequence requires conducting two
tests, Test A and Test B, to verify stability of the unit under test.
Both Test A and Test B would be conducted in the same way--starting
with a defrost and with door or drawer openings, night curtains, and
lighting occupancy sensors and controls, as applicable--as specified in
Section 7.3 of ASHRAE 72-2018R. The test is determined to be stable if
the average temperature of simulators during Test B is within 0.4
[deg]F of the average measured temperature during Test A. See Section
7.5 of ASHRAE 72-2018R. As compared to the current DOE test procedure
and ASHRAE 72-2005, the 2018R version provides specificity for how to
determine that a test is stable. ASHRAE 72-2005 currently requires
steady-state conditions for the test (section 7.1.1) and a
stabilization period during which the CRE operates with no adjustment
to controls for at least 12 hours (section 7.4). Section 3 of ASHRAE
72-2005 defines steady-state as the condition in which the average
temperature of all test simulators changes less than 0.4 [deg]F from
one 24-hour period or refrigeration cycle to the next. ASHRAE 72-2005
does not specify whether the 24-hour periods used to determine steady-
state conditions

[[Page 39175]]

include door openings, which are required to be performed during the
24-hour performance test. Additionally, the temperatures maintained
over a 24-hour period with door openings may differ from a 24-hour
period with no door openings. If steady-state is determined without
door openings, the door openings during a test may increase simulator
temperatures outside of the desired range for a test, requiring a
change to the temperature setting and re-starting the steady-state
determination prior to another test period.
Whereas, the approach included in ASHRAE 72-2018R specifies that
Test A and Test B are conducted in the same way, and therefore the
temperatures used to determine stability would also be at the target
temperatures for the test. DOE has determined that this approach
provides clarity to the existing test procedure while limiting burden
by reducing the need for re-tests (i.e., by maintaining target
temperatures during the stability determination). Because the sequence
of operations in ASHRAE 72-2018R is generally consistent with ASHRAE
72-2005 but with added specificity, DOE does not expect that the
updated sequence of operations would impact current CRE ratings based
on the current DOE test procedure.
Additionally, ASHRAE 72-2018R more explicitly specifies test
conditions and data collection requirements in a new appendix A:
``Measurement Locations, Tolerances, Accuracies, and Other
Characteristics.'' This appendix includes a table that presents the
measurements required during testing, the measurement location (if
applicable), the period of time the measurement is taken (e.g., once
per minute throughout Test A and Test B, once before Test B, and once
after Test B, etc.), the required measurement accuracy, and the
required value (i.e., the test condition, if applicable). The
measurement instructions and requirements in appendix A to ASHRAE 72-
2018R are generally consistent with those required by the current DOE
test procedure, by reference to ASHRAE 72-2005, but with added
specificity to clarify the applicable requirements. Because the
measurement instructions in ASHRAE 72-2018R are generally consistent
with ASHRAE 72-2005 but with added specificity, DOE does not expect
that the updated requirements in appendix A would impact current CRE
ratings based on the current DOE test procedure.
ASHRAE 72-2018R also adds provisions for testing CRE used with
roll-in racks. Sections 5.4.1 and 5.4.5 of ASHRAE 72-2018R provide
loading instructions for CRE used with roll-in racks. These sections
are generally consistent with the existing test requirements for CRE,
but with additional clarification specific to roll-in racks to describe
the determination of net usable volume and loading of test simulators.
Whereas, ASHRAE 72-2005 includes roll-in racks within the scope of the
test standard (see section 9.1) but does not provide additional test
instructions for these models. Because the instructions for testing CRE
used with roll-in racks in ASHRAE 72-2018R are generally consistent
with ASHRAE 72-2005 but with added specificity, DOE does not expect
that the updated requirements in appendix A would impact current CRE
ratings based on the current DOE test procedure.
As discussed, the test procedure in ASHRAE 72-2018R is generally
consistent with the existing DOE test procedure, which references
ASHRAE 72-2005. The updates included in ASHRAE 72-2018R are generally
editorial, clarifying, or harmonizing revisions. Additionally, the
substantive revisions in ASHRAE 72-2018R provide additional specificity
to the existing test procedure requirements and would improve
repeatability, reproducibility, and representativeness of the test
procedure while limiting test burden. For these reasons, DOE is
proposing to incorporate by reference ASHRAE 72-2018R into the DOE test
procedure. For these same reasons, DOE has tentatively determined that
any test data for CRE currently available on the market are expected to
be consistent with the proposed test procedure.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate by reference
ASHRAE 72-2018R, including on whether the updates included in the
industry test standard would impact the measured energy consumption of
any CRE currently available.
In response to the June 2021 RFI, Hoshizaki recommended that the
ASHRAE 72 committee review the testing with drawers and determine the
requirements for loading of drawers, opening of drawers, and sequence
of such actions. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 3) DOE understands that the
ASHRAE 72 committee is reviewing test procedures for CRE with drawers
to consider whether additional direction is needed.
Section 1.3.16 of appendix B of the DOE test procedure specifies
that drawers are to be treated as identical to doors when conducting
the DOE test procedure, and that drawers should be configured with the
drawer pans that allow for the maximum packing of test simulators and
filler packages without the filler packages and test simulators
exceeding 90 percent of the refrigerated volume. Packing of test
simulators and filler packages must be in accordance with the
requirements for commercial refrigerators without shelves, as specified
in Section 6.2.3 of ASHRAE 72-2005. Section 1.3.16 of appendix B.
CRE with drawers are typically configured to hold standardized food
pans for food storage. Pans loaded into the drawers are not typically
filled with food above the top edge of the pan to prevent spilling or
interfering with other drawers. Additionally, these CRE may require the
space above the pans to be unloaded to allow for air circulation within
the cabinet.
The current DOE test procedure instructions do not specify any test
simulator or filler package load limits for the pans, other than not
exceeding 90 percent of the refrigerated volume. For other CRE tests,
ASHRAE 72-2005 and ASHRAE 72-2018R specify test simulator and filler
package loading based on net usable volume (i.e., the volume of
interior usable space intended for refrigerated storage or display,
specifically consisting of the usable interior volume within the
claimed load limit boundaries; see Section 3 of ASHRAE 72-2005) rather
than refrigerated volume. See Section 5.4.2 of ASHRAE 72-2018R and
Section 6.2.5 of ASHRAE 72-2005. Loading based on the net usable volume
accounts for load limits within the CRE and would prevent overloading a
CRE to the extent that could impact airflow circulation within the
cabinet.
To ensure consistent testing for CRE with drawers, and to allow for
testing that is most representative of typical use, DOE is proposing to
specify in appendix B that CRE with drawers be tested according to the
existing requirements with the additional instruction that, for the
purposes of loading pans in drawers, the net usable volume is the
storage volume of the pans up to the top edge of the pan.
The drawer loading instructions in appendix B reference Section
6.2.3 of ASHRAE 72-2005, which specifies instructions for loading
compartments without shelves. Specifically, section 6.2.3 requires
situating test simulators at the left and right ends (i.e., sides), at
the front and back, and top and bottom locations of the compartment. To
make explicit the application of this instruction to standardized food
pans, DOE is proposing to require that test simulators be placed at the
corner locations of each pan. For any pans not wide or deep enough to
allow for test simulators at each corner (i.e., less than 7.5 inches
wide or deep, based on the 3.75 inch test simulator width), DOE is

[[Page 39176]]

proposing that the test simulators would be centered along the width or
depth accordingly. Similarly, for any pans not tall enough to allow for
test simulators at the specified top and bottom locations (i.e., pans
less than 4 inches tall, based on the 2 inch test simulator height),
DOE is proposing that a test simulator only be loaded at the specified
top location within the standardized food pan.
DOE requests comment on the proposed additional instructions
regarding loading drawers. DOE requests information on whether the
proposed approach is consistent with any future industry standard
revisions to address this issue. DOE requests comment on whether other
instructions for CRE with drawers should be revised (e.g., fully open
definition for drawers) or if additional instructions are needed.
3. Secondary Coolants
Certain CRE are installed for use with a secondary coolant. In this
configuration, a remotely cooled fluid (e.g., a propylene glycol
solution) is supplied to the cabinet and absorbs heat from the cabinet
without the secondary coolant undergoing a phase change.
AHRI publishes a rating standard that is applicable to CRE that use
a secondary coolant or refrigerant, AHRI Standard 1320 (I-P), ``2011
Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial Refrigerated Display
Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets for Use With Secondary
Refrigerants,'' (``AHRI 1320-2011''), approved by ANSI on April 17,
2012. AHRI 1320-2011 is applicable to CRE that are equipped and
designed to work with electrically driven, medium-temperature, single-
phase secondary coolant systems, but excludes equipment used for low-
temperature applications, secondary coolants involving a phase change
(e.g., ice slurries or carbon dioxide), and self-contained CRE. AHRI
1320-2011 includes similar rating temperature conditions as those in
AHRI 1200-2013 and references ASHRAE 72-2005 and AHAM HRF-1-2008 for
the measurement of energy consumption and calculation of refrigerated
volume, respectively. The only substantive differences between AHRI
1200-2013 and AHRI 1320-2011 are the inclusion of secondary refrigerant
circulation pump energy consumption in the calculation of total daily
energy consumption and revised coefficients of performance to determine
compressor energy consumption.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether AHRI 1320-
2011 would be an appropriate test method to measure the total daily
energy consumption of CRE that use a secondary refrigerant circuit, and
whether it would provide representative measurements of energy use. 86
FR 31182, 31185. DOE also sought information and data on CRE designed
to work with electrically driven, medium-temperature, single-phase
secondary coolant systems, including the typical field installations
and operating conditions. Id.
AHRI and Hussmann commented that AHRI 1320-2011 is due to begin
revisions as soon as the updated AHRI 1200-202X completes the review
cycle, and that the updated AHRI 1320 standard will then cover the
applicable secondary coolant systems and would be an appropriate test
method to measure the total daily energy consumption of CRE that use a
secondary refrigerant circuit. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 4; Hussmann, No. 14, p.
5)
DOE also requested comment on whether manufacturers sell or plan to
sell CRE with secondary coolant that would be outside the stated
applicability of AHRI 1320-2011, including low-temperature equipment or
CRE using secondary coolants with a phase change (e.g., ice slurries or
carbon dioxide), and on whether any other existing test standards are
appropriate for rating such equipment. Id.
Hussmann commented that they are not aware of any equipment with
secondary coolant that would be outside the stated applicability of
AHRI 1320-2011. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 6)
IGSD commented in support of DOE considering AHRI 1320-2011 for
secondary coolant systems, stating that studies have found that these
systems can consume just as much or less energy than systems that do
not, with the added benefit of using low-global warming potential
(``GWP'') refrigerants. (IGSD, No. 7, p. 1)
AHRI and Arneg commented that the use of secondary coolants is
requested by few end users and diminishing in number sold on the
market, including for phase change systems using CO<INF>2</INF>. (AHRI,
No. 3, p. 4; Arneg, No. 12, p. 1) Arneg commented that regulatory
emphasis should be placed on other types of equipment. AHRI commented
that it is not aware of any standards that measure the energy use of
CO<INF>2</INF> with pumped overfeed phase change systems. (Id.)
AHRI commented that regardless of the cooling medium, the display
case will generally require the same amount of cooling. (AHRI, No. 3,
p. 4)
While CRE cooled by secondary coolants are less common than self-
contained or remote CRE, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference
AHRI 1320-2011 to provide a method for testing and rating the energy
use of such CRE. As stated, the only substantive difference between
AHRI 1200-2013 and AHRI 1320-2011 is the inclusion of secondary
refrigerant circulation pump energy consumption in the calculation of
total daily energy consumption.
DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference AHRI 1320-2011 for
testing CRE used with secondary coolants and to reference only the
specific sections within the standard that apply to CRE tested with
secondary coolants (i.e., those referring to pump energy and coolant
flow) and to otherwise reference the applicable requirements in AHRI
1200-202X. DOE understands that AHRI 1320-2011 may be updated
consistent with the updates in AHRI 1200-202X. DOE would consider the
updated version of AHRI 1320-2011 if it is available at the time of any
subsequent final rule to establish amended DOE test procedures for CRE.
Because CRE cooled by secondary coolants are not currently subject
to DOE's test procedure, DOE is proposing that the test procedure
referencing AHRI 1320-2011 would not be required for use until the
compliance date of any amended energy conservation standards for CRE
that consider such testing. DOE is aware that direct-expansion remote
CRE may also be capable of being installed with a secondary coolant.
Under this proposal, such equipment would continue to be tested and
rated using the approach currently required for remote condensing CRE.
The test procedure for secondary coolants proposed in this NOPR would
be applicable to equipment only capable of being installed with
secondary coolants, should any such models become available.
DOE requests comment on the proposal to incorporate by reference
AHRI 1320-2011 for CRE used with secondary coolants, including the
proposal to only reference the industry standard for provisions
specific to secondary coolants and to otherwise reference AHRI 1200-
202X, as proposed for other CRE.
4. International Standards Development
IGSD commented that the United for Efficiency public private
partnership, under the leadership of the United Nations Environment
Program, developed model regulation guidelines for CRE,\11\ which IGSD
suggested may

