[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 174 (Thursday, September 9, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55068-55108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21364]



[[Page 55067]]

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

Part III





Department of Energy





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



10 CFR Part 431



Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Walk-In Coolers and 
Walk-In Freezers; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 55068]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-TP-0014]
RIN 1904-AB85


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Walk-In Coolers 
and Walk-In Freezers

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

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) previously published a 
notice of proposed rulemaking to adopt test procedures for measuring 
the energy consumption of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers, 
pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended. 
DOE is continuing to consider those proposals, but is now soliciting 
comments on several alternative proposed options. Once any final test 
procedure is effective, any representation as to the energy use of 
walk-in equipment must reflect the results of testing that equipment 
using the test procedure. Concurrently, DOE is undertaking an energy 
conservation standards rulemaking for this equipment. If DOE receives 
data in this test procedure rulemaking that are pertinent to the 
development of standards, it will use that data in evaluating potential 
standards for this equipment. Once these standards are promulgated, the 
adopted test procedures will be used to determine compliance with the 
standards.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) no later than 
October 12, 2010. See section V of this SNOPR for details.

ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted must identify the SNOPR for Test 
Procedures for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers and provide docket 
number EERE-2008-BT-TP-0014 and/or Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 
1904-AB85. Comments may be submitted using any of the following 
methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: [email protected]. Include the docket number 
EERE-2008-BT-TP-0014 and/or RIN 1904-AB85 in the subject line of the 
message.
    3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Please submit one signed 
original paper copy.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, 6th Floor, 
Washington, DC 20024. Please submit one signed original paper copy.
    For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see section V of this document.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, visit the U.S. Department of Energy, Resource Room 
of the Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, 6th Floor, 
Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards 
at the above telephone number for additional information regarding 
visiting the Resource Room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Charles Llenza, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, 
SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-2192, 
[email protected]; Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Office of General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-8145, [email protected]; or 
Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General 
Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121, (202) 586-7796. E-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Authority and Background
II. Summary of the Proposal
III. Discussion
    A. Overall Issues
    1. Definition of Walk-In Cooler or Freezer: Temperature Limit
    2. Testing and Compliance Responsibility
    3. Basic Model of Envelope
    4. Basic Model of Refrigeration Systems
    B. Envelope
    1. Heat Conduction Through Structural Members
    2. Use of ASTM C1303 or EN 13165:2009-02
    3. EN 13165:2009-02 as a Proposed Alternative to ASTM C1303-10
    4. Version of ASTM C1303
    5. Improvements to ASTM C1303 Methodology
    6. Heat Transfer Through Concrete
    a. Floorless Coolers
    b. Pre-Installed Freezer Floor
    c. Insulated Floor Shipped by Manufacturer
    7. Walk-in Sited Within a Walk-In: A ``Hybrid'' Walk-In
    8. U-Factor of Doors and Windows
    9. Walk-In Envelope Steady-State Infiltration Test
    10. Door Steady-State Infiltration Test
    11. Door Opening Infiltration Assumptions
    12. Infiltration Reduction Device Effectiveness
    13. Relative Humidity Assumptions
    C. Refrigeration System
    1. Definition of Refrigeration System
    2. Version of AHRI 1250
    3. Annual Walk-In Energy Factor
IV. Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
    C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Reasons for the Proposed Rule
    2. Objectives of and Legal Basis for the Proposed Rule
    3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
    5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and 
Regulations
    6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    E. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    F. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    G. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    H. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    J. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    K. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
(FEA) Act of 1974
V. Public Participation
    A. Submitting Public Comment
    B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
    1. Upper Limit of Walk-In Cooler
    2. Basic Model of Envelope
    3. Basic Model of Refrigeration
    4. Updates to Standards
    5. Heat Conduction Through Structural Members
    6. Alternatives to ASTM C1303-10
    7. Improvements to ASTM C1303 Methodology
    8. Conduction Through Floors
    9. ``Hybrid'' Walk-Ins
    10. U-Factor of Doors and Windows
    11. Envelope Infiltration
    12. Relative Humidity Assumptions
    13. Definition of Refrigeration System
    14. Annual Walk-In Energy Factor
    15. Impacts on Small Businesses
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as 
amended (``EPCA'' or, in context, ``the Act'') sets forth a variety of 
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part B of Title III 
(42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) provides for the Energy Conservation Program for 
Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. The National Energy 
Conservation Policy Act (NECPA),

[[Page 55069]]

Public Law 95-619, amended EPCA to add Part C of Title III, which 
established an energy conservation program for certain industrial 
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) (These parts were subsequently 
redesignated as Parts A and A-1, respectively, for editorial reasons.) 
Section 312 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 
2007'') further amended EPCA by adding certain equipment to this energy 
conservation program, including walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers 
(collectively ``walk-in equipment,'' ``walk-ins,'' or ``WICF''), the 
subject of this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C 6311(1), (20), 6313(f), and 
6314(a)(9))
    At its most basic level, the term ``walk-in equipment'' encompasses 
enclosed storage spaces of under 3,000 square feet that can be walked 
into and are refrigerated to specified temperatures--above 32 degrees 
Fahrenheit ([deg]F) for coolers and at or below 32 [deg]F for freezers. 
(42 U.S.C. 6311(20)(A)) The term does not include equipment designed 
and marketed exclusively for medical, scientific or research purposes. 
(42 U.S.C. 6311(20)(B))
    Walk-ins that meet this definition may be located indoors or 
outdoors. They may be used exclusively for storage, but they may also 
have transparent doors or panels for the purpose of displaying stored 
items. Examples of items that may be stored in walk-ins include, but 
are not limited to, food, beverages, and flowers.
    Under the Act, the overall program consists of three parts: 
testing, labeling, and Federal energy conservation standards. The 
testing requirements consist of test procedures prescribed under the 
authority of EPCA. These test procedures are used in several different 
ways: (1) DOE uses them to aid in the development of standards for 
covered products or equipment; (2) manufacturers of covered equipment 
must use them to establish that their equipment complies with standards 
promulgated under EPCA and when making representations about equipment 
efficiency; and (3) DOE must use them to determine whether equipment 
complies with applicable standards.
    Section 343 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6314) sets forth generally 
applicable criteria and procedures for DOE's adoption and amendment of 
such test procedures. That provision requires that the test procedures 
promulgated by DOE be reasonably designed to produce test results which 
reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of 
the covered equipment during a representative average use cycle. It 
also requires that the test procedure not be unduly burdensome to 
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) As part of the process for promulgating 
a test procedure, DOE must publish a proposed procedure and offer the 
public an opportunity to present oral and written comments in response 
to that procedure. DOE solicited comments on the notice of proposed 
rulemaking (``NOPR'') setting forth proposed test procedures, published 
on January 4, 2010 (``the January NOPR''). 75 FR 186. DOE also held a 
public meeting to discuss the January 2010 NOPR on March 24, 2010. DOE 
is now soliciting further comment through this SNOPR.
    The January NOPR and the March 2010 meeting provided interested 
parties an opportunity to submit comments on the proposals. Interested 
parties raised significant issues and suggested changes to the proposed 
test procedures. DOE determined that some of these comments warrant 
further consideration. In today's notice, DOE addresses those comments 
and proposes adjustments to the initial test procedures proposed for 
walk-in equipment in the January 2010 NOPR.

II. Summary of the Proposal

    DOE is proposing several changes to the proposal presented in the 
January NOPR. These changes involve:
    (1) Definition of walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer.
    (2) Testing and compliance responsibility.
    (3) Versions of standards incorporated by reference.
    (4) Basic model for envelope.
    (5) Basic model for refrigeration system.
    (6) Conduction through structural members.
    (7) Alternatives to ASTM C1303.
    (8) Heat transfer through concrete.
    (9) U-factor of glass and non-glass doors.
    (10) Steady-state infiltration through panel interfaces and doors.
    (11) Door opening infiltration assumptions.
    (12) Infiltration reduction device effectiveness.
    (13) Relative humidity assumptions.
    (14) Definition of refrigeration system.
    (15) Annual walk-in energy factor.
    Concurrently, DOE is undertaking an energy conservation standards 
rulemaking to address the statutory requirement to establish 
performance standards for walk-in equipment no later than January 1, 
2012. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(4)(A)) DOE will use the test procedure in the 
concurrent process of evaluating potential performance standards for 
the equipment. After performance standards become applicable, 
manufacturers must use the test procedures to determine compliance with 
the standards, and DOE must use the test procedure to ascertain 
compliance with the standards in any enforcement action. Moreover, once 
any final test procedure is effective, any representation as to the 
energy use of walk-in equipment must reflect the results of testing 
that equipment using the test procedure.

III. Discussion

    This section addresses issues raised by interested parties in 
response to the January NOPR and provides detail regarding DOE's 
proposed changes to the test procedure. Interested parties include 
trade associations (American Chemistry Council/Center for the 
Polyurethanes Industry (ACC/CPI), AHRI); manufacturers of the covered 
equipment (Craig Industries, Metl-Span, Nor-Lake, Carpenter, Master-
Bilt, American Panel Corporation, Arctic Industries, Amerikooler, 
Kason, Hill Phoenix, TAFCO/TMP (TAFCO), International Cold Storage 
(ICS), ThermalRite, Manitowoc, Kysor Panel, HeatCraft, and Crown 
Tonka); suppliers of components used in the covered equipment 
(Honeywell, BASF, Dyplast, ITW Insulation, Owens Corning, HH 
Technologies (Hired Hand), Dow Chemical, and Schott Gemtron); utilities 
(Southern California Edison (SCE), San Diego Gas and Electric (SDGE), 
and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD)); and energy 
efficiency advocates (American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 
(ACEEE)).

A. Overall Issues

1. Definition of Walk-In Cooler or Freezer: Temperature Limit
    EPCA defines walk-in equipment as follows:

    (A) In general.--
    The terms ``walk-in cooler'' and ``walk-in freezer'' mean an 
enclosed storage space refrigerated to temperatures, respectively, 
above, and at or below 32 degrees Fahrenheit that can be walked 
into, and has a total chilled storage area of less than 3,000 square 
feet.
    (B) Exclusion.--
    The terms ``walk-in cooler'' and ``walk-in freezer'' do not 
include products designed and marketed exclusively for medical, 
scientific, or research purposes. (42 U.S.C. 6311(20))

    During the public meeting on the January NOPR and in written 
comments, several interested parties stated that DOE should clarify 
this definition with respect to temperature limits and exclusions. 
Multiple interested parties commented that DOE

