[Federal Register: March 7, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 45)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10957-10961]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07mr03-3]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket No. EE-RM/TP-02-001]
RIN 1904-AB12
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedure
for Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (Department or DOE) today promulgates
a revision to the test procedure for measuring the energy consumption
of refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. The revision changes the
calculation of the test time period for long-time automatic defrost to
give credit for a control capable of timing defrost to occur other than
during a compressor ``on'' cycle, thereby taking advantage of the
natural warming of the evaporator during an ``off'' cycle, and saving
additional energy. The revision has no effect on the testing of
refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers that do not have a long-time
automatic defrost system. This change in the test procedure will
encourage the use of energy enhancing technology. This amendment to the
test procedure will not cause any refrigerator or refrigerator-freezer
that currently complies with the minimum energy conservation standards
to become noncompliant with the standard.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective May 6, 2003, unless adverse
or critical comments are received by April 7, 2003. If the effective
date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal
Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Ms. Brenda Edwards-
Jones, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585-0121. E-mail address: Brenda.Edwards-Jones@ee.doe.gov. You should
identify all such documents both on the envelope and on the documents
as Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedures
for Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers, Docket No. EE-RM/TP-02-
001.
Copies of public comments received may be read in the Freedom of
Information Reading Room (Room No. 1E-190) at the U.S. Department of
Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington,
DC between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Raymond, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EE-2J, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-9611, E-
mail: Michael.Raymond@ee.doe.gov; or Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, GC-72, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9507, E-mail:
Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Discussion
III. Final Action
IV. Procedural Requirements
A. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
B. Review Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review''
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. ``Takings'' Assessment Review
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'
F. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform''
H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
J. Review Under Executive Order 13211
K. Review Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
L. Approval by the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction
A. Authority
Part B of title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as
amended (EPCA or Act), establishes the Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles (Program). The products
currently subject to this Program (``covered products'') include
residential refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, the subject of
today's direct final rule.
Under the Act, the Program consists of three parts: testing,
labeling, and the Federal energy conservation standards. The
Department, in consultation with the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), must amend or establish test procedures as
appropriate for each of the covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6293). The
purpose of the test procedures is to measure energy efficiency, energy
use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a
representative average use cycle or period of use. The test procedure
must not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)).
If a test procedure is amended, EPCA section 323(e)(1) requires DOE
to determine, in the rulemaking, to what extent, if any, the new test
procedure would change the measured energy efficiency or measured
energy use of any covered product as determined under the existing test
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)). If DOE determines that the amended
test procedure would
[[Page 10958]]
change the measured energy efficiency or measured energy use of a
covered product, DOE must amend the applicable energy conservation
standard during the rulemaking that establishes the new test procedure.
In determining the amended energy conservation standard, DOE is
required to measure the energy efficiency or energy use of a
representative sample of covered products that minimally comply with
the existing standard. The average energy efficiency or energy use of
these representative samples, tested using the amended test procedure,
shall constitute the amended energy conservation or energy use standard
for the applicable covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)).
Beginning 180 days after an amended or new test procedure for a
covered product is prescribed or established under section 323(b) of
EPCA, no manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler may
make any representation with respect to the energy use, efficiency, or
cost of energy consumed by such product, unless such product has been
tested in accordance with such amended or new DOE procedure and such
representation fully discloses the results of such testing. (42 U.S.C.
6293(c)(2)).
B. Background
On November 21, 2000, Electrolux filed an application for interim
waiver and a petition for waiver regarding the calculation of the long-
time automatic defrost test time period in refrigerators and
refrigerator-freezers having a variable defrost control function. The
Department granted the interim waiver on July 30, 2001, and published
its decision in the Federal Register on August 3, 2001. (66 FR 40689).
In the same Federal Register notice, the Department published
Electrolux's petition for waiver, and solicited comments, data, and
information respecting the petition. On March 29, 2002, DOE published a
notice in the Federal Register extending the interim waiver for 180
days, or until July 25, 2002, because it determined that it would seek
to amend the refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer test procedure and
the planned amendment would eliminate any need for continuation of the
waiver. (67 FR 15192). Furthermore, amendment of the test procedure
would allow all manufacturers to use the amended test procedure if they
have a product with a long-time automatic defrost function.
Electrolux's petition requested that the calculation of the test
time period for long-time automatic defrost models be modified for its
variable defrost control models. This modification would allow for the
existence of a control that is capable of timing defrost to occur other
than during a compressor ``on'' cycle, thereby taking advantage of the
natural warming of the evaporator during an ``off'' cycle, and saving
energy as a result. Technology has advanced sufficiently that it is
feasible to design and build a system that no longer has to initiate
defrost during a compressor run period, as did the old mechanical
defrost timers. Electrolux asked to have the time before the heaters
turn ``on'' be included in the defrost period. The evaporator is
warming up during this time, with no use of electrical energy. The
current test procedure does not properly account for the energy savings
produced by Electrolux's timing of the defrost heater activation.
The Department received three written comments concerning the
petition for waiver. All the comments supported granting the waiver,
with one modification.