[[Page 39177]]

contain information of interest to DOE. (IGSD, No. 7, p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ Available at <a href="http://united4efficiency.org/resources/model-regulation-guidelines-for-energy-efficient-and-climate-friendly-commercial-refrigeration-equipment/">united4efficiency.org/resources/model-regulation-guidelines-for-energy-efficient-and-climate-friendly-commercial-refrigeration-equipment/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE has reviewed the model regulation guidelines for CRE and
recognizes the potential benefit of international harmonization and of
providing an example framework for regulations to facilitate
establishing them for jurisdictions where they are not yet in place.
The model regulation guidelines include scope of coverage, definitions,
test procedures, energy consumption requirements, additional equipment
regulations, and verification guidelines. The definitions and test
procedures referenced in the guidelines are not consistent with the
scope, definitions, and test procedures established by DOE under EPCA.
DOE has tentatively determined that requiring the approach as specified
in the model regulation guidelines would represent a significant burden
to the CRE industry while not resulting in test procedures that are
more representative of average use of CRE.
DOE is additionally proposing to define certain CRE and applicable
test procedure provisions for equipment that is outside of the scope of
the model regulation guidelines--e.g., high-temperature refrigerators,
blast chillers and blast freezers. The model regulation guidelines do
not present an opportunity to harmonize test procedures with such CRE.
For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, DOE is not
proposing to adopt the model regulation guidelines.
DOE requests comment on the model regulation guidelines and on
whether there are opportunities for DOE to harmonize its regulations
with other regulations in place for CRE.

C. Test Conditions for Specific CRE Categories

DOE has identified specific categories of CRE that are not
currently subject to the DOE test procedure or that the current test
procedure may not produce results that are representative of their use.
Additionally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') ENERGY
STAR program considered three of these equipment categories for scope
expansion and test method development during the Version 5.0
Specification development process: Refrigerated preparation and buffet
tables; chef bases or griddle stands; and blast chillers and
freezers.\12\ DOE has considered information gathered through the
ENERGY STAR process when developing the proposals included in this
NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ Information and materials for ENERGY STAR's Specification
Version 5.0 process are available at <a href="http://www.energystar.gov/products/spec/commercial_refrigerators_and_freezers_specification_version_5_0_pd">www.energystar.gov/products/spec/commercial_refrigerators_and_freezers_specification_version_5_0_pd</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to the June 2021 RFI, the Joint Commenters and CA IOUs
commented in support of developing test methods for salad bars, buffet
tables, and refrigerated preparation tables; blast chillers and blast
freezers; chef bases and griddle stands; and mobile refrigerated
cabinets. (Joint Commenters, No. 8, p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 1) The
Joint Commenters commented in support of the test methods to allow for
comparable efficiency information across models and to allow the
consideration of both DOE and ENERGY STAR specifications for this
equipment. (Joint Commenters, No. 8, p. 2) NEEA recommended that DOE
align CRE test methods for these categories with the ENERGY STAR
Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers Specification Version 5.0.\13\
(NEEA, No. 5, p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ EPA's ENERGY STAR program released a Final Draft Version
5.0 Eligibility Criteria for commercial refrigerators and freezers
on January 19, 2022. For information on the Version 5.0
specification development, see <a href="http://www.energystar.gov/products/spec/commercial_refrigerators_and_freezers_specification_version_5_0_pd">www.energystar.gov/products/spec/commercial_refrigerators_and_freezers_specification_version_5_0_pd</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE discusses each of these categories in the following sections.
1. Salad Bars, Buffet Tables and Refrigerated Preparation Tables
Salad bars, buffet tables, and other refrigerated holding and
serving equipment, including refrigerated preparation tables,\14\ are
CRE that store and display perishable items temporarily during food
preparation or service. These units typically have design attributes,
such as easily accessible or open bins that allow convenient and
unimpeded access to the refrigerated products, which make them unique
from CRE designed for storage or retailing. In the April 2014 Final
Rule, DOE did not establish test procedures for this equipment, but
maintained that this equipment meets the definition of CRE and is
covered equipment that could be subject to future test procedures and
energy conservation standards. 79 FR 22277, 22281. In the June 2021
RFI, DOE considered definitions and test procedures applicable to salad
bars, buffet tables, and refrigerated preparation tables. DOE also
requested information on other refrigerated holding and serving
equipment, including definitions and appropriate test procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ While the April 2014 Final Rule did not specifically refer
to refrigerated preparation tables, DOE is including them in this
category because they have similar features to salad bars and buffet
tables. Each of these equipment categories includes an open top area
for holding refrigerated pans and is used during food preparation
and service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEEA and the CA IOUs commented generally in support of DOE
developing test procedures for refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables,
and preparation tables. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 3; CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 3)
a. Definitions
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE noted that ASTM International F2143-16
``Standard Test Method for Performance of Refrigerated Buffet and
Preparation Tables'' (``ASTM F2143-16'') provides the following
definitions for refrigerated buffet and preparation tables:
<bullet> Refrigerated buffet and preparation table--equipment
designed with a refrigerated open top or open condiment rail.
<bullet> Refrigerated buffet table or unit--equipment designed with
mechanical refrigeration that is intended to receive refrigerated food
and maintain food product temperatures and is intended for customer
service such as a salad bar. A unit may or may not be equipped with a
lower refrigerated compartment.
<bullet> Refrigerated food preparation unit--equipment designed
with a refrigerated open top or open condiment rail such as
refrigerated sandwich units, pizza preparation tables, and similar
equipment. The unit may or may not be equipped with a lower
refrigerated compartment.

86 FR 31182, 31185-31186. DOE noted that certain terms used within
these definitions are undefined (e.g., condiment rails, food product
temperatures). Id. DOE additionally noted that it was not aware of any
other industry standard definitions for these equipment. Id.
DOE additionally notes that the California Code of Regulations
(``CCR'') \15\ defines ``buffet table'' and ``preparation table'' as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ California's regulations for buffet tables and preparation
tables refer to the 2001 version of ASTM F2143. DOE has reviewed
ASTM F2143-16 for this NOPR as it is the most current version of the
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<bullet> ``Buffet table'' means a commercial refrigerator, such as
a salad bar, that is designed with mechanical refrigeration and that is
intended to receive refrigerated food, to maintain food product
temperatures, and for customer service; and
<bullet> ``Preparation table'' means a commercial refrigerator with
a countertop refrigerated compartment with or without cabinets below,
and with self-contained refrigeration equipment. 20 CCR Sec. 1602.

[[Page 39178]]

Furthermore, EPA's ENERGY STAR program's Final Draft Version 5.0
Eligibility Criteria for commercial refrigerators and freezers includes
a definition for ``preparation or buffet table'' as a commercial
refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-freezer with a food condiment
rail designed to hold open perishable food and may or may not be
equipped with a lower compartment that may or may not be refrigerated.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested information on the suitability
of the ASTM F2143-16 definitions for refrigerated buffet and
preparation tables (and also their applicability to salad bars) as
potential regulatory definitions for this equipment. 86 FR 31182,
31186. DOE also requested comment on whether any further delineation
would be necessary to account for the range of performance related
features available in this equipment (e.g., presence of pan covers,
refrigerated storage compartments, and any other unique configurations
or features that may require consideration for any potential test
procedures). DOE further requested comment on the specific features and
equipment capabilities that should be included in definitions for
refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and preparation tables. Id. For
example, DOE sought information on the factors that would differentiate
this equipment from other typical CRE. Id. DOE also requested comment
on whether potential definitions should specify temperature operating
ranges, and if so, what the appropriate ranges would be. Id.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE also noted that the configuration of
salad bars, buffet tables, and refrigerated preparation tables may
raise questions as to whether a unit is commercial hybrid refrigeration
equipment. Id. DOE defines ``commercial hybrid refrigeration
equipment'' as a unit of CRE (1) that consists of two or more thermally
separated refrigerated compartments that are in two or more different
equipment families, and (2) that is sold as a single unit. 10 CFR
431.62.
DOE discussed in the June 2021 RFI that additional detail may be
necessary to distinguish between a unit that is a salad bar, buffet
table, or refrigerated preparation table and a unit that is commercial
hybrid equipment that includes a salad bar, buffet table, or
refrigerated preparation table. 86 FR 31182, 31186. Refrigerated salad
bars, buffet tables, and preparation tables typically have removable
pans or bins that directly contact the chilled air in the refrigerated
compartment of the unit. With that configuration, the entirety of the
chilled compartment and surface pans would potentially be considered a
refrigerated salad bar, buffet table, or preparation table. In
contrast, if a unit includes solid partitions between the chilled
compartment and the pans or bins on top of the unit, such a
configuration would potentially be considered thermal separation and
the unit would be considered a commercial hybrid consisting of a
refrigerated salad bar, buffet table, or preparation table with a
refrigerator and/or freezer.
DOE requested comment on whether the presence of thermally
separating partitions should be considered as a factor to differentiate
between (a) refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and preparation
tables; and (b) commercial hybrid units consisting of a refrigerated
salad bar, buffet table, or preparation table with a refrigerator and/
or freezer. Id.
AHRI commented that salad bars and buffet tables are generally
self-service equipment, whereas preparation tables are store-service
equipment, stating that service could be either employee or customer
operated for salad bars, condiment rails, etc. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 5)
AHRI and Continental commented that buffet and preparation tables
often have upsized refrigeration systems with larger compressors,
larger evaporators, additional fans, and modified or specialized air
flow patterns to maintain food-safe temperatures in the open pans.
(AHRI, No. 3, p. 5; Continental, No. 6, p. 2) ITW commented that long-
term stability required by operators increases the demand for
refrigeration system capacity. (ITW, No. 2, p. 3)
AHRI and Hussmann commented that the definition for ``Refrigerated
Buffet and Preparation Table'' should be split to better define each
unique case type, with ``open top'' and ``open condiment rail'' also
being defined. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 4-5; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 6) AHRI and
Hussmann commented that the definition for ``refrigerated food
preparation unit'' should be clearly defined since the definition is
similar to ``refrigerated buffet and preparation table.'' (Id.)
AHRI and Hussmann further commented that the ASTM definition for
``refrigerated buffet table or unit'' states that the unit is intended
to receive refrigerated food and maintain food product temperatures and
is intended for customer service such as a salad bar, and that the
``refrigerated food'' temperature should be included in the definition
as well as the temperature at which the food must be maintained and for
an expected duration. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 4-5; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 6)
Hoshizaki commented that the ability to have cooled products in
pans on the top and a refrigerated section below the pans in one unit
is a feature of preparation tables. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 1) Hoshizaki
commented that refrigerated preparation tables are already defined in
NSF International (``NSF'') \16\/ANSI 7-2019, ``Commercial
Refrigerators and Freezers,'' (``NSF 7-2019'') and ASTM F2143-16 and
suggested that DOE utilize the current definitions of those
products.\17\ (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ Founded in 1944 as the National Sanitation Foundation, the
organization changed its name to NSF International in 1990.
\17\ Hoshizaki did not include a specific version of NSF 7 in
their comments. DOE assumes Hoshizaki was referencing the latest
version available at the time of comment (i.e., the 2019 version).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