[[Page 55070]]

should set an upper temperature limit for walk-ins. Three temperature 
limits were proposed: (1) 40 or 41 [deg]F; (2) 45 [deg]F; and (3) 
between 31 [deg]F and 55 [deg]F. Kysor stated that DOE should align 
with the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) definition of 41 [deg]F 
as the maximum high temperature for food storage. (Kysor, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 85) ICS agreed with Kysor but 
cautioned that this temperature could be different from the temperature 
set by the customer. (ICS, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 
86)
    In written comments, Kysor also suggested 40 [deg]F as the upper 
limit because NSF/ANSI Standard 7, ``Commercial Refrigerators and 
Freezers'' uses such a requirement. See NSF/ANSI Standard 7, 
``Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers,'' Section 6.10.1, 
``Performance (``Storage refrigerators and refrigerated food transport 
cabinets shall be capable of maintaining an air temperature of 40 
[deg]F (4 [deg]C) or lower in the interior.'') (Kysor, No. 1.3.035 at 
p. 1) Craig and Hired Hand both indicated that 45 [deg]F or 41 [deg]F 
would be an acceptable upper limit. (Craig, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 1.2.010 at p. 86; Craig, No. 1.3.017 at p. 1 and Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 19; Hired Hand, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 88) A comment submitted jointly by SCE, 
SDGE, and SMUD, hereafter referred to collectively as ``the Joint 
Comment,'' recommended that DOE develop a definition to clarify that 
walk-in coolers operate at temperatures between 55 [deg]F and 32 
[deg]F. (Joint Comment, No. 1.3.019 at p. 17) SCE pointed out that 
California's building energy standards consider 55 [deg]F and below to 
be refrigerated. (SCE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 85) 
TAFCO agreed that DOE should impose an upper limit of 55 [deg]F because 
this is the highest temperature at which most refrigeration systems 
will operate. (TAFCO, No. 1.3.022 at p. 1) Craig disagreed with a 55 
[deg]F limit because this temperature is the typical holding 
temperature for wine coolers, but the walk-in wine cooler might be 
rated at a lower temperature. (Craig, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
1.2.010 at p. 86) DOE infers from the comment that Craig was concerned 
that the energy consumption of a wine cooler at the test procedure 
rating temperature might not represent the energy consumption at the 
actual holding temperature. Hired Hand stated that air conditioning is 
the first stage of cooling for walk-ins inside air-conditioned 
warehouses, which echoed the concerns of other commenters that the 
complete absence of an upper temperature limit might inadvertently 
include a wider variety of conditioned spaces than contemplated. (Hired 
Hand, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 87)
    EPCA defines walk-in equipment, in part, as meaning a space that is 
``refrigerated,'' and as having a ``chilled storage area.'' (42 U.S.C. 
6311(20)) DOE proposes clarifying the term ``refrigerated'' within the 
statutory definition to distinguish walk-in equipment from air-
conditioned storage spaces. DOE could not find a consensus among the 
industry for the definition of ``refrigerated'' or ``chilled storage.'' 
However, the Joint Comment, SCE, and TAFCO suggested that 55 [deg]F 
represented a boundary between ``refrigerated space'' and ``conditioned 
space'' as refrigeration systems typically do not operate above 55 
[deg]F, and air-conditioning systems typically do not operate below 
this limit. DOE found that preparation rooms, wine coolers, and storage 
coolers for most fruits and vegetables are considered refrigerated 
spaces and are typically cooled to temperatures between 45 [deg]F and 
55 [deg]F. DOE proposes adopting a clarifying definition that would set 
an upper limit of 55 [deg]F for walk-in equipment. DOE believes that 
using the upper limit of food storage temperatures (i.e., 40 [deg]F or 
45 [deg]F) to define walk-in equipment, as suggested by some 
commenters, would exclude some equipment that is ``refrigerated'' and 
has a ``chilled storage area.'' Such an approach would, in DOE's view, 
exclude from coverage equipment that falls within the statutorily-
prescribed scope of EPCA's walk-in definition. The space in which a 
walk-in is located (e.g., a grocery store, warehouse, or other 
conditioned space) would not itself be considered a walk-in unless it 
meets the statutory definition of a walk-in and DOE's proposed 
clarifying definition that would set an upper limit on the temperature 
range. DOE requests comment on its proposal of clarifying 
``refrigerated'' to mean at or below 55 [deg]F.
2. Testing and Compliance Responsibility
    In responding to comments received on the framework document, the 
January NOPR detailed DOE's proposal to create separate test procedures 
for the envelope and the refrigeration system, the two discrete systems 
that comprise a walk-in. 75 FR 191. These two systems may or may not 
each be manufactured by a separate manufacturing entity. Additionally, 
other manufacturers may be involved in producing secondary components--
such as fan assemblies or lighting--that are then incorporated as parts 
of the refrigeration system or envelope.
    In the January NOPR, DOE proposed that the envelope manufacturer 
would be responsible for testing the envelope according to the envelope 
test procedure, and the refrigeration system manufacturer would be 
responsible for testing the refrigeration system according to the 
refrigeration system test procedure. 75 FR 191. DOE believed that the 
manufacturers of the envelope and refrigeration systems--as parties 
most likely to be intimately familiar with the design and operation of 
their own equipment--would be more likely than installers to have the 
resources, equipment, and trained personnel needed to conduct the tests 
necessary to certify WICF equipment as compliant with any energy 
conservation standards that DOE develops. 75 FR 191.
    However, interested parties commented that DOE's concept of a 
single envelope manufacturer may not align with the actual market. 
Commenters suggested that the panel manufacturers, whom DOE assumed 
would serve as the envelope manufacturers for purposes of testing 
compliance, did not necessarily control the design of the walk-in 
envelopes for which their panels were used. Many of the comments from 
interested parties suggested that DOE should assign compliance testing 
responsibility to parties involved in the physical assembly (e.g., 
installers) and/or design-level specification (e.g., general 
contractors) of the walk-in envelope because actions taken by these 
parties could have a significant effect on walk-in performance over its 
lifetime. Some commenters suggested various forms of joint 
responsibility between the manufacturer(s) of the envelope components 
and the parties responsible for the physical assembly and/or design-
level specification of the envelope. Other interested parties commented 
that these options would not constitute a viable approach and that DOE 
should focus on the panel manufacturers for compliance testing because 
they would be more likely to have the proper equipment and expertise to 
test the panels.
    Likewise, interested parties commented that DOE's concept of a 
single refrigeration system manufacturer may be inaccurate because the 
condensing unit and unit cooler of a single refrigeration system may be 
manufactured by separate entities and the whole system may be 
manufactured from these separate parts by a third manufacturer. 
Commenters generally suggested assigning joint responsibility between 
the manufacturer(s) of the unit

[[Page 55071]]

cooler and condensing unit and the manufacturer of the system as a 
whole. Others suggested that DOE break a refrigeration system down into 
its individual components (e.g., compressor, coils) and regulate each 
component separately.
    DOE believes that many of the comments concerning compliance 
testing responsibility stem from the definition of the term 
``manufacture,'' which EPCA defines as ``to manufacture, produce, 
assemble or import.'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(10)) Several interested parties 
requested clarification of the definition of ``manufacture'' and the 
implications of that role. DOE generally requires a single party, whose 
role falls under the term ``manufacture,'' to assume compliance 
responsibility for a given appliance or equipment; typically, the party 
responsible for demonstrating compliance would conduct the necessary 
testing or arrange for testing to be conducted by a third party (e.g., 
a testing lab). DOE recognizes that the walk-in envelope and 
refrigeration system markets rely on multiple supply chain scenarios in 
which several distinct parties could serve different roles that may 
fall under the term ``manufacture.'' In the case of both walk-in 
envelopes and refrigeration systems, DOE recognizes that assigning 
compliance responsibility to a single entity that may not be involved 
in all aspects of the design and construction of these systems may 
present certain logistical issues. Accordingly, DOE plans to further 
address these issues during the standards rulemaking when developing 
the required efficiency levels and when developing certification and 
compliance responsibilities.
3. Basic Model of Envelope
    Although often manufactured according to the same basic design, 
many walk-in envelopes can be highly customized. To address this 
possibility, DOE proposed the following approach in the January NOPR: 
(1) Grouping walk-in envelopes with essentially identical construction 
methods, materials, and components into a single basic model; and (2) 
adopting a calculation methodology for determining the energy 
consumption of units within the basic model. For walk-in envelopes, DOE 
proposed to define a ``basic model'' as ``all units of a given type of 
walk-in equipment manufactured by a single manufacturer, and--(1) With 
respect to envelopes, which do not have any differing construction 
methods, materials, components, or other characteristics that 
significantly affect the energy consumption characteristics.'' 75 FR 
189.
    Master-Bilt, BASF, ACC/CPI, Craig, Kason, and ThermalRite supported 
the concept of the basic model for WICF envelopes. (Master-Bilt, No. 
1.3.009 at p. 1; BASF, No. 1.3.003 at p. 3; ACC/CPI, No. 1.3.006 at p. 
2 and No. 1.3.028 at p. 1; Craig, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
1.2.010 at p. 102; Kason, No. 1.3.037 at p. 1 and Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 124; and ThermalRite, No. 1.3.031 at p. 
1) Craig supported an approach consisting of a single basic model test 
on a baseline model and adding component loads. (Craig, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 123) Kason stated that the basic model 
test should include provisions at the component level, where 
manufacturers could pick new components as long as the components were 
certified to exceed the performance of the old components. (Kason, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 124) Kysor and Nor-Lake 
both believed that the concept of the basic model may not be realistic 
if envelope components such as doors and lights were not purchased or 
installed by the panel manufacturers; in that case, Kysor and Nor-Lake 
stated that component manufacturers should be responsible for rating 
individual components. (Nor-Lake, No. 1.3.029 at p. 2; Kysor, No. 
1.3.035 at p. 2) Arctic proposed expanding the basic model concept to 
eliminate testing for units using the same materials and construction 
methods as a previously certified model, adding that it would be 
impractical and infeasible for them to test every kind of equipment 
they manufacture because of the great variety of box dimensions. 
(Arctic, No. 1.3.012 at p. 1) BASF and Kason also stated that 
manufacturers must be able to reduce the number of models to test to 
ensure minimal manufacturer burden. (BASF, No. 1.3.003 at p. 3 and 
Kason, No. 1.3.037 at p. 1)
    Other interested parties disagreed with the proposed basic model 
approach. Bally stated that the company produces tens of thousands of 
basic models, making basic model testing infeasible. (Bally, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 132) Hill Phoenix believed that 
use of a basic model for testing would not accurately represent the 
energy usage of most walk-ins because of equipment variability, that an 
energy usage calculation program would have to be created and 
maintained and be consistent across the industry, and that basic model 
testing would require costly government oversight. Instead, Hill 
Phoenix recommended component-level modeling. (Hill Phoenix, No. 
1.3.023 at p. 2)
    Several interested parties requested clarification of the proposed 
definition of basic model. ACC/CPI and Honeywell recommended that 
different types of foam and/or different blowing agents should trigger 
different basic models (ACC/CPI, No. 1.3.006 at p. 2 and Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 43; Honeywell, No. 1.3.020 at p. 1) 
Honeywell also recommended that a different facer material should 
trigger a new basic model. (Honeywell, No. 1.3.020 at p. 1) Owens 
Corning stated that the insulation material should not trigger a new 
basic model because the R-value of the insulation is addressed in EISA 
and that panel construction (framed or frameless) should be used to 
differentiate between basic models. (Owens Corning, No. 1.3.030 at p. 
2) ICS stated that different applications should constitute different 
basic models: holding storage, quick chilling or freezing, or blast 
freezing. (ICS, No. 1.3.027 at p. 1) TAFCO commented that the use of 
strip curtains or air curtains should not constitute a new basic model. 
(TAFCO, No. 1.3.022 at p. 2)
    Other interested parties requested that DOE specify standard 
characteristics for a certain basic unit that every manufacturer would 
test. American Panel, ThermalRite, and Craig recommended that DOE 
specify a standardized basic model size. (American Panel, No. 1.3.024 
at p. 2; ThermalRite, No. 1.3.031 at p. 1; Craig, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at pp. 102, 106, and 119) Craig suggested a 
basic size applicable to the food industry--an 8 foot x 10 foot cooler 
and a 6 foot x 8 foot freezer, both with a height of 7 feet 6 inches 
tall--and added that size would only be applicable to the infiltration 
test because other characteristics could be calculated. (Craig, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 105 and No. 1.2.010 at pp. 102, 
106, and 119) Kysor suggested that only height could be specified, 
arguing that walk-ins cannot be characterized by size. (Kysor, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 106)
    Finally, interested parties commented on the proposed scaling 
methodology associated with the basic model concept. Manitowoc stated 
that a scaling methodology based on surface area would not give an 
accurate representation of energy use because energy scales not only 
with surface area but with other factors as well such as the number of 
installed doors and door size. In other words, individual component 
loads scale with individual component characteristics. (Manitowoc,