Maytag supported Electrolux's proposal provided that it is
applicable on an industry-wide basis to all manufacturers. The
Department's waiver process allows for granting of waivers for a
``particular basic model,'' so the waiver requested and granted applies
only to the Electrolux basic models that include variable defrost
control. Without a test procedure change, any manufacturer desiring to
use this modification to the test procedure could do so only by
petitioning the Department for its own waiver.
Fisher & Paykel, a major manufacturer of refrigerators in New
Zealand, generally approved of Electrolux's petition, but argued for a
somewhat different modification. It proposed that the third sentence of
section 4.1.2.1 of the test procedure (which is the only sentence
Electrolux sought to modify) read as follows:
``The second part would start at the last compressor off that is
part of steady state operation (or at a point still within stable
operation if there are no temperature swings) before a defrost is
initiated. It would terminate at the [second] [third] turn ``on'' of
the compressor or after four hours, whichever comes first. If there
are compressor swings without compressor cycling, the start point
shall be at the last temperature peak in stable operation and the
end point shall be at the [second] [third] temperature peak after
the defrost.''
Finally, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM),
representing the manufacturers who produce over 90% of the household
refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers in the U.S., agreed in
principle with Electrolux's petition, but requested a change in the
wording. AHAM suggested that the four hour limitation of the test
commence when the defrost heater is initiated, rather than at the
beginning of the second part of the two-part test period. It stated
that this change would alleviate concerns about ``the possibility of
being able to modify the performance of a refrigerator to such an
extent that it would not recover from defrost in the four hour time
period allotted within the proposed waiver.''
AHAM recommended that Electrolux's proposed language be changed so
that revised section 4.1.2.1 of the test procedure would read as
follows:
``Long-time Automatic Defrost. If the model being tested has a
long-time automatic defrost system, the test period may consist of
two parts. A first part would be the same as the test for a unit
having no defrost provisions (section 4.1.1). The second part would
start when a defrost is initiated when the compressor ``on'' cycle
is terminated prior to start of the defrost heater and terminates at
the second turn ``on'' of the compressor or four hours from the
initiation of the defrost heater, whichever comes first.''
AHAM stated that it discussed this change with its members, and was
not aware of any member who disagreed with its position. It
specifically listed the following members as having participated in and
concurred in its proposal: GE Appliances, Electrolux Home Products,
Fisher & Paykel, Maytag, Sub-Zero, and Whirlpool. In summary, AHAM
asserted that all commenters on Electrolux's Petition were in agreement
with AHAM's proposal.
II. Discussion
The Department consulted with the National Institute of Standards &
Technology (NIST), which agreed that the current test procedure for
refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers is not clear with regard to the
initiation of the defrost cycle test time period in Electrolux's new
product. (The current test procedure states: ``The second period would
start when a defrost period is initiated during a compressor ``on''
cycle * * *'' Electrolux's new product initiates the defrost period
when the compressor is ``off''.) NIST informed the Department that the
change proposed in the Electrolux Petition would clarify the defrost
cycle initiation and more accurately measure the energy consumption of
Electrolux's new product. NIST endorsed the revised language proposed
by AHAM. As stated above, all commenters on the test procedure change
apparently support AHAM's proposal. This proposed change has widespread
support and will
[[Page 10959]]
result in a test procedure that more accurately measures energy
consumption. The application of the existing test procedure to the new
product is unclear, and this amendment will clarify its application to
the new product. For all these reasons, the Department has determined
that it should promulgate this direct final rule and make a change to
the refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer test procedure.
The revised calculation of the test time period results in a small
(generally about one percent) decrease in the tested energy consumption
of models that incorporate the advanced defrost timing feature, a
feature that delays the initiation of the defrost heater, thereby using
natural warming to defrost. Section 323(e) of EPCA requires the
Department, in a rulemaking, to determine to what extent, if any, the
proposed test procedure would change the existing measured energy
efficiency or measured energy use of any covered product under the
existing test procedure. This statutory provision is designed to
prevent the alteration of an existing Federal energy conservation
standard that otherwise could result from a change in a test procedure.
It also seeks to ensure that products in compliance with the applicable
energy conservation standards under the existing test procedure will
not be put out of compliance because the test procedure has been
amended. When the Department considers section 323(e) of EPCA in the
context of this direct final rule, the Department concludes that no
change to the energy conservation standard is required. The reasons are
as follows: (1) This test procedure amendment affects only products
with a variable defrost control function, none of which minimally
comply with the existing standard. There are, therefore, no minimally-
compliant products under section 323(e) that would show any change in
energy use under the amended test procedure. (2) This test procedure
amendment, which was developed to give credit to an energy saving
technology, will result in lowering the measured energy use. Lowering
measured energy use will, of course, not raise energy use over the
standard, which prescribes a ceiling on maximum energy use. Instead,
lowering energy use merely removes measured energy use further from
that ceiling. Therefore, this amendment does not make any compliant
products non-compliant with the applicable energy conservation
standard.
III. Final Action
DOE is publishing this direct final rule without prior proposal
because DOE views this amendment as noncontroversial and anticipates no
significant adverse comments. However, in the event that significant
adverse or critical comments are filed, DOE has prepared a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing the same amendment. This NOPR is
contained in a separate document in this Federal Register publication.