True, ITW, and Continental commented in support of using NSF 7-2019
(defined within NSF/ANSI 170-2019,\18\ ``Glossary of Food Equipment
Terminology,'' (``NSF 170-2019'')), ``Commercial Refrigerators and
Freezers'' definitions, which defines ``Refrigerated Buffet Units'' and
``Refrigerated Food Preparation Units'' with ``open display area'' and
also ``open-top refrigerated equipment.'' (True, No. 4, p 6-7; ITW, No.
2, p. 2-3; Continental, No. 6, p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ A specific version of NSF 170 was not referenced by
commenters. DOE assumed commenters referenced the 2019 version of
NSF 170 associated with NSF 7-2019. DOE notes there is an updated
2021 version that published September 1, 2021, after the June 2021
RFI comment period ended, but DOE determined there are no updates in
this version that would impact the comments received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITW recommended the definitions based on NSF 7-2019 for:
``refrigerated buffet units (salad bars),'' ``refrigerated food
preparation units (tables).'' (ITW, No. 2, p. 2-3) ITW commented that
refrigerated buffet units (salad bars) could be viewed as open-top
storage ``like'' cabinets with modifiable features, but that food
preparation units (tables) are designed around specific applications
(e.g., salads, pizzas, sandwiches, grilling, etc.), such that a single
overarching cabinet design cannot meet the specific needs of the end
user. (ITW, No. 2, p. 3) ITW questioned if there is any value in
regulating units without an integrated storage compartment, stating
that there is minimal power consumption, installation base, and shorter
daily operating hours for such units. (ITW, No. 2, p. 7)
Regarding whether potential definitions should specify temperature
operating ranges, and if so, what the appropriate ranges would be, ITW,
AHRI, True, and Continental

[[Page 39179]]

commented that the food safety temperature is between 33 [deg]F and 41
[deg]F (further specified for open pan versus lower refrigerated area
in NSF 7-2019) with the lids open and covers removed for a specified
period of time, which AHRI noted is 4 hours per NSF 7-2019. (ITW, No.
2, p. 3; AHRI, No. 3, p. 5; True, No. 4, p. 8; Continental, No. 6, p.
2)
Regarding whether the presence of thermally separated compartments
differentiates units that are refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables,
and preparation tables from units that are commercial hybrid units, the
CA IOUs commented that a single-compressor, self-contained condenser
product with top and bottom compartments that are not thermally
separated are the predominant configuration for refrigerated
preparation tables, as they can be used in a variety of kitchen and
food service environments. (CA IOUs No. 10, p. 3)
AHRI commented that some systems may share a coil between a prep or
buffet station and a display or storage case already covered by DOE
regulations. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 5) Hussmann commented that ``multi-zone''
units should be defined for a clear understanding of equipment that
may/may not share a coil between the prep/buffet section of a case and
another section of the case that is already covered under an existing
DOE category. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 7) Hussmann and AHRI commented that
the ``lower refrigerated compartment'' should be clearly defined as
having either the same or separate coil. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 6; AHRI,
No. 3, p. 4-5)
Hussmann, AHRI, True, and ITW commented that thermally separating
partitions should not be considered a factor in differentiating
equipment type. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 8; AHRI, No. 3, p. 5-6; True, No.
4, p. 8; ITW, No. 2, p. 3) ITW commented that thermally separating
partitions do improve temperature stability between two areas but do
not significantly change the heat load on the cabinet. (ITW, No. 2, p.
3)
True commented that a unit should contain a complete refrigeration
[unit] for each section for it to be considered ``commercial hybrid.''
(True, No. 4, p. 8) True commented that a unit containing two thermally
separated refrigerated compartments with one common condensing unit
should not be considered a hybrid unit. (Id.)
Regarding whether any further delineation is necessary to account
for the range of performance related features available in this
equipment, Hussmann commented that there should be definitions for
different types of hybrid equipment, including: refrigerated buffet or
prep table sharing a coil with a refrigerated compartment that is
already covered by the DOE; refrigerated equipment that may split a
single cooling zone between condiment rails, prep surfaces, pans with
lids, pans without lids, non-critical temperature wells, etc.;
equipment with wells that can switch from refrigerated to heated; and
equipment intended to be used with different sized pans on the same
rail. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 7)
Hussmann commented that the condiment and self-service zones may
not be thermally separated but should still be considered a hybrid
unit. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 8) AHRI commented that equipment can
incorporate frozen, cold, and hot food storage without thermally
separated compartments and these systems should be considered hybrid
refrigeration units. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 5-6) Hussmann commented that
further definition would be needed for refrigerated preparation tops
that require colder temperatures such as sushi or ice cream. (Hussmann,
No. 14, p. 6-7)
ITW commented that the thermal heat load of open-top refrigeration
equipment with an integral storage compartment is influenced by its
physical characteristics, including the following: (1) condiment pan
area (TDA) and configuration (slope vs flat, cold wall vs forced air vs
glycol), (2) lid or cover design, (3) storage cabinet volume, (4) door
or drawer design and configuration, and (5) the flow path of room air
entering and leaving the condenser coil. (ITW, No. 2, p. 3) ITW also
commented that refrigerated buffet tables and food preparation tables
require equipment categorization by how their contents are displayed,
either horizontal or semi-vertical. (Id.) ITW commented that this
presentation angle affects the stability of the chilled air blanket
above the product, with a greater angle causing a decrease in stability
and increase in energy consumption. (Id.) ITW further commented that
refrigerated food preparation units (tables) should be subcategorized
by end application use and their ability to hold potentially hazardous
food items at food safe temperatures. (Id.)
The comments from interested parties in response to the June 2021
RFI generally indicated support either for the definitions in the ASTM
F2143-16 standard, as presented earlier in this section, or based on
NSF 7-2019 (by reference to NSF 170-2019). Comments from interested
parties; existing industry, State, and Federal definitions; and DOE's
review of equipment available on the market indicate that the primary
characteristic that differentiates salad bars, buffet tables, and
refrigerated preparation tables from other types of CRE is the open-top
refrigerated area (with or without lids) that allows access to pans or
other removable containers that display or store merchandise and other
perishable materials for customers or food preparation staff during
food preparation or service. The merchandise and other perishable
materials are only displayed or stored in pans or other removable
containers when loaded into the open-top refrigerated area of this
equipment (i.e., the open-top refrigerated area does not provide for
any display or storage outside of the pans or other removable
containers). Additionally, the equipment can include other refrigerated
compartments, either as an integrated combined refrigerated space
(i.e., the pans or other removable containers loaded in the open-top
refrigerated area are in direct contact with the refrigerated
compartment), or with thermal separation between the open-top
refrigerated area and refrigerated compartments.
To delineate this equipment from other types of CRE, DOE is
proposing to define the term ``buffet table or preparation table''. DOE
is proposing a definition for this term that combines elements of the
existing industry and ENERGY STAR definitions, includes language for
consistency with DOE's existing CRE definitions, and includes further
specificity regarding the characteristics of this equipment.
Specifically, DOE is proposing to define this term as follows:
``Buffet table or preparation table'' means a commercial
refrigerator with an open-top refrigerated area, that may or may not
include a lid, for displaying or storing merchandise and other
perishable materials in pans or other removable containers for customer
self-service or food production and assembly. The unit may or may not
be equipped with a refrigerated storage compartment underneath the pans
or other removable containers that is not thermally separated from the
open-top refrigerated area.
DOE is not proposing to define the term ``salad bar,'' as this
equipment would be captured within the proposed definition of ``buffet
table or preparation table.'' DOE has tentatively determined that
additional equipment definitions are not necessary for the purposes of
testing buffet tables and preparation tables as proposed in this NOPR.
Additionally, DOE has not proposed any reference to temperature
storage temperature or duration in the proposed buffet table or
preparation table

[[Page 39180]]