[[Page 55072]]

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 108) ThermalRite also 
questioned whether there is a linear relationship between energy 
consumption and WICF size that would allow for scaling. (ThermalRite, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 110)
    Upon consideration of these comments, DOE believes that the basic 
model concept would provide manufacturers with a standardized method of 
categorizing their products. However, the definition of basic model 
proposed in the January NOPR could make the concept difficult to use as 
originally intended to reduce testing burden. Specifically, the phrase 
``* * * characteristics that significantly affect the energy 
consumption * * *'' could be interpreted inconsistently by 
manufacturers. The paragraphs below describe DOE's proposed alternative 
approach to defining the term ``basic model''. Additionally, feedback 
from interested parties indicated a desire for DOE to specify 
prescriptive design characteristics for a basic model. Because EPCA 
requires DOE to promulgate performance-based standards for this 
equipment, DOE does not intend to specify design characteristics that 
do not affect normalized energy consumption, as suggested by ACC/CPI, 
Honeywell, Owens Corning, ICS and TAFCO. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(f) 
(instructing DOE to set performance-based standards for walk-ins).
    DOE is considering adopting a revised definition of the term 
``basic model'' that would be consistent with the definition of basic 
model used elsewhere in the appliance standards program, improve the 
clarity of the definition, and narrow the scope of the basic model 
concept. Most notably, this revision would not allow walk-in models to 
differ in terms of their normalized energy consumption. Models grouped 
within a basic model could still differ in terms of their non-energy 
characteristics (e.g., color, shelving, metal skin material type, 
exterior finish, door kick-plate) but any change to a characteristic 
that affects normalized energy consumption (e.g., panel systems, door 
systems, electrical components, and infiltration reduction devices) 
would constitute a new basic model.
    DOE's proposed revision, while reducing the possibility of 
inconsistent interpretation of the term ``basic model'', could increase 
the testing burden relative to the burden under the definition of 
``basic model'' as proposed in the January NOPR. Some of the burden may 
be offset, however, by burden-reducing measures proposed elsewhere in 
the test procedure. These measures include incorporating scaling 
factors for the infiltration test (section III.B.9), the panel U-factor 
test (section III.B.1), and representative doorway sizes for 
infiltration reduction device testing. With these measures, DOE 
attempts to minimize the number of physical tests that would need to be 
performed for the test procedure and instead provide a calculation 
methodology that would allow for rating equipment based on physical 
tests conducted on other equipment. DOE believes that this approach 
would sufficiently address the concerns of BASF, Kason, Arctic, Bally, 
and Hill Phoenix regarding the number of basic models to be tested and 
the cost of testing. A DOE-specified calculation methodology would also 
address Hill Phoenix's recommendation that the energy use calculation 
program be consistent across the industry. Regarding Arctic's view that 
the basic model concept should be expanded to include similar units 
with the same materials and construction methods that have been 
previously certified, DOE notes that models with the same 
characteristics as previously certified models would be considered the 
same basic model only if they met the conditions in the basic model 
definition. In other words, the models would need to have the same 
manufacturer and not have any differing characteristics that affect 
normalized energy consumption.
    The proposed test procedure revisions considered in this SNOPR also 
rely more heavily on component testing, consistent with the suggestions 
made by Craig, Kason, Kysor, Nor-Lake, and Hill Phoenix. This approach 
removes the burden of testing an entire walk-in for which only one 
component is different from a previously rated walk-in: the test 
procedure revisions in this SNOPR would allow for testing the new 
component and then using the proposed calculation methodology to obtain 
the new rating of the walk-in. Additionally, the proposed component 
tests allow for testing one component and then applying those results 
to other components that meet certain similar criteria. DOE believes 
this method is more accurate than allowing for scaling of the entire 
walk-in, because each walk-in could contain many customized parts. 
Adopting this method would address the concerns raised by Manitowoc and 
ThermalRite that energy may not scale directly with walk-in external 
surface area or other size characteristics. For some proposed component 
tests, DOE specifies characteristics of the part that must be 
physically tested (i.e., the geometry of a panel test sample), instead 
of specifying characteristics of the tested walk-in unit as a whole as 
suggested by American Panel, ThermalRite, Craig, and Kysor, because (1) 
complete walk-in units may be very different from one another even if 
they use similar components, and (2) the scaling calculations are more 
accurate on the component level than on the level of the entire walk-
in, which supports testing certain components as part of the compliance 
procedure. For additional details on these proposed component tests, 
see section III.B.
    With respect to certification, in general, DOE requires that 
manufacturers of a covered basic model submit a certification report 
providing details, which demonstrate compliance with the applicable 
energy conservation standards or design standards prescribed by DOE or 
established by Congress. DOE estimates that approximately 50 percent of 
the market consists of standardized walk-ins that are produced in large 
quantities. For the other half of the market, walk-ins may have custom 
features and components that could qualify each as a different basic 
model. In this situation, manufacturers could produce many basic models 
in a year.
    DOE is unsure, however, how burdensome this would be in terms of 
the actual number of hours or personnel required to certify additional 
basic models under this approach. If requiring a certification report 
for each basic model under the approach outlined in today's SNOPR would 
impose an unreasonable burden, DOE may consider a compliance 
certification approach similar to that taken for distribution 
transformers (another case in which some equipment is highly 
customized). 10 CFR 431.371(a)(6)(ii). Distribution transformer 
manufacturers are required to maintain records on all basic models sold 
(or built), but must submit a compliance report to DOE that certifies 
only the least efficient basic model within larger groupings that may 
encompass many basic models. 10 CFR 431.371(a)(6)(ii). The manufacturer 
would certify that every other transformer in the larger grouping is no 
less efficient than the certified basic model certified to DOE. Given 
the nature of the market, DOE is willing to consider variations on this 
approach for walk-ins, such as requiring certification for the least 
and most efficient basic models within a larger group. Such an approach 
could help address the concern of Hill Phoenix about the cost of an 
oversight strategy.

[[Page 55073]]

    DOE requests comment on its proposed definition and approach 
regarding basic models for envelopes.
4. Basic Model of Refrigeration Systems
    In the January NOPR, DOE proposed that the definition of the term 
``basic model'' in the context of a refrigeration system would refer to 
all units with the same energy source and without any different 
electrical, physical, and functional characteristics that affect energy 
consumption. DOE then stated during the NOPR public meeting that it was 
considering a new definition that would not allow units within a basic 
model to differ in energy consumption. DOE also stated during the 
public meeting that it would consider the default of including no 
provision for a basic model, under which manufacturers would be 
required to test every model they manufacture.
    AHRI and ACEEE agreed with DOE's proposed approach and definition 
of basic model. (AHRI, No. 1.3.032 at p. 2 and Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 169; ACEEE, No. 1.3.034 at p. 2) Craig 
also agreed with the proposed approach given that improvements could be 
applied to existing systems. (Craig, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
1.2.010 at p. 172) ICS, Manitowoc, and HeatCraft recommended that the 
basic model of refrigeration be allowed to vary minimally (a 5 percent 
tolerance) in energy consumption, while HeatCraft also stated that in 
Europe, the tolerance is typically 8 percent. (ICS, No. 1.3.027 at p. 
1; Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 159; and 
HeatCraft, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 162) On the 
other hand, Master-Bilt expressed concern that too many refrigeration 
system combinations may exist for the basic model concept to be applied 
effectively. (Master-Bilt, No. 1.3.009 at p. 1) HeatCraft stated that 
it was concerned about testing highly variable refrigeration systems 
and combinations, and whether they would be able to incorporate new 
technologies. (HeatCraft, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 
42) Nor-Lake was also concerned about the potential testing burden 
because it has distinct energy efficiency ratio values on over 250 
models. It recommended either defining basic model to account for how 
many basic models a manufacturer would have or to replace the basic 
model approach with a component-based one. (Nor-Lake, No. 1.3.005 at 
pp. 2 and 5 and No. 1.3.029 at p. 2) Manitowoc suggested considering a 
unit cooler its own basic model (not the combination of unit cooler and 
condensing unit), making it unnecessary to test all combinations but 
only individual parts of the system. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 158)
    TAFCO identified refrigeration system components that, if changed, 
would significantly affect energy consumption. These components include 
the compressor, condensing coil, fan motors, head pressure control, and 
evaporator coil. (TAFCO, No. 1.3.022 at p. 2) American Panel added that 
headmasters (which control pressure) must be included on outdoor 
condensing units if the unit will be exposed to low temperatures. 
(American Panel, No. 24 at p. 3) Some interested parties discussed 
whether DOE should specify certain characteristics of the basic model. 
Specifically, HeatCraft stated that the basic model should include some 
common parts such as a filter dryer to permit a valid comparison 
between manufacturers, but manufacturers should be allowed to add 
unique features. (HeatCraft, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at 
p. 162) ACEEE agreed that the basic model should include parts that 
have a reasonable probability of affecting energy consumption to 
encourage manufacturers to include all necessary components in their 
WICF equipment. (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 
168) AHRI disagreed, stating that DOE should not specify design 
requirements in defining basic model groups, but rather agreed with 
DOE's proposed definition. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
1.2.010 at p. 169) (Although ACEEE did not elaborate further on what it 
considers ``all necessary components,'' DOE is interpreting this phrase 
as referring to any components that would be needed to have the unit 
work in a manner as designed without the addition of aftermarket 
components that would impact the equipment's energy usage.)
    As with envelopes, DOE must ensure that all refrigeration systems 
are accurately rated and comply with the standard. To avoid differing 
interpretations of what a ``significant difference'' in energy 
consumption might be, DOE believes that it is appropriate to clarify 
certain aspects of that definition to eliminate differences in the 
measured energy consumption of models belonging to the same basic model 
group. Accordingly, DOE proposes a revised definition of basic model of 
refrigeration where units cannot differ in electrical, physical, or 
functional characteristics that affect energy consumption. DOE 
recognizes that the components identified by TAFCO affect the energy 
consumption of the refrigeration system. Nevertheless, DOE believes 
that listing only certain components where changes would constitute a 
new basic model could overlook changes to other components that affect 
energy consumption. In addition, the question of significance would 
remain under such an approach. DOE believes that the definition 
proposed here is sufficient to define basic model--a basic model would 
necessarily have to include all components that affect energy 
consumption.
    DOE also acknowledges the concerns of interested parties, 
specifically Master-Bilt, HeatCraft, and Nor-Lake, that a manufacturer 
could produce many condensing unit and unit cooler combinations--i.e., 
many basic models --and that testing could be burdensome. DOE notes 
that the proposed refrigeration system test procedure, AHRI 1250-2009, 
allows for testing the condensing unit and unit cooler separately and 
then, using the calculation methodology in AHRI 1250-2009, determining 
the performance of the combined system, similar to the approach 
suggested by Manitowoc. Under this approach, each combination would not 
have to be tested, which would decrease the number of physical 
equipment tests, even though each different combination would be 
considered a different basic model and would receive a different 
rating.
    At this time, DOE does not intend to incorporate a tolerance into 
the definition of basic model, as suggested by ICS, Manitowoc, and 
HeatCraft, in order to ensure that the rating applying to each basic 
model is as accurate as possible. DOE notes that one potential issue 
with introducing a tolerance approach may be that neither DOE nor the 
eventual purchaser of the equipment could expect that the rating of a 
particular model would be equal to that model's actual energy 
consumption. It is unclear to DOE how significant this issue may be if 
such an approach were adopted.
    DOE acknowledges, however, that units within a basic model are 
expected to differ slightly as a result of manufacturing and materials 
variations. As a result, DOE may consider accounting for these 
variations in sampling plans used for compliance testing and developed 
as part of any future certification and enforcement rulemaking. DOE's 
existing compliance and certification regulations, developed for 
certain other commercial equipment, provide that when a random sample 
of equipment is taken for determining compliance with the standard for 
commercial refrigeration equipment,

[[Page 55074]]

represented values of estimated energy consumption of a basic model 
shall be no less than the higher of the mean of the test sample or the 
upper 95 percent confidence limit of the true mean divided by 1.10. 75 
FR 652, 666-71 (Jan. 5, 2010), codified at 10 CFR 431.372. This rule 
also provides that, in enforcement proceedings, DOE's determination 
that a basic model complies with the standard is based on a confidence 
limit which accounts for statistical variation within a basic model. 75 
FR 674, codified at 10 CFR part 431, Appendix D to Subpart T.
    These sampling provisions are only intended to reduce the burden on 
manufacturers associated with certification and enforcement. 
Manufacturers would still be required to use the test procedure to rate 
their equipment and, once energy conservation standards take effect, to 
determine whether each basic model of the equipment they manufacture 
complies with the standard.
    As discussed above for envelopes, DOE could consider a compliance 
certification approach similar to that taken for distribution 
transformers (another case in which some equipment is highly 
customized) to reduce the burden while ensuring that the energy 
conservation standards are being met. 10 CFR 431.371(a)(6)(ii). DOE 
describes this approach in detail in section III.A.3.
    DOE requests comment on the definition of and approach to basic 
model of refrigeration systems.