The direct final action will be effective May 6, 2003, unless
significant adverse or critical comments are received by April 7, 2003.
If DOE receives significant adverse or critical comments, the revisions
will be withdrawn before the effective date. In the case of withdrawal
of this action, the withdrawal will be announced by a subsequent
Federal Register document. All public comments will then be addressed
in a separate final rule based on the proposed rule that is also issued
today. DOE will not implement a second comment period on this action.
Any parties interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this
time. If no significant adverse comments are received, the public is
advised that this rule will be effective May 6, 2003.
IV. Procedural Requirements
A. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this rule, the Department promulgates a small change to the test
procedure for measuring the energy consumption of household
refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. The Department has determined
that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically
excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. The rule is covered by Categorical
Exclusion A5, for rulemakings that interpret or amend an existing rule
without changing the environmental effect, as set forth in the
Department's NEPA regulations in Appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR part
1021. This rule will not affect the quality or distribution of energy
usage and, therefore, will not result in any environmental impacts.
Accordingly, neither an environmental impact statement nor an
environmental assessment is required.
B. Review Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review''
Today's rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' 58 FR 51735
(October 4, 1993). Accordingly, today's action is not subject to review
under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs.
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires that an
agency prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule,
for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking is required, that
would have a significant economic effect on small entities unless the
agency certifies that the proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. 5 U.S.C. 605.
Today's rule prescribes test procedures that will be used to test
compliance with energy conservation standards. The rule affects
refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer test procedures and would not
have a significant economic impact, but rather would provide common
testing methods. Therefore DOE certifies that today's rule would not
have a ``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities,'' and the preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis is
not warranted.
D. ``Takings'' Assessment Review
DOE has determined pursuant to Executive Order 12630,
``Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation
would not result in any takings which might require compensation under
the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4,
1999), requires that regulations, rules, legislation, and any other
policy actions be reviewed for any substantial direct effects on
States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the
States, or in the distribution of power and responsibilities among
various levels of government. If there are substantial direct effects,
then this Executive Order requires preparation of a federalism
assessment to be used in all decisions involved in promulgating and
implementing a policy action.
The rule published today would not regulate or otherwise affect the
States. Accordingly, DOE has determined that preparation of a
federalism assessment is unnecessary.
F. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
No new information or record keeping requirements are imposed by
this rulemaking. Accordingly, no OMB
[[Page 10960]]
clearance is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform''
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988,
``Civil Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on
Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and
promote simplification and burden reduction. With regard to the review
required by sections 3(a) and 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, it
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE reviewed today's rule
under the standards of section 3 of the Executive Order and determined
that, to the extent permitted by law, the proposed regulations meet the
relevant standards.
H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded
Mandates Act'') requires that the Department prepare a budgetary impact
statement before promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate
that may result in expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in
any one year. The budgetary impact statement must include: (i)
Identification of the Federal law under which the rule is promulgated;
(ii) a qualitative and quantitative assessment of anticipated costs and
benefits of the Federal mandate and an analysis of the extent to which
such costs to State, local, and tribal governments may be paid with
Federal financial assistance; (iii) if feasible, estimates of the
future compliance costs and of any disproportionate budgetary effects
the mandate has on particular regions, communities, non-Federal units
of government, or sectors of the economy; (iv) if feasible, estimates
of the effect on the national economy; and (v) a description of the
Department's prior consultation with elected representatives of State,
local, and tribal governments and a summary and evaluation of the
comments and concerns presented.
The Department has determined that the action today does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to State, local or to tribal governments in the
aggregate or to the private sector. Therefore, the requirements of
sections 203 and 204 of the Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this
action.
I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any proposed rule or policy that may affect
family well-being. Today's rule would not have any impact on the
autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE
has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
J. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of
Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed
significant energy action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined
as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to
the promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order;
and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the
Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed
significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of
any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the
proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action
and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
Today's rule will not have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or the use of energy, and, therefore, is not a
significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
Statement of Energy Effects.
K. Review Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of today's rule prior to its effective date. The report
will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 801(2).
L. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's direct
final rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Energy conservation,
Household appliances.
Issued in Washington, DC, on February 28, 2003.
David K. Garman,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department amends
part 430 of chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, to
read as follows:
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
2. Section 4.1.2.1 of Appendix A1 to subpart B of part 430 is
revised to read as follows:
Appendix A1 to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Electric Refrigerators and Electric
Refrigerator-Freezers
4. * * *
4.1.2.1 Long-time Automatic Defrost. If the model being tested has
a long-time automatic defrost system, the test time period may consist
of two parts. A first part would be the same as the test for a unit
having no defrost provisions (section 4.1.1). The second part would
start when a defrost is initiated when the compressor ``on'' cycle is
terminated prior to start of the defrost heater and
[[Page 10961]]
terminates at the second turn ``on'' of the compressor or four hours
from the initiation of the defrost heater, whichever comes first. See
diagram in Figure 1 to this section.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07MR03.019
[FR Doc. 03-5404 Filed 3-6-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C