definition. DOE recognizes that these are important aspects of the
equipment operation but has tentatively determined that they are not
necessary for the purpose of defining the equipment to establish test
procedures. By specifying that such units are commercial refrigerators,
buffet tables and preparation tables would be units capable of
operating at or above 32 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2 [deg]F).
As discussed, CRE may include single refrigeration systems to
provide cooling to multiple compartments or areas within a unit.
Additionally, CRE may include multiple distinct refrigeration systems
or evaporator coils to individually cool separate compartments or
refrigerated areas. DOE's proposed definition would include units both
with and without a refrigerated storage compartment underneath the pans
or other removable containers. The proposed definition, however,
specifies that units including a refrigerated storage compartment
underneath the pans or other removable containers may not be thermally
separated from the open-top refrigerated area.
DOE notes that while industry may use the term ``hybrid'' to refer
to different combinations of equipment capabilities and configurations,
the term ``commercial hybrid'' is specifically defined by DOE in 10 CFR
431.62 as discussed earlier in this section. Currently, CRE with
refrigerated storage compartments thermally separated from the open-top
refrigerated area of the buffet table or preparation table are
``commercial hybrid'' CRE and must be tested in accordance with the
applicable test procedures and comply with the applicable standards.
Such equipment would continue to be tested as currently required to
determine compliance with the existing energy conservation standards
applicable to the non-buffet table or preparation table element. As
noted, DOE has not established energy conservation standards for CRE
covered under the proposed definition of buffet table or preparation
table. DOE discussed in the April 2014 Final Rule that because only the
refrigerated storage compartment is subject to current energy
conservation standards, the unit would be tested with the buffet table
or preparation table portion disabled and not included in the
determination of energy consumption. 79 FR 22277, 22289. If the same
refrigeration system serves both the refrigerated compartment and the
open-top refrigerated area and refrigeration of the open-top area
cannot be disabled, manufacturers may apply for a test procedure waiver
for such equipment if the measured energy use would not be
representative of the portion of the unit that is not a buffet table or
preparation table of the CRE basic model. Id.
Many of the comments received from interested parties reference the
impact on buffet table or preparation table design on overall measured
energy use. DOE acknowledges that the configuration, capability, and
operation of this equipment can vary depending on application. However,
for the purposes of proposing test procedures, DOE has initially
determined that additional equipment definitions are not necessary. The
definition for buffet table or preparation table as proposed in this
NOPR would identify the equipment subject to the proposed test
procedure, which, as discussed in the following section, would include
general instructions for test setup and conduct that would be
applicable to the equipment configurations identified in comments from
interested parties.
To the extent that the equipment configurations and capabilities of
buffet tables or preparation tables may impact measured energy use, DOE
would consider such impacts were it to consider energy conservation
standards for such equipment. Specifically, a rule prescribing an
energy conservation standard for a type (or class) of covered products
must specify a level of energy use or efficiency higher or lower than
that which applies (or would apply) for such type (or class) for any
group of covered products which have the same function or intended use,
if the Secretary determines that covered products within such group--
(A) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other
covered products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or
other performance-related feature which other products within such type
(or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower
standard from that which applies (or will apply) to other products
within such type (or class). (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
In making a determination concerning whether a performance-related
feature justifies the establishment of a higher or lower standard, the
Secretary must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of
such a feature, and such other factors as the Secretary deems
appropriate. (Id.)
DOE requests comment on the proposed definition for buffet table or
preparation table. DOE requests information on whether any additional
definitions are necessary for the purposes of testing this equipment,
or whether any additional equipment characteristics are necessary to
differentiate this equipment from other categories of CRE.
b. Test Methods
In considering potential test methods for buffet tables and
preparation tables, DOE reviewed ASTM F2143-16 and identified several
differences between this test method and DOE's current test procedure
for CRE, as discussed in the June 2021 RFI. 86 FR 31182, 31186-31188.
DOE requested comment on specific test procedure provisions in ASTM
F2143-16 and how they relate to other requirements in the current DOE
test procedure. 86 FR 31182, 31188. As discussed in the following
paragraphs, DOE received comments on the general test approaches that
may be appropriate for buffet tables and preparation tables.
NEEA and the CA IOUs commented that a report created by Southern
California Edison discussed testing on eight different refrigerated
preparation tables from six manufacturers using ASTM F2143-16 that
showed a range of performance, with the least efficient product tested
using twice as much energy per day per volume. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 3-4; CA
IOUs, No. 10, p. 3)
Hoshizaki commented that it has utilized ASTM F2143-16 for its
preparation tables to list with the California Energy Commission
(``CEC'') and support DOE adoption of this standard. (Hoshizaki, No.
13, p. 1)
AHRI commented that there are many customizable appurtenances for
this equipment, and that ASTM F2143-16 captures the base model
distinctions to some degree but does not clearly distinguish between
product categories and may lead to overlap between categories. (AHRI,
No. 3, p. 4-5) AHRI also commented that self-contained versus remote
applications would need to be considered. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 5)
Hussmann commented that ASTM F2143-16 includes only self-contained
products and seeks clarification from DOE whether remote cases are
intended to be covered as buffet tables and preparation tables.
(Hussmann, No. 14, p. 7)
True commented that ASTM F2143-16 is not the correct industry
standard to reference for buffet tables and preparation tables,
asserting that it is not used by the food service industry, would add
additional burden to overextended labs, and is not robust enough to
withstand scrutiny. (True, No. 4, p. 6-7) True commented that NSF 7-
2019 is the correct standard to be used instead of ASTM F2143-16
because, for at least the last 30 years, the three categories
(refrigerated buffet and preparation table, refrigerated buffet table
or unit, refrigerated food prep unit)

[[Page 39181]]

have been defined and tested according to NSF 7-2019 (defined within
NSF 170-2019) and it is the standard followed by the CRE industry.
(Id.) True commented that state and local health departments enforce
health codes based on NSF 7-2019 when they test for food safety. (Id.)
DOE reviewed both ASTM F2143-16 and NSF 7-2019 in considering test
methods for buffet tables and preparation tables. As described in
section 1 of ASTM F2143-16 (``Scope''), that test method covers
evaluation of the energy consumption of refrigerated buffet and
preparation tables and allows food service operators to use this
evaluation to select a refrigerated buffet and preparation table and
understand its energy performance. The foreword to NSF 7-2019 specifies
that the purpose of the industry testing standard is to establish
minimum food protection and sanitation requirements for the materials,
design, construction, and performance of commercial refrigerators and
freezers.
The general test approach in ASTM F2143-16 is to load the unit with
distilled water in pans and no load in any refrigerated compartment,
operate the unit to confirm stability, then conduct testing for 24
hours, with an eight hour ``active period'' with lid and door openings
followed by a 16 hour ``standby period'' with no door openings. DOE
understands that this test is intended to represent unit operation and
energy consumption over a day.
The NSF 7-2019 test approach requires loading the unit pans with
refrigerated food-simulating test media (a specified mixture of water,
salt, and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose) and no load in any
refrigerated compartment and operating the unit for four hours to
determine whether temperatures at all measured locations are within the
acceptable range. DOE understands that this test is intended to
evaluate the ability of a unit to maintain the temperature of
refrigerated pans (and any compartments) during a four-hour period.
While these two industry test methods contain certain
similarities--e.g., loading pans but not compartments, ambient
temperature conditions--DOE has initially determined that ASTM F2143-16
provides the more appropriate basis for an energy consumption test that
is representative of typical use. As discussed in more detail in the
following sub-sections, DOE has initially determined that 24-hours of
maintaining stable temperatures, as required in the ASTM F2143-16
method, is representative of average use for this equipment. DOE has
also tentatively determined that the stabilization and operating
periods specified in ASTM F2143-16 would ensure that units are
maintaining temperatures on a consistent basis during testing and would
allow for comparative energy use measurements across units. NSF 7-2019
provides a basis for determining whether a unit is capable of
maintaining certain temperatures over a shorter period, but without
additional instructions to ensure energy consumption testing on a
consistent basis--i.e., the temperatures maintained over the shorter
test period may not necessarily be stable.
For these reasons, DOE is proposing to reference ASTM F2134-16 as
the basis for testing buffet tables and preparation tables. Consistent
with the scope of ASTM F2134-16, DOE is proposing test procedures only
for self-contained buffet tables and preparation tables. While DOE is
proposing to base the test procedure for buffet tables and preparation
tables on ASTM F2134-16, DOE is also proposing certain additional and
different requirements for test conditions, setup, and conduct, to
ensure the representativeness of the test procedure, as discussed in
the following sections.
To avoid confusion regarding testing of other CRE, DOE is also
proposing to establish the test procedure for buffet tables and
preparation tables as a new appendix C to subpart C of 10 CFR part 431.
DOE is also proposing to refer to the proposed appendix C as the test
procedure for buffet tables and preparation tables in 10 CFR 431.64.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to adopt through reference
certain provisions of ASTM F2143-16 as the basis for testing buffet
tables and preparation tables. DOE also seeks comment on the proposal
to specify test procedures only for self-contained buffet tables and
preparation tables, consistent with ASTM F2143-16.
Test Conditions
ASTM F2143-16 specifies different rating conditions for test room
dry-bulb temperature and moisture content than the current DOE test
procedure. NSF 7-2019 also specifies test conditions similar to those
in ASTM F2143-16. Table III.1 summarizes these differences.

Table III.1--Test Room Dry-Bulb Temperature & Moisture Content Standards Comparison
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet bulb
Test room dry bulb temperature Moisture content (lb/
Equipment type Test standard temperature (relative lb dry air)
humidity)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Covered CRE........ ASHRAE 72 (2005 75.2 [deg]F <plus- 64.4 [deg]F 0.009-0.011.
and 2018R). minus> 1.8 [deg]F. <plus-minus>
1.8 [deg]F (49-
62 percent).
Buffet and Preparation Tables ASTM F2143-16... 86 [deg]F <plus- 66.2 [deg]F 0.008-0.010.
minus> 2 [deg]F. <plus-minus>
1.8 [deg]F (30-
40 percent).
Buffet and Preparation Tables NSF 7-2019...... 86 [deg]F <plus- Max 72 [deg]F Max 0.013.
minus> 2 [deg]F. (based on max
50 percent).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment and supporting data on
test room dry-bulb temperature and moisture content typically
experienced by buffet tables and preparation tables operating in the
field. 86 FR 31182, 31186. DOE requested comment on whether these
conditions are significantly different from those encountered by
conventional CRE and would justify adopting separate rating conditions
for buffet tables and preparation tables. Id.
ITW and Hussmann commented in support of the current ASHRAE 72-2018
test condition. (ITW, No. 2, p. 4; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 8) Hussmann
commented that adopting ASTM F2143-16 would add burden on
manufacturers, who would be required to test at two different dry-bulb
temperatures for hybrid equipment. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 8) ITW
commented that manufacturers and test laboratories have invested
significant effort to assemble laboratories and environmental chambers
to hold tight tolerances around the ASHRAE 72-2018 test conditions.
(ITW, No. 2, p. 4)
The CA IOUs commented in support of DOE aligning with the higher
temperature and more humid ambient test conditions used in ASTM F2143-
16 for refrigerated preparation and buffet tables, stating that these
products are

[[Page 39182]]