B. Envelope

    The envelope consists of the insulated box in which items are 
stored and refrigerated. To meet one element of the statutory 
requirement that the DOE test procedure ``measure the energy use'' of 
walk-ins (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(9)(B)(i)), DOE had proposed to incorporate 
a metric for the energy use associated with the envelope of a walk-in 
cooler or walk-in freezer. Under the applicable EPCA definition of 
``energy use''--the amount of energy directly consumed by a piece of 
equipment at the point of use (42 U.S.C. 6311(4))--DOE has tentatively 
determined that the energy use of a walk-in envelope is the sum of (1) 
the electrical energy consumption of envelope components and (2) other 
energy consumption of the walk-in equipment resulting from the heat 
transfer performance of the envelope.
    The proposed envelope test procedure contains methods for 
evaluating the performance characteristics of insulation, testing 
thermal energy gains related to air infiltration and determining direct 
electricity use and heat gain due to internal electrical components. 
The proposed procedure uses data obtained from these methods to 
calculate a measure of energy use associated with the envelope by 
calculating the effect of the envelope's characteristics and components 
on the energy consumption of the walk-in as a whole. These 
characteristics and components would include the energy consumption of 
electrical components present in the envelope (such as lights) and 
variation in the energy consumption of the refrigeration system due to 
heat loads introduced as a function of envelope performance, such as 
conduction of heat through the walls of the envelope. The effect on the 
refrigeration system would be determined by calculating the energy 
consumption of a theoretical or ``nominal'' refrigeration system if it 
were paired with the tested envelope. The test procedure uses the same 
nominal refrigeration system efficiency for all tested envelopes to 
allow for direct comparison of the performance of walk-in envelopes 
across a range of sizes, product classes, and levels of feature 
implementation.
1. Heat Conduction Through Structural Members
    In the January NOPR, DOE proposed that the long-term thermal 
resistance (LTTR) value of the insulating foam after 5 years of 
equivalent aging be determined using ASTM C1303-08, ``Standard Test 
Method for Predicting Long-Term Thermal Resistance of Closed-Cell Foam 
Insulation.'' This value would be used as the R-value for all non-glass 
envelope sections constructed with foam insulation, for purposes of 
calculating the energy consumption of the walk-in. Other components of 
the panel, such as structural members, were not included in the 
conduction calculations of the test procedure.
    Craig, Owens Corning, and American Panel pointed out that 
conduction through structural members must be considered when 
determining the R-value of a composite walk-in insulation panel. 
(Craig, No. 1.3.036 at p. 3 and Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 
at pp. 20 and 61; Owens Corning, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 
at p. 56; and American Panel, No. 1.3.024 at p. 3) The Joint Comment 
recommended that the current R-value requirement for the foam be 
converted to an overall U-factor requirement for the assembled panel. 
(Joint Comment, No. 1.3.019 at p. 11) (U-factor is a measure of heat 
transmission, including conduction and radiation. A lower U-factor 
indicates a lower rate of heat transmission.) Metl-Span, BASF, Kysor, 
and ACC/CPI agreed with the approach of determining the performance of 
the panel as a whole and recommended that DOE use ASTM C1363-05, 
``Standard Test Method for Thermal Performance of Building Materials 
and Envelope Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus,'' for 
evaluating the fully assembled panel. (Metl-Span, No. 1.3.004 at p. 1; 
BASF, No. 1.3.003 at p. 2; Kysor, No. 1.3.035 at p. 2; ACC/CPI, No. 
1.3.006 at p. 2)
    In view of these comments, DOE proposes to account for conduction 
through structural members, as urged by Craig and American Panel, by 
measuring the overall U-factor of fully assembled panels as recommended 
by the Joint Comment. All panels (walls, ceiling, and floor) would be 
tested using ASTM C1363-05 for measuring the overall U-factor of fully 
assembled panels, as stated by Metl-Span, BASF, Kysor, and ACC/CPI. The 
resulting composite panel U-factor from ASTM C1363-05 would then be 
corrected using the LTTR results from ASTM C1303-10, if foam is used as 
the primary insulating material. See section 3.1.6 of Appendix A for 
details. DOE believes using the results from ASTM C1363-05 modified by 
ASTM C1303-10 best captures the effect of structural members and long-
term R-value of foam products.
    DOE recognizes the burden involved when testing an entire 
representative walk-in using ASTM C1363-05; i.e., requiring a 
representative walk-in composed of 18 panels to be tested 18 times. DOE 
also notes that testing a single representative panel would be less 
burdensome but very inaccurate. Panels are often manufactured in 
dimensions close to 8 feet long by 4 feet wide, but panel geometry 
frequently deviates from this size as walk-ins are made larger. In 
addition, structural members are normally placed in the perimeter of 
panels (if used at all). Therefore, the heat transfer of a given panel 
is most closely related to the ratio of perimeter structural materials 
to non-perimeter core panel materials.
    If DOE were to require an ASTM C1363-05 test using only one panel 
size, the test would be representative of only this single perimeter-
to-core ratio. If a walk-in were constructed of panels that deviated 
from this representative size in either extreme (i.e., much smaller or 
larger), the resulting energy calculations could be inaccurate. To 
balance the competing interests of minimizing burden while ensuring 
measurement accuracy, DOE is proposing to specify two test regions of a 
pair of representative panels. At one test region, the tester would 
measure the U-

[[Page 55075]]

factor of the perimeter and panel-to-panel interface area (``Panel 
Edge''), while at the other region the tester would measure the U-
factor of the core area of the panel (``Panel Core''). The details of 
this procedure are described in section 4.1.1 of Appendix A.
    DOE seeks comment on the use of ASTM C1363-05 for this portion of 
the test procedure.
2. Use of ASTM C1303 or EN 13165:2009-02
    In the January NOPR, DOE proposed using ASTM C1303-08, ``Standard 
Test Method of Predicting Long Term Thermal Resistance of Closed-Cell 
Foam Insulation,'' to determine the long-term R-value of foam 
insulations used in walk-ins. 75 FR 194. (That test method has since 
been updated to ASTM C1303-10, which, as discussed in section III.B.4, 
DOE is now proposing to adopt as part of this test procedure. All 
references to ASTM C1303 in today's notice refer to the ASTM C1303-10 
version of the protocol.) As discussed later in section III.B.3, DOE 
also proposes, in the alternative, the use of EN 13165:2009-02 (a 
European-developed material standard), and seeks comment on the use of 
these procedures.
    DOE recognizes that R-value decline occurs over time in unfaced and 
permeably faced foams. In the published January NOPR, DOE cited a body 
of research indicating that R-value decline also occurs in foams with 
impermeable facers because the metal skins delay, but do not prevent, 
R-value decline because the panel edges are unprotected. DOE recognized 
that using ASTM C1303-10 would require testing foams without their 
metal facers because the test procedure was designed for unfaced or 
permeably faced foams. In the published NOPR and at the NOPR public 
meeting, DOE requested that interested parties submit data related to 
using ASTM C1303-10 for walk-ins.
    DOE received many comments related to ASTM C1303-10. Supporting 
documents submitted during the comment period are listed in the table 
below and identified with reference numbers. DOE conducted further 
research and identified additional documents that provide information 
on the use of ASTM C1303-10. These are also listed in the table below 
with reference numbers preceded by ``DOE.''

                          Table III.1--Research Cited by Interested Parties and by DOE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Commenter                                      Paper Citation               Ref. No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACC/CPI....................................................  SPI Polyurethane Division k Factor                1
                                                              Task Force, ``Rigid Polyurethane
                                                              and Polyisocyanurate Foams: An
                                                              Assessment of Their Insulating
                                                              Properties,'' Proceedings of the
                                                              SPI 31st Annual Technical/
                                                              Marketing Conference, Oct. 18-21,
                                                              1988 Philadelphia, PA. pp. 323-327.
ACC/CPI, Carpenter, Honeywell..............................  Wilkes, K. E., Yarbrough, D.W.,                   2
                                                              Nelson, G. E., Booth, J. R.,
                                                              ``Aging of Polyurethane Foam
                                                              Insulation in Simulated
                                                              Refrigerator Panels--Four-Year
                                                              Results with Third-Generation
                                                              Blowing Agents'', The Earth
                                                              Technologies Forum, Washington,
                                                              DC, April 22-24, 2003.
ACC/CPI, Honeywell.........................................  Norton, F.J., ``Thermal                           3
                                                              Conductivity and Life of Polymer
                                                              Foams'', Journal of Cellular
                                                              Plastics, 1967, pp. 23-37.
ACC/CPI, Honeywell.........................................  Shankland, I. R. ``Blowing Agent                  4
                                                              Emissions from Insulation Foam'',
                                                              Polyurethanes World Congress 1991
                                                              pp. 91-98.
Dow........................................................  Oertel, Dr. Gunter, Polyurethane                  5
                                                              Handbook, p. 256.
Dow........................................................  Ottens et al., ``Industrial                       6
                                                              Experiences with CO2 Blown.
                                                             Polyurethane Foams in the
                                                              Manufacture of Metal Faced
                                                              Sandwich Panels,'' Polyurethane
                                                              World.
                                                             Congress '97'......................
Dow........................................................  Bertucelli et al., ``Phase-Out of                 7
                                                              Ozone Depleting Substances in the
                                                              Manufacture of Metal Faced
                                                              Sandwich Panels with Polyurethane
                                                              Foam Core,'' Utech Asia '99'.
Owens Corning..............................................  The Role of Barriers in Reducing                  8
                                                              the Aging of Foam Panels by Leon
                                                              R. Glicksman.
Dow........................................................  European standard EN 13165.........               9
DOE........................................................  Wilkes, K. E., Yarbrough, D. W.,              DOE 1
                                                              Nelson, G. E., Booth, J. R.,
                                                              ``Aging of Polyurethane Foam
                                                              Insulation in Simulated
                                                              Refrigerator Panels--Four-Year
                                                              Results with Third-Generation
                                                              Blowing Agents,'' The Earth
                                                              Technologies Forum Conference
                                                              Proceedings, 2003.
DOE........................................................  Paquet, A., Vo C., ``An Evaluation            DOE 2
                                                              of the Thermal Conductivity of
                                                              Extruded Polystyrene Foam Blown
                                                              with HFC-134a and HCFC-142b,''
                                                              Journal of Cellular Plastics,
                                                              Volume 40, May 2004.
DOE........................................................  Federal Trade Commission,                     DOE 3
                                                              ``Labeling and Advertising of Home
                                                              Insulation: Trade Regulation Rule;
                                                              Final Rule,16 CFR Part 460,''
                                                              Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 103/
                                                              Tuesday, May 31, 2005.
DOE........................................................  Roe, Richard, ``Long-Term Thermal             DOE 4
                                                              Resistance (LTTR): 5 Years Later''
                                                              RCI-057-Interface, March 2007.
DOE........................................................  Stovall, Therese, ``Measuring the             DOE 5
                                                              Impact of Experimental Parameters
                                                              upon the Estimated Thermal
                                                              Conductivity of Closed-Cell Foam
                                                              Insulation Subjected to an
                                                              Accelerated Aging Protocol: Two-
                                                              Year Results, Journal of ASTM
                                                              International, Vol. 6, No. 5 Paper
                                                              ID JAI102025, April 2009.
DOE........................................................  Kalinger, P., and Drouin, M. (Johns           DOE 6
                                                              Manville), ``Closed Cell Foam
                                                              Insulation: Resolving the issue of
                                                              thermal performance,'' October/
                                                              November 2001.
DOE........................................................  Mukhopadhyaya, P., Bomberg, M. T.,            DOE 7
                                                              Kumaran, M. K., Drouin, M.,
                                                              Lackey, J., van Reenen, D., and
                                                              Normandin, N., ``Long-Term Thermal
                                                              Resistance of Polyisocyanurate
                                                              Foam Insulation with Impermeable
                                                              Facers ,'' Insulation Materials:
                                                              Testing and Applications: 4th
                                                              Volume, ASTM STP 1426, A. O.
                                                              Desjarlais, Ed., American Society
                                                              for Testing and Materials, West
                                                              Conshohocken, PA, 2002.

[[Page 55076]]

 
DOE........................................................  Mukhopadhyaya, P., Bomberg, M. T.,            DOE 8
                                                              Kumaran, M. K., Drouin, M.,
                                                              Lackey, J., van Reenen, D., and
                                                              Normandin, N., ``Long-term Thermal
                                                              Resistance of Polyisocyanurate
                                                              Foam Insulation with Gas
                                                              Barrier,'' IX International
                                                              Conference on Performance of
                                                              Exterior Envelopes of Whole
                                                              Buildings, Clearwater Beach,
                                                              Florida, Dec. 5-10, 2004, pp. 1-10.
DOE........................................................  Mukhopadhyaya, P.; Kumaran, M.K.,             DOE 9
                                                              ``Long-Term Thermal Resistance of
                                                              Closed-Cell Foam Insulation:
                                                              Research Update From Canada,'' 3rd
                                                              Global Insulation Conference and
                                                              Exhibition, Oct. 16-17, 2008,
                                                              Barcelona, Spain, pp. 1-12, NRCC-
                                                              50839.
DOE........................................................  Bomberg, M., Branreth, D.,                   DOE 10
                                                              ``Evaluation of Long-Term Thermal
                                                              Resistance of Gas-Filled Foams:
                                                              State of the Art,'' Insulation
                                                              Materials, Testing and
                                                              Applications, ASTM STP 1030, ASTM,
                                                              Philadelphia, 1990, p. 156-173.
DOE........................................................  H. Macchi-Tejeda, H. Opatova, D.             DOE 11
                                                              Leducq, Contribution to the gas
                                                              chromatographic analysis for both
                                                              refrigerants composition and cell
                                                              gas in insulating foams--Part I:
                                                              Method, International Journal of
                                                              Refrigeration, Volume 30, Issue 2,
                                                              March 2007, Pages 329-337.
DOE........................................................  H. Macchi-Tejeda, H. Opatova, J.             DOE 12
                                                              Guilpart, Contribution to the gas
                                                              chromatographic analysis for both
                                                              refrigerants composition and cell
                                                              gas in insulating foams--Part II:
                                                              Aging of insulating foams,
                                                              International Journal of
                                                              Refrigeration, Volume 30, Issue 2,
                                                              March 2007, Pages 338-344.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ACC/CPI, in reference to paper [1], stated that the Task Force 
found that polyurethane foam encased in and adhered to impermeable 
facers does not age significantly. (ACC/CPI, No. 1.3.006 at p. 3) In 
reference to [2], Honeywell stated that Wilkes et al. concluded that 
``the increment of thermal conductivity of foams with facers is less 
than those of enclosed foams'', and regarding that, ASTM C1303-08 is 
likely to underestimate the aged thermal insulation value of panel 
foams with facers. (Honeywell, No. 1.3.020 at p. 3) Honeywell suggested 
that ``DOE consider adapting the aging prediction methodology 
presented'' in either [3] or [4]. (Honeywell, No. 1.3.020 at p. 2) Dow 
stated that [5], [6], and [7] indicated that change in thermal 
conductivity due to aging is limited in blown polyurethane foams. (Dow, 
No. 1.3.026 at p. 2) In reference to [8], Owens Corning stated that the 
study showed that blowing agent can diffuse under metal skins, that it 
migrates to the surface and that it can permeate out even underneath an 
air-impermeable surface. (Owens Corning, No. 1.2.010 at p. 256) Dow 
noted that [9] ``provides methods for evaluating the aged lambda 
([lambda]) or R-values for both exposed foam and faced foam using an 
accelerated procedure. The standard uses safety factors depending on 
thickness and blowing agent used in the foam and also uses incremental 
factors for exposed foams versus foams with facings.'' However, Dow 
also noted that ``even though the standard and the procedure apply to 
foams with and without impermeable facings,'' the aging factor is four 
times higher for exposed foam than it is for impermeably faced foam. 
(Dow, No. 1.3.026 at p. 1)
    With regard to papers cited by interested parties, DOE makes the 
following observations (the numbering refers to the paper reference 
number in Table III.1).
    1. On p. 325 of paper [1], the SPI Polyurethane Division k Factor 
Task Force states ``* * * thermal performance changes little with time 
if the foam is protected against gas diffusion by a non-permeable facer 
that adheres well to the foam.'' However, immediately following this 
statement SPI says, ``The literature emphasizes that not only the foam 
but the entire package or composite must resist gas diffusion.'' This 
statement supports DOE's position that it is critical to ensure that 
all of the foam is encapsulated by an impermeable barrier to prevent 
diffusion of gases, not just the face of the material. However, the 
study also provides a number of studies that suggest that aging is 
delayed on the order of three to nine years rather than two to three 
years as DOE previously suggested.
    2. In paper [2], Wilkes et al. measured the LTTR of 2-inch-thick 
foam samples faced with either Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) or 
High Impact Polystyrene (HIPS) plastic. The edges of the samples were 
covered with aluminum foil tape to reduce lateral diffusion through the 
panel edges. The samples were aged for 4 years in 90 [deg]F, 40 [deg]F, 
and -10 [deg]F environments. In conclusion, Wilkes et al. found that 
for ``both ABS and HIPS plastics, the conductivity increases after four 
years were less than those predicted for unenclosed full-thickness 
core-foam, showing that the plastic liners reduce the rate of aging. 
The panels with HIPS sheets showed average increases of [thermal 
conductivity] of 19 percent to 28 percent with aging at 90 [deg]F, 12 
percent to 23 percent at 40 [deg]F, and 3 percent to 8 percent at -10 
[deg]F. The panels with ABS sheets showed smaller increases of 14 
percent to 21 percent at 90 [deg]F, 10 percent to 17 percent at 40 
[deg]F, and 2 percent to 5 percent at -10 [deg]F.'' (p. 10). The 
results demonstrate that facers reduce the rate of aging. However, the 
plastic facers used, with the exception of the foil around the edges, 
are gas permeable. In addition, Wilkes et al. specifically attempted to 
eliminate lateral diffusion with the foil tape on the edges of the 
samples, which is not representative of actual walk-in panels.
    3. Honeywell suggested that DOE adopt aging methodology presented 
by the Norton article [3], which was one of the key citations for the 
development of ASTM C1303-10. Norton completed much of the original 
research in the field of foam insulation aging. Therefore, DOE is 
proposing to adopt a test procedure, ASTM C1303-10, which already 
incorporates Honeywell's suggested methodology.
    4. The Shankland paper [4] proposes an analytical approach to 
calculating lateral gas diffusion through foam panels with open edges. 
A similar methodology is proposed in [DOE 8] and [DOE 9], but 
researchers have had difficulty modeling and predicting blowing agent 
diffusion coefficients. [DOE 8] has found that direct analytical 
approach is not possible, but numerical computer simulation to predict 
lateral gas diffusion rates may be viable in a few years.
    5. The Oertel paper [5] describes research conducted to predict the 
amount of blowing agent that permeates through building walls after 
being

[[Page 55077]]