often found in similar spaces as chef bases, including commercial
kitchens. (CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 3-4)
ITW commented that the performance requirements and installation
sites for refrigerated buffet (salad bars) and food preparation tables
are comparable to existing CRE and do not require different
environmental conditions for a representative energy evaluation. (ITW,
No. 2, p. 4) ITW commented that most units are in proximity to the
customer dining area, where ambient conditions are controlled at or
below the ASHRAE 72-2018 specification, stating that dew points
typically fall into the mid-40s [deg]F and dry bulb temperatures
average 72 [deg]F. (Id.)
Hoshizaki commented that ambient temperature, moisture content, and
elevation vary across the country, with ambient temperatures ranging
from 70 to 100 [deg]F and humidity ranging from 30 to 80 percent.
(Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 1) Arneg commented that field conditions vary
widely, but that restaurants and supermarkets consistently maintain the
75 [deg]F (dry bulb) and 55 [deg]F (wet bulb) condition; and
convenience stores usually have higher ambient conditions (i.e., 80
[deg]F dry bulb). (Arneg, No. 12, p. 1)
True and AHRI commented in support of the NSF 7-2019 test
conditions (86 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]F, maximum relative humidity
of 50 percent). (True, No. 4, p. 9; AHRI, No. 3, p. 6) True argued
there is no such thing as a ``real world'' energy test. (True, No. 4,
p. 13) True stated that they currently test vertical closed
refrigerators and freezers at ASHRAE 72-2005 test conditions (75 [deg]F
ambient temperature, 55 percent relative humidity), but that commercial
kitchens operate at 90-100 [deg]F with 60-70 percent relative humidity.
(Id.) True commented that in this case, the ASHRAE 72-2005 test works
as a ``baseline'' or ``marker'' comparison point between units. (Id.)
Continental suggested that the NSF 7-2019 test conditions should be
evaluated for the suitability of energy testing. (Continental, No. 6,
p. 2) AHRI and Continental commented that refrigerated preparation
tables in particular are often subject to high ambient temperatures and
additional loads, similar to other conventional reach-in CRE, since
they are used by kitchen staff and in close proximity to commercial
kitchens. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 6; Continental, No. 6, p. 2) AHRI commented
that salad bars and buffet tables have shorter operating windows but
are open to ambient conditions that can differ from conventional CRE
and commented that the NSF 7-2019 definition for these units state they
are intended for ``customer self-service.'' (AHRI, No. 3, p. 6)
Continental encouraged DOE to work with ASHRAE, AHRI, and ASTM to
develop suitable test procedures for any additional product categories.
(Continental, No. 6, p. 2)
NEEA and the CA IOUs commented in support of using ASTM F2143-16
for refrigerated buffet and preparation tables. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 4; CA
IOUs, No. 10, p. 3) NEEA commented that many of the factors DOE is
seeking information on are addressed in detail within the ASTM F2143-16
standard. (NEEA, No. 5, p. 4) The CA IOUs commented that DOE should
leverage the work completed by the ASTM Committee F26 on Food Service
equipment and related ASTM F2143-16 to serve as the starting point for
the test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 10, p. 3) NEEA commented that DOE
should consider aligning test procedure with EPA ENERGY STAR to reduce
manufacturer burden and establish consistency in the industry. (Id.)
As previously described, the apparent purpose of the NSF 7-2019
test is to determine the capability of a unit to maintain refrigerated
temperature in the conditions specified by the industry testing
standard. The ASTM F2143-16 ambient conditions match those in NSF 7-
2019. However, DOE has initially determined that these conditions are
not necessarily the most representative of typical use. As indicated in
comments, buffet tables and preparation tables are typically installed
in locations similar to other CRE (e.g., food service areas,
supermarkets, commercial kitchens) and would be subject to the same
ambient conditions during typical use. DOE acknowledges that while the
ambient conditions at the point of installation may vary, DOE has
determined that the conditions in ASHRAE 72 (in both the currently
referenced 2005 version and the 2018R version proposed for use in this
NOPR) are appropriately representative of the average use of CRE. 79 FR
22277, 22283. For consistency with other CRE testing, DOE is proposing
that the ambient conditions specified in ASHRAE 72-2018R also apply for
testing buffet tables and preparation tables.
For measuring these ambient conditions, ASHRAE 72-2018 and ASTM
F2143-16 specify the same measurement locations; however, the locations
may require further specificity depending on the configuration of the
refrigerated buffet table or preparation table under test. For example,
the specified measurement location based on the highest point of the
unit under test as provided in ASTM F2143-16 could be based on the
height of the refrigerated table surface and pan openings or on the
height of any lid or cover over the pans, if included. Additionally,
the specified measurement location at the center of the unit as
provided in ASTM F2143-16 could be based on the geometric center of the
unit determined from the height of the open pan surfaces or on the
geometric center of any door openings (for those units with
refrigerated compartments below the pan area).
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on the appropriate
locations for recording ambient conditions when testing buffet tables
and preparation tables to ensure repeatable and reproducible testing
for a range of equipment configurations. 86 FR 31182, 31186.
Hussmann, AHRI, Arneg, and ITW commented in support of using ASHRAE
72-2018 for ambient temperature measurement locations. (Hussmann, No.
14, p. 8; AHRI, No. 3, p. 6; Arneg, No. 12, p. 1; ITW, No. 2, p. 4)
AHRI and Hussmann commented in support of consistency with testing of
other CRE categories wherever possible, and AHRI suggested that DOE
work with ASHRAE to incorporate measurement locations into ASHRAE 72-
2018 or a new method of test. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 6; Hussmann, No. 14, p.
8) ITW provided measurement location options for DOE consideration
based on the configuration and geometries of the test equipment. (ITW,
No. 2, p. 4)
Continental commented that ambient temperature locations are
prescribed in ASTM F2143-16 and ASHRAE 72-2018 and that DOE should work
with ASHRAE, AHRI, and ASTM to evaluate the suitability of testing
buffet tables and refrigerated preparation tables. (Continental, No. 6,
p. 2)
Hoshizaki commented that ASTM F2143-16 provides ambient measurement
locations and that no changes are needed to them. (Hoshizaki, No. 13,
p. 1)
True commented that ambient measurement locations should follow NSF
7-2019 because buffet tables and preparation tables are short-term
holding units, such that the NSF 7-2019 test procedure would best
capture the energy use of these units. (True, No. 4, p. 9)
As described, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference ASTM
F2143-16 rather than NSF 7-2019 as the basis of testing buffet tables
and preparation tables. The ASTM F2143-16 ambient measurement locations
are generally consistent with those in the current DOE test procedure
and the provisions

[[Page 39183]]

in ASHRAE 72-2018R proposed for adoption in this NOPR, but ASHRAE 72-
2018R includes additional specificity regarding ambient measurement
locations. To ensure appropriate measurement locations, DOE is
proposing to reference ASHAE 72-2018R rather than ASTM F2143-16 for
ambient condition measurement locations. To provide additional
specifications for thermocouple placement to accommodate different
buffet table and preparation table configurations, DOE is proposing to
add instruction that the ``highest point'' of the buffet table or
preparation table is determined as the highest point of the open-top
refrigerated area of the buffet table or preparation table, without
including the height of any lids or covers. DOE is also proposing to
specify that the geometric center of the buffet table or preparation
table is: for buffet tables or preparation tables without refrigerated
compartments, the geometric center of the top surface of the open-top
refrigerated area; and for buffet tables or preparation tables with
refrigerated compartments, the geometric center of the door opening
area for the refrigerated compartment. DOE is proposing this
specification because the geometric center of the unit is used to
measure ambient temperature gradient. For units with refrigerated
compartments, this instruction referencing the center of the door
opening area would ensure that the air entering the compartment during
door openings is within the allowable temperature range.
Regarding electrical supply requirements and measurements, appendix
A to ASHRAE 72-2018R provides greater specificity for testing as
compared to ASTM F2143-16. To improve test repeatability and
reproducibility, DOE is proposing to reference the electric supply and
measurement requirements specified in appendix A to ASHRAE 72-2018R for
testing buffet tables and preparation tables.
DOE is similarly proposing to adopt through reference certain
provisions in ASHRAE 72-2018R rather than ASTM F2143-16 for
instrumentation requirements for consistency with other CRE testing and
with the proposed test conditions (e.g., wet-bulb temperature as
specified in ASHRAE 72-2018R rather than relative humidity as specified
in ASTM F2143-16).
DOE requests comment on the proposal for testing buffet tables and
preparation tables with test conditions (i.e., test chamber conditions,
measurement location, and electric supply conditions) consistent with
ASHRAE 72-2018R, with additional detail specific to buffet tables and
preparation tables.
Test Setup
Section 9.1 of ASTM F2143-16 specifies installation of the buffet
table or preparation table for testing according to the manufacturer's
instructions, with 6 inches of rear clearance, at least 12 inches of
clearance to any side wall or partition, and at least 3 feet of
clearance from the front of the unit. Section 5.2 of ASHRAE 72-2018R
specifies that the test unit be installed next to a wall or vertical
partition in the direction of (a) the exhaust, (b) the intake, or (c)
both the exhaust and the intake at the minimum clearance, <plus-
minus>0.5 inches, as specified in the installation instructions; if the
installation instructions do not provide a minimum clearance, the
vertical partition or wall shall be located 4 <plus-minus> 0.5 inches
from the sides or rear of the cabinet and extend at least 12 inches
beyond each side of the cabinet from the floor to at least 12 inches
above the top of the cabinet.
DOE has initially determined that the installation instructions in
ASHRAE 72-2018R are more representative of actual use, as they require
testing according to the minimum manufacturer-specified clearance in
the direction of air exhaust or intake rather than a constant 6 inches.
DOE expects that CRE are typically installed with minimum installation
clearances due to the space-constrained locations in which they operate
(e.g., commercial kitchens or food service areas). DOE is proposing to
reference the installation requirements in Section 5.2 of ASHRAE 72-
2018R for buffet table and preparation table testing to represent
typical use and to ensure consistency with appendix B test
requirements.
Sections 5.1 and 5.3 of ASHRAE 72-2018R also provide additional
instructions regarding test unit installation and setup that are not
addressed in ASTM F2143-16. Specifically, section 5.1 provides
instructions regarding test unit installation within the test facility
and section 5.3 specifies test requirements for components and
accessories. While these provisions were established for conventional
CRE, DOE has initially determined that they are also applicable to
buffet table and preparation table installation and use due to both
categories having similar installation locations and similar
accessories available for use. DOE is proposing to also reference these
Sections in ASHRAE 72-2018R for buffet table and preparation table
testing to ensure consistent testing that is representative of actual
use.
DOE requests comment on the proposal for testing buffet tables and
preparation tables with test setup instructions consistent with ASHRAE
72-2018R rather than ASTM F2143-16.
Test Load
ASTM F2143-16 specifies that temperature measurements for
preparation tables or buffet tables be taken from standardized pans
filled with distilled water. ASTM F2143-16 also specifies measuring the
temperature in any chilled compartments for refrigerated buffet and
preparation tables using three thermocouples in an empty, unloaded
compartment. DOE's current test procedure for CRE requires that
integrated average temperature measurements be taken from test
simulators consisting of a plastic container filled with a sponge
saturated with a 2-percent mixture of propylene glycol and distilled
water. See ASHRAE 72-2005, section 6.2.1. Additionally, the DOE test
procedure requires 70 to 90 percent of the compartment net usable
volume to be loaded with filler material and test simulators for
testing (60 to 80 percent as proposed in this NOPR by referencing
Section 5.4.8 of ASHRAE 72-2018R). See ASHRAE 72-2005, section 6.2.5.
Buffet tables and preparation tables may not typically be loaded to 70
percent of their net usable volume due to their use for service rather
than long-term storage, but testing with the refrigerated compartment
entirely empty also may not be representative of average use.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on the appropriateness
of using only distilled water as the test medium to represent thermo-
physical properties of foods that are typically stored in the surface
pans of buffet tables and preparation tables. 86 FR 31182, 31187.
AHRI commented that DOE should work with the ASHRAE committee to
consider revisions to ASHRAE 72 to incorporate appropriate requirements
if they are unique enough to warrant a separate ASHRAE method of test.
(AHRI, No. 3, p. 6)
ITW, Hussmann, and Hoshizaki commented in support of DOE using
distilled water as the test medium because it is cost effective and
easy to replicate. (ITW, No. 2, p. 5; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 9;
Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2) Hoshizaki commented that they tested
preparation tables with the glycol mixture and distilled water and did
not see a difference of pan temperature. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2) ITW