released from the underlying foam insulation. The researcher notes, 
``if the rigid foam is faced with a diffusion barrier, the 
equilibration process cannot occur. The original composition of the 
cell gas remains unchanged and the low initial thermal conductivity is 
maintained. This was proven when impermeable facing materials were 
used. Only metallic surfaces are impermeable.'' This section does not 
cite research confirming this claim, but as previously mentioned, DOE 
agrees that metal facers, particularly ones used in WICF panels, are 
gas impermeable. However, because the metal skins used in WICF panels 
do not fully encapsulate the foam in a contiguous manner (i.e., metal 
skin on the panel face and all edges), gas diffusion may still occur 
laterally through the panel edges.
    6. DOE notes that the Ottens study [6] is one of two of which DOE 
is aware that has been completed on polyurethane foam-in-place panels, 
with open edges intended to simulate metal skinned walk-in panels. This 
paper summarizes studies completed by IMA (Materialforschungs- und 
Anwendungstechnik Dresden GmbH, translation: Materials and Applications 
Research) as requested by Arbeitsgemeinschaft Industrieller Forschung 
(translation: Association of Industrial Research) to assess the long-
term insulating behavior of sandwich elements. In particular, this 
paper cites data on carbon dioxide (CO2) blown foams as an 
alternative to other blowing agents. On page 30 of the study, Figures 4 
and 5 show aging results for both core and edge regions of test panels. 
The areas greater than approximately 12 inches from the edge exhibit 2 
to 3 percent aging after 6 months at a temperature of approximately 160 
[deg]F. Regions within 12 inches of the edge show 5 to 17 percent 
aging, with the highest rate of aging occurring at the panel corners. 
Dow noted in its reference to this paper that CO2 ``has 
higher diffusion speeds, [therefore] the aged thermal conductivity 
would be even better for the HFC blown foams used in many walk-in 
applications.'' DOE agrees with Dow that CO2 exhibits a 
faster rate of diffusion than hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) blowing agents 
typically used in foams, which indicates that the study is likely more 
representative of a worst case aging scenario. This study clearly 
demonstrates that lateral gas diffusion occurs in metal faced panels 
with open edges. DOE also notes that the majority of aging has occurred 
at the panel perimeter, which is an expected result because the rate of 
diffusion should decay exponentially with increased distance (or 
thickness of foam) from the exposed edge as described in ASTM C1303-10. 
The authors did not note the aging period that their test, which was 
conducted over 6 months at an elevated temperature, was intended to 
simulate, but because elevated temperature dramatically increases gas 
diffusion rates, the tests are likely representative of panels aged for 
at least 5 years.
    7. The Bertucelli paper [7], other than [5], is the only one that 
DOE has reviewed that directly tests aging of actual walk-in panels. 
Bertucelli et al. state that, ``in practice, for metal faced sandwich 
panels the diffusion phenomena can only take place through the open 
sides of the panels. The initial thermal conductivity value remains for 
a long time practically unchanged for the largest part of the panel due 
to the long path for diffusion.'' (p. 2) Again, this research supports 
DOE's claim that significant lateral diffusion occurs through open 
edges of panels. This statement appears to be based on data shown on 
page 17 that are very similar to data shown in [6] for CO2 
blown foams. However, this test was on a 4 foot by 8 foot panel aged at 
room temperature for a year. Close to the geometric center of the 
panel, the thermal performance has aged by 2 to 5 percent from its 
initial value. Measurements approximately 20 inches from the edges 
range from 2 to 6 percent. These data are similar to data submitted by 
Carpenter (see Table III.2) which were also from a panel aged at room 
temperature but with an HFC blowing agent. The Bertucelli paper also 
notes that EN 13165, a European material standard that was developed in 
Germany but certified by the European Committee for Standardization 
(CEN), provides certified aging values for various blowing agents used 
in metal faced sandwiched foam-in-place panels. The researchers also 
note that the certified aging value for water-blown foams, HCFC-141b 
and pentane is 10 percent.
    8. The Glicksman paper [8] found that the effectiveness of 
impermeable facers is highly dependent on adhesion of the foam to the 
facer. Slight separation allows gas diffusion to occur perpendicularly 
to the barrier and laterally between the barrier and the foam, which 
permits more rapid aging than if the diffusion is forced through the 
foam material only in the lateral direction. This research supports 
DOE's assertion that delamination is a major contributing factor to 
aging of panels.
    9. EN 13165 is a material standard for ``factory made rigid 
polyurethane foam (PUR) products.'' Dow noted that this standard has 
provisions for accelerated aging of panels. This is one of the material 
standards that uses the aging factor described in [7]. DOE was 
previously unaware that the CEN had established aging factors for 
insulated panels and believes that this standard may serve as an 
alternative to ASTM C1303-10 (see section III.B.3 for more details).
    In addition to comments on specific papers submitted by 
stakeholders, DOE received many general comments on the use of ASTM 
C1303. DOE addresses these additional comments below.
    BASF stated that there was insufficient evidence to support DOE's 
assertion that the diffusion as a result of delamination, holes drilled 
for shelves, and gaps at windows and doors causes a dramatic decrease 
in insulation performance of the panel, and that DOE should publish and 
make available any supporting data. (BASF, No. 1.3.003 at p. 3-4) 
Honeywell stated that ASTM C1303 was inappropriate because the data 
used to select it were based on foil-faced board stock rather than 
metal-faced panels. (Honeywell, No. 1.3.002 at p. 1) BASF proposes to 
delay a decision on modifying ASTM C1303 to apply to impermeably 
skinned panels due to a lack of data, and instead proposes that DOE 
first test and compare (1) panels from the field that are at a known 
age that is greater than 5 years, (2) newly manufactured panels 
measuring the R-value at different points in the panels, and (3) newly 
manufactured panels that are sliced and aged according to the methods 
in ASTM C1303-10. (BASF, No. 1.3.003 at p. 4)
    Carpenter submitted data, shown in Table III.2, of panels that had 
been in the field for one year. These data suggest that R-value 
decreases approximately 3.1 to 4.3 percent within 1 year. (Carpenter, 
No. 1.3.007a at p. 3) Dow stated that ASTM C1303-10 states that it is 
not to be used with impermeably faced foams, and that industry 
literature states that metallic, impermeable surfaces will prevent 
blowing agent diffusion. (Dow, No. 1.3.026 at p. 1) Owens Corning 
submits that research has shown that an effective barrier can 
substantially reduce the rate of foam aging. In its view, to be 
effective, the barrier must have a low permeability and the foam/
barrier interface must not allow lateral gas flow. However, all 
cellular foams have some amount of lateral gas flow. (Owens Corning, 
No. 1.3.030 at p. 1) In addition, Owens Corning referenced a 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology study on insulation with metal 
skins using dye to observe the diffusion of blowing agent. The study 
showed that blowing agent

[[Page 55078]]

can diffuse under metal skins, that it migrates to the surface, and 
that it can permeate out even underneath an air-impermeable surface. 
(Owens Corning, No. 1.2.010 at p. 256)

                                 Table III.2--Tested Data Submitted by Carpenter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              R-value  ft\2\ hr[deg] F/Btu in
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       20[deg] F                           55[deg] F
                Sample ID                -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               11/2008                             11/2008
                                              (initial)      01/2010 (aged)       (initial)      01/2010  (aged)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panel middle............................              7.89              7.63              7.00              6.78
Panel edge..............................              7.89              7.54              7.00              6.70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to BASF's comment that DOE should publish and make 
available any supporting data for the use of ASTM C1303-10, DOE lists 
all papers in Table III.1. Most of these papers were already described 
in detail in January NOPR, but DOE welcomes further comment on these 
studies.
    In response to Honeywell's comment regarding foil facers, DOE 
recognizes that foil faced foams may not have identical characteristics 
to metal skins, but believes that foils would serve as a reasonable 
proxy for general aging behavior.
    With regard to BASF's comment that DOE should collect field data on 
panels older than 5 years of age, DOE believes that the data submitted 
by Carpenter support DOE's assertion that significant aging occurs over 
the 15 to 20 year life of a panel and that the diffusion is occurring 
laterally because aging of 3-4 percent occurred within about 1 year, 
with the edge samples aging more than the core. DOE welcomes additional 
data on this issue from panel manufacturers and other interested 
parties.
    As to Dow's comments regarding the scope of ASTM C1303-10, although 
DOE agrees with Dow that ASTM C1303-10 states that the test does not 
apply to impermeably faced foams, DOE has not proposed the use of ASTM 
C1303-10 on panels themselves. Instead, DOE has proposed that the 
procedure be followed when testing the underlying unfaced foam as a 
proxy for the actual aging provisions outlined in the NOPR that 
describe how the unfaced foam samples are prepared for testing by ASTM 
C1303-10. See section 4.1.2 of Appendix A for details.
    With regard to Owens Corning's comments that an effective barrier 
can substantially reduce the rate of foam aging, DOE agrees that 
impermeable facers affect the diffusion pathway of gases through foam. 
However, DOE believes that impermeable facers delay aging, rather than 
eliminate it as Dow and ACC/CPI suggest. In addition, the International 
Institute of Refrigeration (IIR), which serves as an international body 
with 61 member countries to ``promote knowledge of refrigeration 
technology and all its applications in order to address today's major 
issues, including food safety and protection of the environment,'' 
states that the thermal properties of insulation can change over time: 
``It is well known that thermal conductivity can increase in plastic 
foams in which gaseous blowing agent has been used * * * with such 
materials, there will inevitably be a deterioration of insulation 
properties over time due to the diffusion of the blowing agent.'' 
(Insulation and Airtightness of Cold Rooms, 2002 Edition, IIR, p.154) 
Because walk-in panel perimeters are not protected by gas impermeable 
materials such as the metal skins, gas diffusion can still occur 
laterally through the panel. DOE notes that Owens Corning's second 
comment regarding the Massachusetts Institute of Technology study on 
diffusion of blowing agents points to data that suggest the lateral 
flow of gas occurs at the foam surface to metal skin interface due to 
poor adhesion of the foam to metal.
    In addition to the data presented above, DOE presents aged R-values 
of a number of foam types in Table III.3. These results are based on 
CAN/ULC S-770, the Canadian thin slicing method that is based on 
various versions of ASTM C1303. Each data point is an average of dozens 
of tests at the thicknesses shown.

Table III.3--Foam Thin-Slicing Test Results, Source: Canadian Laboratory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   5-Year Long Term Thermal Resistance, CAN/ULC S-770, @
                                 75[deg] F mean temperature
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                    Permeably Faced       Extruded       Spray-in-Place
     Product        Polyisocyanurate     Polystyrene      Polyurethane
                     Board Thermal      Board Thermal     Foam Thermal
                      Resistivity        Resistivity       Resistivity
                   [deg]F-ft [sup2]-  [deg]F-ft [sup2]- [deg]F-ft [sup2]-
                       h/Btu-in.          h/Btu-in.         h/Btu-in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Thickness            Thermal            Thermal           Thermal
                       Resistivity        Resistivity       Resistivity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           (mm)    ([deg]F.ft\2\.h/   ([deg]F.ft\2\.h/  ([deg]F.ft\2\.h/
                          Btu.in )           Btu.in )          Btu.in )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            100              6.178              5.607             6.197
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             75              6.127              5.490             5.958
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             50              6.028              5.339             5.703
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             25              5.880              5.019   ................
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 55079]]

    These data address concerns raised by various interested parties 
that the thin slicing method would unfairly predict that polyurethane 
would perform at a lower level than extruded polystyrene and, in some 
cases, would perform at a level as low as expanded polystyrene. 
Instead, these data appear to predict that polyurethane products would 
continue to outperform extruded polystyrene on a per inch basis. It is 
also important to note that if DOE were not to propose the use ASTM 
C1303-10, DOE would still be indirectly accounting for aging in one of 
two classes of foams: Board stock foams such as extruded polystyrene. 
Because board-stock insulation is manufactured at one location, stored 
for a period of time, and then shipped to WICF panel manufacturers, the 
foam is exposed to ambient temperatures and unprotected by metal skins 
for a significant period of time prior to its installation in a WICF 
envelope. Therefore, before board stock based foams are even laminated 
into WICF panels, significant aging has already occurred. DOE believes 
that all of the above factors tend to support the use of a test 
procedure that, as accurately as possible, will uniformly represent 
aging of all foam classes.
    In light of the research and data submitted by interested parties, 
and the German data regarding the use of aging factors specifically for 
foam-in-place metal faced panels, DOE continues to maintain that (1) 
foam aging occurs in WICF panels, (2) the aging is possible, even with 
metal facers, due to the gas permeable edges of panels, and (3) R-value 
degradation is significant enough, over the life of a walk-in cooler or 
freezer, to warrant a long-term foam aging test. DOE continues to urge 
manufacturers and interested parties to submit R-value data for panels 
aged 5 or more years to support their particular claims. While DOE 
believes there are enough indirect and direct data to incorporate aging 
into the WICF test procedure, DOE is interested in ensuring, to the 
extent possible, that it incorporates manufacturer-submitted data as 
part of its analysis.
    DOE requests comments from interested parties regarding the 
proposal to use ASTM C1303-10 to measure the long-term R-value decline 
in WICF foam insulation. DOE requests that interested parties consider 
in their comments the research and papers provided by DOE and other 
commenters.
3. EN 13165:2009-02 as a Proposed Alternative to ASTM C1303-10
    As noted in the previous section, Germany has developed a test 
procedure (that was certified as a European standard by the CEN) and 
calculation methodology to determine the aged R-value of metal skin 
panels. EN 13165:2009-02, Thermal insulation products for buildings--
Factory made rigid polyurethane foam (PUR) products--Specification 
describes two alternatives in Annex C, the fixed increment procedure 
and the accelerated aging procedure for determining aged R-value. An 
overview of the two alternatives is shown in Figure 1 below:
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 55080]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.030

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    The alternative procedures--the fixed increment procedure and the 
accelerated aging procedure--are selected based on certain criteria and 
availability of historical data as defined in EN 13165:2009-02. In 
summary, the fixed increment procedure determines if a facing or panel 
construction is ``gas diffusion tight'' by subjecting it to an elevated 
temperature for 60 days and determining whether there is any decrease 
in the R-value. If the panel is found to be gas tight and the test 
material is also made with blowing agents of known characteristics, 
then the LTTR of the foam is determined using assumed increments of R-
value loss. The assumed aging values have been certified by Germany 
through testing. Otherwise, the accelerated aging procedure must be 
used to determine the LTTR. The accelerated aging procedure subjects 
the panel to an elevated temperature for 180 days and determines the 
decrease in the R-value.
    Like EN 13165:2009-02, which is a standard for polyurethane 
products, a similar standard exists for extruded polystyrene: EN 
13164:2009-02 Thermal insulation products for

[[Page 55081]]

buildings--Factory made products of extruded polystyrene foam (XPS)--
Specification. Annex C of EN 13164:2009-02 also provides a methodology 
for determining the LTTR of impermeably faced or ``gas tight'' 
products. DOE proposes, as an alternative to ASTM C1303-10, the use of 
the test procedures of these respective standards for determining the 
LTTR of walk-in polyurethane and extruded polystyrene products. DOE 
proposes to directly rely on the methods described in EN 13164:2009-02 
and EN 13165:2009-02 with two exceptions: (1) The initial R-value must 
be measured at the EPCA defined mean test temperatures (instead of the 
specified ~75 [deg]F) of 55 [deg]F for coolers and 20 [deg]F for 
freezers and (2) the final R-value must also be measured using the EPCA 
defined mean test temperatures. Using the initial and final R-values, a 
calculated foam ``derating'' factor would be used in place of the 
similar calculation using results from ASTM C1303-10. DOE seeks comment 
on the use of EN 13164:2009-02 and EN 13165:2009-02 for determining the 
LTTR of walk-in panels made from extruded polystyrene or polyurethane, 
respectively.
    DOE also seeks comment on the proposed use of CEN's certified aged 
values as an alternative to requiring testing using ASTM C1303-10.
4. Version of ASTM C1303
    As indicated earlier, DOE initially proposed that the test 
procedure incorporate ASTM C1303-08. 75 FR 194. Nor-Lake pointed out 
that a more recent version of this testing method was published in 
2009, ASTM C1303-09a. (Nor-Lake, No. 1.3.005 at p. 3) DOE then 
determined that an even more recent version has recently been 
published, ASTM C1303-10. To address these comments, DOE compared ASTM 
C1303-08, ASTM C1303-09a and ASTM C1303-10 and found no substantive 
differences between them that would appreciably affect the accuracy or 
manner in which to measure a given foam's R-value. In light of this 
finding, DOE is revising its proposal to adopt the most recent version, 
ASTM C1303-10.
    DOE invites comment on this proposed approach.
5. Improvements to ASTM C1303 Methodology
    In the January NOPR, DOE proposed several exceptions to ASTM C1303-
08 related to sample preparation of foam-in-place products. 75 FR 194. 
Specifically, DOE proposed that, rather than requiring that foam be 
sprayed onto a single sheet of wood in accordance with section A2.3 of 
ASTM C1303-08, the sample ``shall be foamed into a fully closed box of 
internal dimension 60 cm x 60 cm by desired product thickness (2 ft x 2 
ft x desired thickness). The box shall be made of \3/4\ inch plywood 
and internal surfaces are wrapped in 4 to 6 mil polyethylene film to 
prevent the foam from adhering to the box material.'' DOE had intended 
for this proposed approach to minimize manufacturer burden while 
ensuring uniform sample preparation.
    In reference to this proposal, Honeywell stated that the sample 
preparation method is too prescriptive for foam-in-place products and 
argued that DOE should not dictate materials for building the sample 
mold or dimensions of the mold. Rather, it recommended that foam-in-
place samples be prepared in a fashion that represents the average foam 
properties (or bulk foam properties) of the commercial panel. 
(Honeywell, No. 1.3.020 at p. 3) ACC/CPI stated that the sample 
preparation methods of polyurethane foam are too prescriptive when 
describing mold materials that must be used, and instead recommended 
adopting a modified version of section 3.1 of ASTM C1303-10 to account 
for a product manufacturer's typical method of panel cavity 
preparation, foam injection and cure time. (ACC/CPI, No. 1.3.006 at p. 
5)
    DOE agrees that spatial variation during foam injection is a 
relevant concern. To represent foam properties more closely for various 
manufacturers, DOE proposes the following changes:
1. Mold/Sample Panel Geometry
    a. A panel must be prepared following the manufacturer's injection, 
curing and assembly methods. The width and length of the panel must be 
48 inches 1 inch and 96 inches 1 inch, 
respectively.
    b. As proposed in the January NOPR, the panel thickness shall be 
equal to the desired test thickness. 75 FR 194.
2. Materials
    The panel should be identical to panels sold by the manufacturer, 
with one key exception: The inner surfaces must be lined with a 
material, such as 4 to 6 mil polyethylene film, to prevent the foam 
from adhering to the panel internal surfaces. (This ensures that when 
the panel metal skin is removed for testing, the underlying foam is not 
damaged.)
3. Sample Preparation
    a. After the foam has cured and the panel is ready to be tested, 
the facing and framing materials must be carefully removed to ensure 
that the underlying foam is not damaged or altered.
    b. A 12-inch x 12-inch square (x desired thickness) cut from the 
exact geometric center of the panel must be used as the sample for 
completing ASTM C1303-08.
    These additions will allow for more representative samples while 
maintaining consistency across manufacturers. DOE also believes, based 
on its analysis of the likely impacts from the adoption of this 
procedure, that these proposed modifications will not lead to any 
appreciable deviations from the measured energy use of the envelope. 
DOE invites comments from interested parties on the reasonableness of 
this prediction.
    Certain interested parties raised specific concerns as to the 
applicability of ASTM C1303 to ``bun stock'' foam. ``Bun stock'' foam 
is foam formed in large cylindrical tubes or ``buns.'' Dyplast, ACC/
CPI, Honeywell, and ITW all stated that DOE should not consider ASTM 
C1303 because ASTM C1303 specifically states that the test method does 
not apply to rigid closed-cell bun stock foams. (Dyplast, No. 1.3.008 
at p. 1; ACC/CPI, No. 1.3.006 at p. 3; Honeywell, No. 1.3.020 at p. 2; 
and ITW, No. 1.3.013 at p. 1) Dyplast mentioned that this was due to 
the non-homogenous nature of the bun stock foams. (Dyplast, No. 1.3.008 
at p. 1) ITW further stated that ASTM C1303 would not be applicable 
because it is not possible to determine a consistent initial time for 
the test and because sheets may be cut from bun stock in different 
orientations, resulting in different form morphology. (ITW, No. 1.3.013 
at p. 1)
    DOE recognizes that bun stock foam is different from other types of 
foam used in WICF equipment. The foam resembles the wood grain found in 
trees and has cells that vary in size and density by location. When the 
buns are cut into board stock of various dimensions, the foam 
morphology varies from one board to another as the boards may be cut 
from the bun stock in different orientations.
    DOE specified in the January NOPR that manufacturers must use the 
prescriptive method defined in ASTM C1303 (Part A: The Prescriptive 
Method), but as noted by interested parties, the prescriptive method is 
not applicable to bun stock foam. 75 FR 193. However, in addition to 
Part A of ASTM C1303, Part B: Research Method allows for testing of 
bun-stock or other non-

[[Page 55082]]

homogenous foams. DOE believes that the research method in Part B is 
appropriate and applicable for testing of bun-stock foams. Therefore, 
to address the comments from Dyplast, ACC/CPI, Honeywell, and ITW, DOE 
proposes that the research method of ASTM C1303-10, Part B be used for 
testing the LTTR for bun stock foam only.
6. Heat Transfer Through Concrete
    In the January NOPR, DOE proposed the use of the following equation 
to calculate the heat transfer through the floor of both insulated and 
uninsulated WICF. 75 FR 213. That equation, along with its defined 
variables, is as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.034

Where:

Rnon-glass,wall, i = R-value of foam used in wall panels, of type i, 
h-ft\2\ - [deg]F/Btu,
    Rnon-glass,floor, j = R-value of foam used in floor panels, of 
type j, h-ft\2\ - [deg]F/Btu,
    Rnon-glass,ceil, k = R-value of foam used in ceiling panels, of 
type k, h-ft\2\ - [deg]F/Btu,
    Rnon-glass,door, l = R-value of foam used in non-glass doors, of 
type l, h-ft\2\ - [deg]F/Btu,
    Awalls,I = area of wall, of thickness and underlying materials 
of type i,
    Afloor,j = area of floor, of thickness and underlying materials 
of type j,
    Aceiling,k = area of ceiling, of thickness and underlying 
materials of type k,
    Anon-glass door,l = area of doors, of thickness and underlying 
materials of type l,
    [Delta]Ti = dry bulb temperature differential between internal 
and external air, of type i, [deg]F,
[Delta]Tj = dry bulb temperature differential between internal and 
external air, of type j, [deg]F,
[Delta]Tk = dry bulb temperature differential between internal and 
external air, of type k, [deg]F, and
[Delta]Tl = dry bulb temperature differential between internal and 
external air, of type l, [deg]F.

    To complete the calculation, DOE proposed temperature assumptions 
for the internal cooled air and the surface temperature of the floor. 
The cooled air temperature was selected based on WICF type: 35 [deg]F 
and -10 [deg]F for coolers and freezers, respectively. DOE also assumed 
that the finished subfloor surface material was made of concrete. 
Additionally, DOE proposed a 55 [deg]F subfloor surface temperature for 
all walk-ins. The temperature difference across the floor ([Delta]T) 
could be calculated using the 55 [deg]F subfloor surface temperature 
and the internal cooled air assumption. With a known floor area 
(Afloor), [Delta]T, and floor R-value, the heat transfer through the 
floor could be readily calculated. However, the specific floor R-value 
was incorporated into the calculation based on certain conditions. 
These conditions are described in greater detail below.
    Floorless Coolers: For the scenario of uninsulated (``floorless'') 
coolers, DOE proposed a concrete R-value of 0.6 ft\2\ - [deg]F - h/Btu, 
based on typical concrete density and thickness as reported in the 2009 
ASHRAE Fundamentals Handbook.
    Pre-Installed Freezer Floor: For the scenario where (1) a 
manufacturer does not provide a freezer floor; and (2) an insulated 
floor has been installed on-site by the end-user, DOE proposed that 
manufacturers use R = 28 ft\2\ - [deg]F - h/Btu for completing the heat 
transfer calculations. This R-value is the same as the EPCA-prescribed 
minimum requirement for freezer floors. BASF, ThermalRite, and American 
Panel supported using an assumption of R-28, while Nor-Lake stated that 
a value of R-20 would be more appropriate but did not specify why. 
(BASF, No. 1.3.003 at p. 4; ThermalRite, No. 1.3.031 at p. 2; American 
Panel, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 263; Nor-Lake, No. 
1.3.029 at p. 4) DOE, however, continues to hold the view that its 
proposed approach best reflects the statutory framework set out by 
Congress because R-28 is the minimum freezer floor R-value required by 
EISA 2007. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1)(D).
    Insulated Floor Shipped by Manufacturer: For both coolers and 
freezers, if a manufacturer provided the floor, DOE proposed in the 
January NOPR that the floor R-value (as measured by the test procedure) 
be used for the heat transfer calculations. 75 FR 198.
    Between the publication of the January NOPR and the public meeting, 
DOE completed additional finite element model (FEM) computer 
simulations of floorless coolers. Based on FEM simulation results, DOE 
described a new equation during the public meeting for calculating heat 
transfer through floorless coolers:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.035

Where:

If Afloor <= 750 ft\2\, qfloor = 33.153 x 
Afloor-0.364,
If Afloor > 750 ft\2\, qfloor = 0.0002 x 
Afloor + 2.84,
qfloor = heat flow correction factor,
Rnon-glass,wall, i = R-value of foam used in wall panels 
of type i, h - ft\2\ - [deg]F/Btu,
Rnon-glass,floor, j = R-value of foam used in floor 
panels of type j, h - ft\2\ -[deg]F/Btu,
Rnon-glass,ceil, k = R-value of foam used in ceiling 
panels of type k, h - ft\2\ - [deg]F/Btu,
Rnon-glass,door, l = R-value of foam used in non-glass 
doors of type l, h - ft\2\ - [deg]F/Btu,
Aceiling,k = area of ceiling of thickness and underlying 
materials of type k,
Anon-glass door,l = area of doors of thickness and 
underlying materials of type l,
Afloor = area of floor, ft\2\,
[Delta]Ti = dry bulb temperature differential between 
internal and external air, of type i, [deg]F,
[Delta]Tj = dry bulb temperature differential between 
internal and external air, of type j, [deg]F,
[Delta]Tk = dry bulb temperature differential between 
internal and external air, of type k, [deg]F, and
[Delta]Tl = dry bulb temperature differential between 
internal and external air, of type l, [deg]F.