[[Page 39184]]

commented that open-top refrigeration equipment is designed to hold
foods of all types (liquids, solids, loosely filled combinations of
both, etc.) with varying thermo-physical properties, but that in
general all variations are composed of mostly water. (ITW, No. 2, p. 5)
ITW commented that distilled water has the advantages of providing a
consistent and readily available medium that closely approximates the
properties of most food types under the specified test conditions;
allowing for bulk containers to be filled and pre-chilled; and allowing
for food pans regardless of shape or dimensions to be ``quickly'' and
evenly filled. (ITW, No. 2, p. 5) ITW also stated that pre-marking each
pan one half inch below the top rim minimizes the total pan loading
time as compared to the ``balance scale'' method outlined in the ASTM
F2143-16 standard, sections 10.4.3.5 through 10.4.3.7. (Id.)
Arneg and True commented that distilled water should not be used as
the test medium. (Arneg, No. 12, p. 1; True, No. 4, p. 9) Arneg
commented that although food temperatures are typically above 32
[deg]F, depending on the type of food, the intended product temperature
could be below 32 [deg]F. (Arneg, No. 12, p. 1) True commented that the
test media in NSF 7-2019 (methocel) should be used to represent foods.
(True, No. 4, p. 9, 11) True commented that using distilled water is a
problem because the pan temperature cannot be properly measured if
testing below 32 [deg]F since the water temperature will only change
once completely solidified into ice. (Id.) CA IOUs commented that a
2014 study from Pacific Gas and Electric (``PG&E'') showed some units
periodically dropping below 32 [deg]F and suggested DOE explore
alternatives to distilled water to validate if any alternatives would
be warranted when weighing the added test complexity and costs. (CA
IOUs, No. 10, p. 3)
Hussmann commented that DOE should allow the use of methocel as an
alternative to align with NSF 7-2019. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 9)
DOE has initially determined that the distilled water pan loading
as specified in ASM F2143-16 provides a representative test load for
the open-top refrigerated areas of buffet tables and preparation table,
while limiting test burden, and is consistent with the filler material
specified in both ASHRAE 72-2005 and ASHRAE 72-2018R (i.e., filler
material that consists of water, a 50/50 mixture (<plus-minus>2%) of
distilled water and propylene glycol, or wood blocks with an overall
density not less than 480 kg/m\3\ (30 lb/ft\3\). As stated in the ITW
comment, typical food loads are composed mostly of water, such that
water is a representative test medium. Additionally, distilled water
does not require any additional preparation by the test laboratory,
limiting test burden and ensuring a consistent test medium across
different test facilities.
DOE acknowledges that using water would not accommodate testing at
conditions at and below 32 [deg]F. However, ASTM F2143-16 specifies pan
temperature to be within 33 [deg]F and 41 [deg]F for a valid test. As
discussed later in this section, DOE is proposing that the integrated
average pan temperature be 38 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]F for buffet
table and preparation table testing. At these temperatures, the
distilled water would be liquid and would not result in the testing
issues associated with freezing. Additionally, DOE observed during
investigative testing that individual pans filled with distilled water
did not reach temperatures lower than 33 [deg]F when tested with an
integrated average pan temperature of 38 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2 [deg]F.
In addition to proposing the water test load, DOE is proposing that
pans for testing be loaded to within one half inch of the top of the
pan. For pans that are not configured in a horizontal orientation, DOE
is proposing that only the lowest side of the pan be loaded to within
one half inch of the top of the pan. ASTM F2143-16 specifies a pan
loading procedure based on the weight of water needed to load pans to
one half inch of the top of the pan. DOE expects a loading method based
on marking pans or measuring distance from the water to the top of the
pan would limit test burden as compared to the weight-based method in
ASTM F2143-16 and that both the loads and loading methods would be
substantively the same.
ASTM F2143-16 specifies the pans for holding water to be standard
4-inch deep \1/6\-size metal steam table pans with a weight of 0.70
<plus-minus> 0.07 lb. ASTM F2143-16 allows for manufacturer-specified
pans if the unit is designed specifically for such pans. DOE notes that
manufacturers typically specify pan dimensions or provide pans for
their units, but some manufacturers do not provide a pan depth or may
specify a range of possible pan depths. DOE also notes that pan
materials can vary and are not always specified by the manufacturer.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether pan
dimensions should be standardized if testing buffet tables and
preparation tables is required, or whether these units should be tested
with pans meeting manufacturer-recommended pan dimensions. 86 FR 31182,
31187. If pans were standardized, DOE requested comment on whether the
dimensions described in ASTM F2143-16 are appropriately representative
of what is used, or whether another set of dimensions or materials
would be more appropriate. Id. DOE also requested information on
whether the pan material should be defined in greater detail,
recognizing that ASTM F2143-16 specifies only that the pans be
``metal.'' Id.
True commented that the \1/6\ metal steam table pans have a larger
surface area (to product or media) than the \1/2\ size metal steam
table pans in NSF 7-2019, and suggested the following based on NSF 7-
2019: ``standard half-size hotel (4 in [102 mm]) shall be used unless
the equipment being evaluated is specifically and permanently designed
to hold alternate size pans,'' ``stainless steel pans shall be used
unless otherwise specified by the manufacturer.'' (True, No. 4, p. 10)
ITW, AHRI, Hussmann, Hoshizaki, Arneg, and Continental commented
that a standardized pan size should not be used due to the variety of
pan sizes and configurations across different manufacturers. (ITW, No.
2, p. 5; AHRI, No. 3, p. 7; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 9; Hoshizaki, No. 13,
p. 2; Arneg, No. 12, p. 1; Continental, No. 6, p. 2) Hoshizaki
commented that manufacturers should specify what pan size they require
for testing their unit as part of their test setup instructions.
(Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2) AHRI and Hussmann commented that the pan(s)
size should only be required to fill the pan opening in the unit and of
a material offered by the manufacturer. (AHRI, No. 3. p. 7; Hussmann,
No. 14, p. 9) ITW commented that a standardized food pan/pan
configuration should only be used if the manufacturer does not supply
food pans with their equipment or provide a list of acceptable pans
with specifications to be used with their equipment. (ITW, No. 2, p. 5)
Based on a review of buffet tables and preparation tables available
on the market, manufacturers typically allow for a range of pan
configurations in the open top refrigerated area. These configurations
can nearly always accommodate the \1/6\ size steam table pans
referenced in ASTM F2143-16. To ensure consistent testing for units
that offer multiple pan configurations, DOE is proposing to reference
the pan instructions in ASTM F2143-16. If a buffet table or preparation
table cannot be loaded with the specified standard pans, DOE is
proposing to test with the pans that are consistent with the
manufacturer installation instructions and with the dimensions as close
to the standard pans as is available, consistent

[[Page 39185]]

with the ASTM F2143-16 loading instructions.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on the feasibility of
requiring temperature measurements in closed refrigerated compartments
of buffet tables and preparation tables using test packages as
specified in ASHRAE 72 (specified in the 2005, 2018, and 2018R
versions), and whether the compartments should be loaded with any
filler packages (and to what percent of the net usable volume) for
testing. 86 FR 31182, 31187. DOE requested comment on alternatives that
should be used if the test packages are not appropriate for measuring
compartment temperatures (e.g., thermocouples located in pans filled
with distilled water, thermocouples as specified in ASTM F2143-16, or
weighted thermocouples \19\). Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ ASHRAE 72-2018R describes a weighted thermocouple as a
thermocouple in thermal contact with the center of a 45 g (1.6 oz)
cylindrical brass slug with a diameter and height of 19 mm (0.75
in).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed in section III.C.1 of this document, under the current
test procedure a thermal separation would be required between the
buffet table or preparation table and a refrigerated compartment for
the refrigerated compartment to be subject to the testing requirements,
which include test simulators and loading requirements. Buffet tables
and preparation tables may include refrigerated compartments that are
not thermally separated from the open-top refrigerated area, and DOE
considered whether different loads (or no load) would be appropriate
for testing such compartments.
AHRI commented that DOE should work with ASHRAE SSPC 72 to
incorporate appropriate requirements for these units or determine if
they are unique enough to warrant a separate ASHRAE method of test.
(AHRI, No. 3, p. 6)
Hussmann and Hoshizaki commented that the method to measure
compartment temperature should follow the locations specified in ASTM
F2143-16. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 9; Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2) Hussmann
commented that the thermocouples could be as stated in ASTM F2143-16 or
brass slugs, as specified in NSF 7-2019. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 9)
Hoshizaki commented that this measurement of the refrigerated cabinet
is the same as the NSF 7-2019 test in which three slugs are positioned
at different parts of the cabinet. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2) Hoshizaki
recommended testing with only slugs, as currently shown in ASTM F2143-
16. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2)
True and Continental commented in support of using weighted
thermocouples, as prescribed in NSF 7-2019, for air temperature
measurements in closed refrigerated compartments. (True, No. 4, p. 10;
Continental, No. 6, p. 2) Continental commented that requiring filler
packages in the storage compartment would add significant unnecessary
testing burden on manufacturers. (Continental, No. 6, p. 2)
True and Hoshizaki commented that the addition of filler packages
would add a thermal mass that will decrease the cooling requirements by
helping to stabilize the temperature once stabilization temperature is
reached for the closed refrigeration compartment, such that NSF 7-2019
would offer the worst case for energy use and would decrease test and
stabilization time. (True, No. 4, p. 10; Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2)
DOE is proposing that any refrigerated compartment of a buffet
table or preparation table (i.e., any refrigerated compartment that is
not thermally separated from the open-top refrigerated area) be tested
with no load. DOE is proposing to reference the ASTM F2143-16
requirements, which specifies placing three thermocouples in specific
locations within the empty refrigerated compartment. DOE has
tentatively determined that this approach would limit test burden by
not requiring additional test simulator preparation or loading of
filler materials. Additionally, DOE expects that the refrigerated
compartments of buffet tables and preparation tables are typically used
for short-term storage of items used during food service and food
preparation (i.e., with additional pans of prepared food or ingredients
for food preparation) rather than long-term storage, and that therefore
an unloaded cabinet would be more representative of typical usage. This
is also consistent with the DOE test procedures for consumer
refrigeration products, which measure internal compartment temperatures
with no load. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart b, appendix A and appendix
B.
ASTM F2143-16 does not specify whether the internal compartment
thermocouples are weighted or unweighted. For consistency with the NSF
7-2019 approach, DOE is proposing that the thermocouples be weighted--
i.e., in thermal contact with the center of a 1.6-oz (45-g) cylindrical
brass slug with a diameter and height of 0.75 in. The brass slugs shall
be placed at least 0.5 in from any heat-conducting surface. While
ASHRAE 72-2018R requires internal compartment temperatures to be
measured using test simulators, ambient temperature measurements are
similarly made by thermocouples in contact with cylindrical brass slugs
with the same specifications.
DOE requests comment on the proposed test loads and temperature
measurement locations for buffet tables and preparation tables--i.e.,
distilled water in pans for the open-top refrigerated area and no load
in any refrigerated compartment--consistent with the approach in ASTM
F2143-16.
Test Conduct--Defrosts
ASTM F2143-16 does not provide specific instructions for addressing
defrost cycles when testing buffet tables and preparation tables, other
than indicating in the test report whether a defrost cycle occurred.
Section 7.3 of ASHRAE 72-2018R directs that the test period begins with
a defrost cycle. This section also requires that for refrigerators with
manual defrost or off-cycle defrost, the test is started at the
beginning of a refrigeration system off cycle (if the off-cycle defrost
is not identifiable); or, if the refrigeration system never cycles off,
the test is started at any point during refrigeration system operation.
Defrost cycles can increase the energy consumption of refrigeration
equipment as compared to stable operation; however, DOE has observed
that most buffet tables and preparation tables often incorporate off-
cycle defrosts, which melt frost accumulation by running the evaporator
fan during a compressor off-cycle. This method of defrost does not
actively introduce heat to melt the accumulated frost and may occur
during the compressor's normal cycling operation. With this defrost
approach, there may not be an identifiable defrost occurrence in the
measured test data.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether a possible
test procedure should consider defrost cycles for buffet tables and
preparation tables, and if so, how. 86 FR 31182, 31188.
Hussmann, AHRI, Hoshizaki, and True commented that the test
procedure should not include defrost cycles. (Hussmann, No. 14, p. 12;
AHRI, No. 3, p. 9; Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 3; True, No. 4, p. 13) AHRI
commented these units have shorter operating windows than typical CRE,
with manual defrost often conducted overnight outside the operating
window. (AHRI, No. 3, p.9) Hussmann commented that if the defrost
interval is less than 4 hours, then it could be considered. (Hussmann,
No. 14, p. 12) Hoshizaki commented that a truncated test should not
address defrost cycles if the goal is to test for a given time because
designing a test around defrost cycles, as done in the

[[Page 39186]]

ASHRAE 72-2018 24-hour test, would be time consuming and would provide
negligible insight to actual energy use. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 3)
ITW commented that refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and
preparation tables that include an integrated storage compartment
typically operate on a 24-hour daily cycle and should have their
defrost cycles considered, but units without this storage compartment
do not need to include the defrost cycle in the energy evaluation since
they typically operate on shorter schedules. (ITW, No. 2, p. 7)
ITW commented that for units with a refrigerated storage
compartment, the start of the defrost cycle should initiate the testing
cycle in order to have a consistent methodology and to provide
information on the characteristics of different defrost types. (ITW,
No. 2, p. 7)
DOE has initially determined that to the extent that buffet tables
or preparation tables incorporate automatic electric or hot gas
defrosts (i.e., heating the evaporator to melt frost accumulation), or
any automatic extended off-cycle defrost (i.e., off-cycle defrost with
a duration longer than a compressor off-cycle), the energy consumption
of these defrosts should be captured in the test period to measure
energy use representative of typical use. DOE observed during
investigative testing that automatic extended off-cycle defrost is used
in both buffet tables and preparation tables. To incorporate this
energy use and ensure consistent testing of buffet tables and
preparation tables, DOE is proposing to require that test periods for
buffet tables and preparation tables account for any defrosts
consistent with the requirements in ASHRAE 72-2018R. This would require
capturing a defrost at the start of the test period or starting the
test period at the beginning of a refrigeration off-cycle if there is
no identifiable defrost (or at any point during refrigeration system
operation if the refrigeration system never cycles off).
DOE requests comment on the proposal to account for defrosts when
testing buffet tables and preparation tables, consistent with the
approach in ASHRAE 72-2018R.
Test Conduct--Moving Pans
Section 10.5.6 of ASTM F2143-16 specifies that if it is possible to
control cooling to the display area independently of the refrigerated
cabinet, the cooling to the display area is turned off and all pans are
to be moved from the display area to the refrigerated cabinet
underneath after the active period. The ability to control cooling in
both the display area and the refrigerated cabinet independently of
each other suggests that this language applies to units with thermally-
separated compartments and pan areas.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether moving pans
from the display area to the refrigerated compartment as specified in
Section 10.5.6 of ASTM F2143-16 is appropriate for testing buffet
tables and preparation tables. 86 FR 31182, 31187. DOE further
requested feedback on whether storing pans in a refrigerated
compartment is typical only for those units with certain
configurations--e.g., thermal separation between the compartment and
refrigerated pan area or closable covers for the pan area. Id.
AHRI and Hussmann commented that the open pan area testing in NSF
7-2019 should be considered for possible incorporation into industry
test standards, and that ASHRAE 72-2018 has provisions for storage
compartment testing methods. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 7; Hussmann, No. 14, p.
10)
Hoshizaki and True commented that requiring the movement of pans to
refrigerated sections during the test should not be considered as part
of an energy test standard. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2; True, No. 4, p.
11) Hoshizaki commented that the movement of pans is only a suggestion
in ASTM F2143-16 and suggested that manufacturers specify that as part
of their test setup instructions. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2)
Continental, AHRI, and Hussmann commented that equipment with the
ability to turn off the open-top refrigeration system should have pans
moved to the refrigerated storage compartment if it conforms with the
manufacturer's instructions for unloading the display area at night.
(Continental, No. 6, p. 2; AHRI, No. 3, p. 7; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 10)
ITW commented that equipment with the ability to turn off the open-
top refrigeration system should not move the food pans to the storage
compartment. (ITW, No. 2, p. 5-6) ITW commented that food pans should
not be removed during the evaluation period because it would introduce
variations or inconsistencies between test laboratories and
manufacturers because the time to complete the activity would be
inconsistent. (Id.)
ITW commented that removing food pans from the open-top ``rail''
after 8 hours changes the thermodynamic load placed on the
refrigeration system, and movement to the integral storage compartment
is dependent on the unit's ability to switch off the cooling for the
``rail.'' (ITW, No. 2, p. 5-6) ITW commented that DOE has consistently
indicated that all manually operated on/off switches that increase
energy consumption should be in the on position throughout the
evaluation period, such that switching off the ``rail'' refrigeration
system after 8 hours would be inconsistent with DOE's previous
position. (Id.)
AHRI and Hussmann commented that the open pan area testing in NSF
7-2019 should be considered for possible incorporation into industry
test standards, and that ASHRAE 72-2018 has provisions for storage
compartment testing methods. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 7; Hussmann, No. 14, p.
10)
DOE currently provides test procedures for any refrigerated
compartments that are combined with buffet tables and preparation
tables and that are thermally separate from the open-top refrigerated
area. DOE is not proposing to amend the test requirements for such
thermally separate refrigerated compartments.
As discussed earlier in this section, DOE is proposing to reference
ASTM F2143-16 rather than NSF 7-2019 as the basis for buffet table and
preparation table testing. Section 10.5.6 of ASTM F2143-16 specifies
moving pans from the display area to the refrigerated cabinet
underneath after the active period if it is possible to control cooling
to the display area independently of the refrigerated cabinet. As
stated, the separate cooling control suggests thermal separation
between the open-top area and the refrigerated cabinet. Because DOE is
not proposing changes to the current test requirements for any
thermally separated refrigerated cabinets, DOE is proposing that all
buffet tables and preparation tables be tested with the pans in the
display area for the entire test, including the ``standby period''
specified in Section 10.5.6 of ASTM F2143-16.
DOE has initially determined that this proposed approach would
limit test burden and variability by avoiding moving pans during the
test period, which could introduce varying heat loads depending on how
the movement is conducted. Additionally, DOE expects that the proposed
test procedure is representative of typical buffet table and
preparation table use. As previously discussed, DOE expects that buffet
tables and preparation tables are used for short-term storage during
food service and food preparation. Therefore, it is unlikely that these
units would be used for storage in the refrigerated compartment without
any pans loaded in the open-top pan area.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to require loading pans in the
open-top refrigerated area and not

[[Page 39187]]

moving them to a refrigerated compartment, if applicable, during
testing.
Test Conduct--Operating Periods and Door/Lid Openings
As described, buffet tables and preparation tables temporarily
store and display perishable items during food preparation or service.
Because buffet tables and preparation tables are used only during food
preparation or service, these equipment types may not be used for the
same 24-hour duration used to characterize performance for other
categories of CRE. Sections 10.5.5 and 10.5.6 of ASTM F2143-16 specify
a 24-hour test, with an active period of 8 hours and a standby period
of 16 hours. The active period specified in section 10.5.5 contains
instructions for a cover, if equipped (open for 2 hours, then closed
for 4 hours, then open for 2 hours), and a door opening sequence for
any refrigerated compartments (every 30 minutes, each cabinet door or
drawer, or both, shall be fully opened sequentially, one at a time, for
6 consecutive seconds; for units with pass-thru doors, only the doors
on one side of the unit are opened).
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on the typical daily
usage of buffet tables and preparation tables. 86 FR 31182, 31187.
Additionally, DOE requested feedback on whether these CRE are used for
long-term storage of food or only short-term storage during food
preparation or service periods. Id. DOE also requested comment on
whether the daily use of this equipment varies depending on
configuration or other technical characteristics. Id.
AHRI, Hussmann, Arneg, and True commented that the typical use is
only during service operating hours (approximately 8-12 hours), such
that the typical use is short-term during food preparation or service
periods rather than long-term food storage. (AHRI No. 3, p. 8;
Hussmann, No. 14, p. 10-11; Arneg, No. 12, p. 1; True, No. 4, p. 11)
Hoshizaki commented that preparation table units are typically used for
a period of 11 hours for restaurants with active food prep areas.
(Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2) Arneg and True commented that it is common to
store foods in salad bars and buffet tables for short periods of time
during ``rush periods'' (i.e., breakfast, lunch, dinner, bar closing
time). (Arneg, No. 12, p. 1; True, No. 4, p. 11) Arneg commented that
if food safety time-temperature relations are used, depending on how
long the food is displayed, the cabinets may not need to be
refrigerated. (Arneg, No. 12, p. 1) True commented that most food
service operators use walk-in coolers for overnight storage, not the
storage section of these CRE models. (True, No. 4, p. 11) True
commented the NSF 7-2019 test procedure provides the worst case for
energy use during a four-hour period with the covers open. (True, No.
4, p. 11) True commented that ASTM F2143-16 is not appropriate for food
safety nor performance testing and suggests the use of NSF 7-2019,
which covers the performance requirements for these types of units and
encompasses food safety. (True, No. 4, p. 13) True suggested
multiplying the four-hour NSF 7-2019 test for energy consumption by six
to get a 24-hour energy consumption ``baseline'' number that could be
used as a comparison. (True, No, 4, p. 7)
Continental commented that refrigerated preparation tables are
designed and utilized for continued storage of products whenever the
facility is operating, which can be 24 hours a day. (Continental, No.
6, p. 2)
ITW, AHRI, Hussmann, and Hoshizaki commented that there is no
typical daily use of this equipment and that it will vary based on the
configuration of the equipment and design characteristics (e.g., if the
equipment is provided with a storage compartment), and that usage
applications can vary from small sandwich shops to high volume 24-hour
fast food chains. (ITW, No. 2, p. 6; AHRI, No. 3, p. 8; Hussmann, No.
14, p. 10-11; Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2)
ITW provided common operational characteristics among all
applications depending on equipment configurations, including 24-hour
unit operation and various pan/lid operating durations. (ITW, No. 2, p.
6)
Based on comments from interested parties, DOE has tentatively
determined that buffet tables and preparation tables are typically used
for food service and food preparation rather than longer term food
storage. As described earlier in this section, DOE is proposing to test
this equipment with pans loaded into the open-top display areas for the
duration of the test, which DOE has tentatively determined represents
typical use during food service and food preparation.
DOE recognizes that the duration of use per day varies based on
application and installation location for this equipment. Based on
comments from interested parties, buffet tables and preparation tables
can be used for up to 24 hours per day. DOE has initially determined
that a 24-hour test period as specified in ASTM F2143-16 incorporates
the likely aspects of buffet table and preparation table operation--
i.e., an active door-opening period and a period of stable operation.
While the actual durations of use may vary based on end use
application, the measured energy use in kWh/day is representative of
the energy use of a unit operated in 24 hours and allows for consistent
energy use comparisons among models. DOE is proposing to require a 24-
hour test period for buffet tables and preparation tables as specified
in ASTM F2143-16. The proposed 24-hour test period is consistent with
the industry test procedure, the test procedure for other CRE, limits
test burden and variability by allowing for stable operation over a
longer period, and incorporates the door openings and stable operation
expected during typical usage.
DOE requests comment on the proposed 24-hour test period, which is
consistent with the approach in ASTM F2143-16.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on the applicability of
the ASTM F2143-16 door and cover opening specifications. 86 FR 31182,
31187. DOE requested comment on whether the door-opening requirements
specified in ASHRAE 72-2018 are appropriate for buffet tables and
preparation tables. Id.
The CA IOUs commented that the door opening methodology in ASTM
F2143-16 was developed specifically for units that have an open-top
refrigerated area connected to a refrigerated bottom compartment, and
that they understand this to be the most common configuration for these
products. (CA IOUs, No. 8, p. 3) The CA IOUs commented that this
methodology implements product loading and door opening that mirrors
field observations from a 2014 PG&E study. (Id.) AHRI and Hussmann
commented that further evaluation is needed for door opening
provisions. (ASTM F2143-16 methods and target IATs). (AHRI, No. 3, p.
8; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 11)
Hoshizaki commented in support of a longer cover opening time,
stating that 2 hours up, 4 hours down, and 2 hours up is adequate but
unrealistic. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2) Hoshizaki suggested running a
modified NSF 7-2019 test in which the lids are up for 4 hours and then
closed for 4 hours, with the 8 hour energy consumption test scaled to
get a daily usage value. (Id.)
ITW commented that due to variability in end use, the cover opening
period should reflect usage time and pattern claimed by the
manufacturer. (ITW, No. 2, p. 6)
True and ITW commented that there is no typical use case for door
openings, and True stated that no door openings should occur during
testing. (True, No.

[[Page 39188]]

4, p. 11-12; ITW, No. 2, p. 6) ITW commented that if DOE were to adopt
the door opening period, frequency, and length specified in ASHRAE 72-
2018 (for the storage compartment), the simulated product loading
requirements specified in the standard should also be adopted. (ITW,
No. 2, p. 6)
As discussed, ASTM F2143-16 includes an eight hour ``active
period'' which includes instructions for any open-top display area
covers (two hours open, four hours closed, and two hours open) and any
refrigerated compartment doors and/or drawers (fully opened
sequentially for six seconds every 30 minutes). DOE recognizes that the
actual use of buffet tables and preparation tables can vary depending
on application. The cover and door opening requirements in ASTM F2143-
16 were developed by an industry committee with the intent of
evaluating energy performance. While the door-openings specified in
ASTM F2143-16 are less frequent than those required in ASHRAE 72-2018R,
DOE expects that any refrigerated compartments in buffet tables or
preparation tables are accessed less frequently than in other CRE
because maintaining the refrigerated temperature of food items held in
the open-top pan area is the primary function of buffet tables or
preparation tables during operation. Additionally, the eight-hour
``active period'' during which door openings occur is consistent with
the eight-hour period of door openings required in ASHRAE 72-2018R.
Based on the foregoing, DOE has tentatively determined that the cover
and door opening provisions of ASTM F2143-16 are appropriately
representative.
Accordingly, DOE is proposing to incorporate the ``active period''
requirements for cover and door and/or drawer openings as specified in
Section 10.5.5 of ASTM F2143-16.
DOE requests comment on the proposed door and cover opening
procedures, which are consistent with the approach specified in ASTM
F2143-16. DOE requests data and information on representative usage of
buffet tables and preparation tables, including door and cover
openings.
Test Conduct--Stabilization
Sections 10.3 and 10.4 of ASTM F2143-16 require that the unit be
operated with empty pans and open covers for at least 24 hours, that
the unit operate with empty pans for at least 2 hours, that water be
pre-cooled before being loaded into the pans, and, once the water has
been loaded into the pans, that the thermostat be calibrated until the
pan temperatures are never outside of 33 [deg]F to 41 [deg]F for any
15-minute period over a 4-hour measurement period. In contrast, the
current CRE test procedure, by reference to ASHRAE 72-2005, generally
provides that the unit be loaded with test simulators and filler
packages prior to pre-cooling, operated to establish steady-state
conditions over consecutive 24-hour periods or refrigeration cycles,
and, once steady-state conditions have been achieved, continue to
operate for at least 12 hours without any adjustment to the controls.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on the appropriate
stabilization method to use when testing buffet tables and preparation
tables. 86 FR 31182, 31187.
AHRI and Hussmann commented that further evaluation is needed
regarding stabilization provisions. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 11; Hussmann, No.
14, p. 8)
AHRI, Hussmann, Continental, and True commented that covers should
be closed during the stabilization period, as prescribed in NSF 7-2019.
(AHRI, No. 3, p. 11; Hussmann, No. 14, p. 8; Continental, No. 6, p. 2;
True, No. 4, p. 12) Continental commented that ASTM F2143-16 Section
10.3.3 prescribes placing pans in the open top area and leaving covers
open for a 24-hour stabilization period, which Continental stated is
not representative of typical use. (Continental, No. 6, p. 2) True
commented that deviation from the NSF 7-2019 standard for loading and
stabilization requirements of product and filler pans would cause
additional test burden since handling of pans and probes can lead to
errors and the need to repeat tests. (True, No. 4, p. 11-12)
Hoshizaki commented that the 24-hour stabilization period specified
in ASTM F2143-16 is appropriate for their units, as they observe
temperatures stabilizing in that period, and the 24-hour period helps
with scheduling. (Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2) Hoshizaki commented that the
ASTM F2143-16 requirement for the unit to operate with empty pans for
at least 2 hours poses an access challenge, since most manufacturers
prefer to use a door opener mechanism, which would prevent clear access
to the pans and front of the machine. (Id.)
As discussed, DOE is proposing generally to reference ASTM F2143-16
rather than NSF 7-2019 for buffet table and preparation table testing.
However, the stabilization and thermostat calibration requirements in
Sections 10.3 and 10.4 of ASTM F2143-16 may require an iterative
process of thermostat adjustment and recalibration to achieve stability
and then to ensure that appropriate conditions are maintained during
the test period. The recent update to ASHRAE 72-2018R specifies
provisions for other CRE that require stability to be confirmed over
two test periods with identical operation in order to avoid the need
for an iterative process. DOE is proposing to reference sections 7.1
through 7.5 (excluding sections 7.2.1, 7.2.2, 7.3.1, 7.3.2, 7.3.3, and
7.3.4, as those sections would not be applicable to self-contained
buffet tables or preparation tables because those sections are intended
for CRE with remote condensing units, CRE without doors, CRE with
different door opening sequences, and CRE with lighting occupancy
sensors and controls) of ASHRAE 72-2018R for determining stabilization
and specifying the testing sequence for testing buffet tables and
preparation tables. The preparation period under Section 7.2 of ASHRAE
72-2018R would include loading the pans with water and adjusting the
necessary controls to maintain the specified temperatures. For the
purposes of determining stability as specified in Section 7.5 of ASHRAE
72-2018R, the average temperatures of measured pans would be used to
compare Test A and Test B rather than the temperatures of test
simulators. DOE has tentatively determined that this approach would
ensure stability over the test period and limit test burden by avoiding
an iterative approach to determine stability and test conditions. This
approach would also maintain consistency with the procedures used for
testing other CRE.
DOE requests comment on the proposed stabilization approach for
buffet table and preparation table testing, which would reference the
approach specified in ASHRAE 72-2018R.
Test Conduct--Target Temperatures
ASTM F2143-16 instructs that if a buffet table or preparation table
is equipped with a refrigerated compartment, the compartment air
temperature is to be between 33 [deg]F and 41 [deg]F. Likewise, the
water temperature in each of the pans placed in the display area also
is to be between 33 [deg]F and 41 [deg]F. The DOE test procedure for
other CRE requires IATs of 38 [deg]F <plus-minus> 2.0 [deg]F for medium
temperature applications.
Through preliminary research, DOE has found that buffet and
preparation tables use a variety of refrigeration methods for cooling
the pans in the display area and the refrigerated compartment. In some
configurations, units might not be able to maintain all pans and the
refrigerated compartment within the specified temperature range. For
example, units with a single

[[Page 39189]]

refrigeration system and thermostat control for temperatures in either
the refrigerated compartment or in the pan area would control for
temperature in either the pan area or refrigerated compartment, and
both may not be within the target range. As a result, certain equipment
may maintain only the refrigerated compartment or the pan area, but not
both, within a specified temperature range during operation.
In the June 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on appropriate
temperature ranges for all pans and compartments during testing, and
whether the test temperature should be specified as an allowable range
or as a target IAT with a specified tolerance. 86 FR 31182, 31188.
Additionally, if a target IAT is appropriate, the pans and any
refrigerated compartment IAT could be measured separately from each
other, or all temperature measurement locations within the refrigerated
compartment and pans could be averaged together to determine a single
IAT. If separate IATs of the pans and the compartment should be used,
DOE requested comment on which IAT should be used to determine the
appropriate thermostat control (if the unit has only one overall
temperature control). Id.
AHRI commented that further evaluation is needed to incorporate the
appropriate IAT provisions into industry test standards. (AHRI, No. 3,
p. 8) AHRI also commented that preparation or service of cold
temperature foods (e.g., sushi or ice cream) would need to be
considered. (AHRI, No. 3, p. 5)
True, Hoshizaki, and Continental commented in support of the NSF 7-
2019 standard. (True, No. 4, p. 12; Hoshizaki, No. 13, p. 2;
Continental, No. 6, p. 3) True commented that during the NSF 7-2019
test, the product is moved from a separate holding cabinet (e.g., a
reach in refrigerator or walk in cooler). (True, No. 4, p. 12)
Hoshizaki and Continental commented in support of the moving box car
average temperature (i.e., a data treatment method that replaces a
group of consecutive data points with its average) for open-top pans,
along with the maximum and minimum temperature range for thermocouples,
stating that this approach would provide a good indicator of
maintaining temperatures over an extended period of time. (Hoshizaki,
No. 13, p. 2; Continental, No. 6, p. 3)
Hussmann and Continental commented in support of an IAT of below 41
[deg]F with a specified tolerance for the storage compartment.
(Hussmann, No. 14, p. 11; Continental, No. 6, p. 3)
ITW commented in support of a target temperature range of 35 [deg]F
in the open-top for consistency and repeatability. (ITW, No. 2, p. 7)
ITW commented that this would represent the best approach, assuming
that distilled water pre-cooled to 35 [deg]F in bulk is used in filling
empty food pans already placed in the open-top pans at the initiation
of the evaluation, that the environmental conditions for the evaluation
match those found in the ASHRAE 72-2018 standard, and that the
temperatures of the simulated product held within the storage
compartment are recorded but not specified. (Id.)
As discussed, ASTM F2143-16 and NSF 7-2019 both specify a pan and
compartment temperature range of 33 [deg]F to 41 [deg]F for testing.
The current DOE test procedure for CRE requires testing to an IAT
within 2 [deg]F of the specified target temperature. DOE expects that
this smaller allowable temperature range would limit test variability
as compared to the 8 [deg]F allowable range specified in ASTM F2143-16
and NSF 7-2019.
The ASTM F2143-16 and NSF 7-2019 temperature ranges apply to all
measured pan and compartment temperatures, whereas DOE's current
temperature specifications apply to the IAT--i.e., the average of all
test simulator temperature measurements over the test period. DOE has
tentatively determined that the temperature specification based on an
average temperature rather than individual temperature measurements
would limit test burden by limiting the need for re-tests in the case
of individual temperature measurements being outside of the required
range. Additionally, DOE has initially determined that the average
temperature approach would allow for testing buffet tables and
preparation tables with configurations not capable of maintaining all
temperature measurements within the required range. For example, if the
refrigerated compartment provides cooling to the open-top pan area, the
refrigerated compartment temperature measurements may be colder than
the pan temperatures and not necessarily within a specified range.
Additionally, certain temperature measurement locations may be warmer
or colder than others depending on proximity to the evapo

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on June 30, 2022.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.