    The FEM simulations demonstrated that using 60 [deg]F and 65 [deg]F 
would result in more accurate energy calculations. DOE indicated at the 
NOPR public meeting that it was considering modifying the surface 
temperature assumptions for freezers and coolers to 60 [deg]F and 65 
[deg]F, respectively, and sought comment from interested parties on 
these revised temperatures.
    Several manufacturers recommended that DOE maintain the original 
assumption of 55 [deg]F for sub-floor surface temperature. ThermalRite 
requested that

[[Page 55083]]

55 [deg]F be retained because it believed that the equations were based 
on solid engineering principles and data. (ThermalRite, No. 1.3.031 at 
p. 2) Nor-Lake agreed that 55 [deg]F would be more appropriate. (Nor-
Lake, No. 1.3.029 at p. 4) Kysor and TAFCO preferred 55 [deg]F because 
it would be consistent with industry assumptions. (Kysor, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 270 and TAFCO, No. 1.3.022 at p. 
3) ICS recommended that 55 [deg]F be maintained as the assumption for 
both coolers and freezers because a walk-in with an insulated floor 
would not have an effect on sub-floor temperature regardless of WICF 
temperature. (ICS, No. 1.3.027 at p. 2) In light of this general 
support and the absence of any comments explaining why use of a 55 
[deg]F temperature assumption would be inappropriate, DOE proposes 
continuing to apply its 55 [deg]F assumption for all WICF for three 
reasons: (1) 55 [deg]F is the general industry accepted value; (2) 
using a single assumption simplifies calculations; and (3) using a 
single temperature avoids the complexity of accounting for various 
field installation variations (such as concrete thickness and proximity 
to building walls).
    Regarding the heat transfer calculations for floorless coolers, 
Nor-Lake supported using Eq. 1 as proposed in the January NOPR. (Nor-
Lake, No. 1.3.029 at p. 4) Master-Bilt and Nor-Lake recommended that 
DOE consider using the minimum thickness of 3.5 inches rather the 6 
inches as proposed in the January NOPR for calculating the concrete R-
value, because the building industry uses 3.5 inches. (Master-Bilt, No. 
1.3.009 at p. 2 and Nor-Lake, No. 1.3.005 at p. 4)
    In this SNOPR, DOE proposes different equations for calculating 
heat transfer through floor panels, non-floor panels (i.e., wall and 
ceiling panels), and non-glass doors. Although Nor-Lake supported using 
Eq. 1 as proposed in the January NOPR, the equations proposed in this 
SNOPR allow greater flexibility in calculating heat transfer through 
the envelope because they are able to account for unique temperature 
differences across each component. See section III.B.7 for a more 
detailed description of the equations in the SNOPR. The equation for 
floor heat transfer incorporates the results of FEM simulation by using 
the values for the heat flow correction factor (qfloor) that 
appear in Eq. 2 above. In performing the FEM simulation, DOE assumed 6-
inch-thick concrete despite Master Bilt and Nor-Lake's comments, 
because that is the recommended floor thickness in the ASHRAE Handbook 
of Fundamentals (ASHRAE Fundamentals 2005). However, DOE will continue 
to consider other values if they are more appropriate for the 
application and asks for comment on a more appropriate value.
7. Walk-In Sited Within a Walk-In: A ``Hybrid'' Walk-In
    In the January NOPR, the calculation procedure provided a means of 
rating all walk-ins, including the scenario where a freezer is sited 
inside a cooler or where a cooler and freezer share a common wall.
    Modifications described in this SNOPR ensure that the rating of 
these walk-in cooler/freezer hybrids is properly captured. For example, 
every panel or door may have a unique temperature differential across 
the material to reflect either a panel that divides a cooler and 
freezer or a door that may open from freezer temperatures to cooler 
temperatures. See section 3.1 of Appendix A for details. In the event 
an individual non-floor panel, floor panel or door spans two 
temperature regimes, the lower temperature must be used for the purpose 
of calculating the heat transfer across that component. For example, if 
a floor panel spans a section of the floor, where 80 percent of the 
panel is exposed to cooler temperatures and the other 20 percent is 
exposed to freezer temperatures, the heat transfer calculation through 
the floor panel must use only the freezer temperature.
    DOE believes the equations shown in section 3.1 of Appendix A 
provide an accurate means of testing a given walk-in cooler, freezer or 
hybrid walk-in. DOE seeks comment on the equations and their accuracy, 
particularly for hybrid walk-ins.
8. U-Factor of Doors and Windows
    Conduction heat gain through doors and windows contributes to the 
energy load of the envelope. To account for this fact, DOE proposes to 
measure heat gain through doors (with and without glass) and any other 
glass surfaces such as windows, as well as through the framing 
materials used for doors and windows. In the January NOPR, DOE proposed 
measuring heat gain through doors and windows using one of the 
following options: (1) For doors with a National Fenestration Rating 
Council (NFRC) rating, thermal performance would have been determined 
from the NFRC label; or (2) for doors without an NFRC rating, thermal 
performance parameters would have been determined using Window 5.2, a 
computer program developed by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 75 
FR 198. (The NRFC is a non-profit, public-private partnership of the 
window, door, and skylight industry.) In either case, DOE proposed 
using the thermal performance parameters as inputs for calculations 
specified in the Test Procedure NOPR.
    DOE's proposed method was supported by BASF, Master-Bilt, and Nor-
Lake. (BASF, No. 1.3.003 at p. 4; Master-Bilt, No. 1.3.009 at p. 2; 
Nor-Lake, No. 1.3.005 at p. 4) Kason agreed that using third-party 
software (such as Window 5.2) to evaluate window performance is 
reasonable. (Kason, No. 1.3.037 at p. 4) However, NFRC recommended 
using a standard size door for all calculations to ensure a full rating 
that includes frame effects and allow for accurate reporting. (NFRC, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 280) Furthermore, Schott 
Gemtron pointed out that the standard glass door in Window 5.2 is not 
the same as a typical glass door used in walk-ins. (Schott Gemtron, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 284) ACEEE stated that the 
manufacturers of doors with glass surfaces should use NFRC rating 
methods to certify performance. (ACEEE, No. 1.3.034 at p. 2)
    In response to the comment from Schott Gemtron, the Window 5.2 
program does not incorporate WICF-specific doors at this time because 
NFRC, the primary user of Window 5.2, has never rated WICF doors. To 
remedy this situation, the typical WICF door geometries would simply 
need to be added to the Window 5.2 database. Because use of the NFRC 
ratings would avoid the need for DOE to prescribe specific geometries 
or testing scenarios, however, DOE proposes in this SNOPR that instead 
of using Window 5.2, manufacturers shall rate the total thermal 
transmittance (known as U-factor) of doors and windows, including their 
framing materials, using the test procedure NFRC 100-2010-E0A1, 
``Procedure for Determining Fenestration Product U-Factors.'' NFRC 100-
2010-E0A1 specifies a test procedure but does not specify test 
conditions, which depend on the product. Details of proposed test 
conditions may be found in section 4.1.3 of Appendix A. DOE welcomes 
comments on improvements that could be made to Window 5.2, however, and 
would consider allowing use of Window 5.2 provided that such 
improvements led to results as consistent as those achieved with the 
NFRC rating.
    In addition, DOE proposes applying the provisions in section 5.2 of 
NFRC 100-2010-E0A1, which would provide a uniform and reasonably 
accurate method of measuring the thermal transmittance of the door and 
window components installed in a walk-in. The section contains 
reference methods for

[[Page 55084]]

determining heat transfer properties for specific side-hinged exterior 
door systems, to all doors (i.e. doors without any glass, doors with 
glass windows, glass display doors, etc.) and glass walls. Doors, as 
defined in Appendix A 2.1(b) of these proposed regulations, includes 
the user movable components and the framing components that support the 
door hinges such as the center mullions in display doors or door plugs 
found commonly in passage doors. The complete assembly must be tested 
to find the door U-factor.
    NFRC 100-2010-E0A1 provides a means of testing representative door 
geometry that can then be extrapolated to other doors of similar 
materials and geometry. This approach is less costly but generally 
results in more conservative test results. However, if a door 
manufacturer or other party responsible for testing would prefer to 
perform the complete physical test described in NFRC 100-2010-E0A1 for 
all doors (i.e. not rely on NFRC's extrapolation methodology), the 
testing entity may do so.
    DOE seeks comment on the proposal requiring windows and doors, 
including their framing materials, to be rated using NFRC 100-2010-
E0A1. As stated above, DOE also seeks comment on improvements to the 
Window 5.2 program that would make its use in the test procedure 
appropriate.
9. Walk-In Envelope Steady-State Infiltration Test
    In the January NOPR, DOE noted two air exchange pathways for walk-
in envelopes: (1) Air exchange (``infiltration'') occurring during door 
opening events, the extent of which depended on door opening area and 
the frequency of door opening, and (2) infiltration during ``steady-
state'' conditions. DOE defined steady-state as the period of time when 
all access methods, such as doors, were in the closed position. During 
steady-state conditions, infiltration could occur via cracks in door 
sweeps, bi-directional pressure relief valves, and panel-to-panel 
interfaces. Infiltration during door opening events accounts for the 
majority of infiltration into the envelope, but steady-state 
infiltration could be significant as well. Because air infiltration 
plays a role in determining the overall efficiency of a given WICF and 
the likely energy consumption in keeping its refrigerated areas cool, 
DOE proposed using ASTM E741-06, ``Standard Test Method for Determining 
Air Change in a Single Zone by Means of a Tracer Gas Dilution,'' for 
testing the steady-state air infiltration of walk-in coolers and walk-
in freezers. DOE detailed a number of requirements, such as internal 
and external temperatures during testing, sampling methods, and gas 
tracer calculation type.
    In comments on the January NOPR, interested parties noted the role 
that pressure relief valves play with respect to infiltration testing. 
These valves are standard equipment with walk-in envelopes and are 
designed to ensure the proper operation of a WICF unit by relieving 
pressure changes that accompany rapid cooling of warm air after door 
opening events. Craig stated that the standard pressure relief valve on 
walk-ins could interfere with infiltration testing, and Kason added 
that WICF manufacturers use pressure relief ports that allow gas to 
move through the envelope and further suggested that these ports would 
need to be blocked to test infiltration. (Craig, No. 1.3.017 at p. 2 
and Kason, No. at p. 3)
    Because bi-directional pressure relief valves are considered 
standard equipment for all walk-in freezers, today's notice clarifies 
that they should be included in the general steady-state infiltration 
test if they are part of the walk-in being tested. In addition, because 
valves contribute to steady-state infiltration, it is necessary to 
measure their contribution. The duration of the steady-state test is 
long enough to ensure that the average valve operation time is 
accurately represented. In addition, properly sited and designed valves 
should not be opening and closing frequently, if at all, during steady-
state conditions. Because these valves are intended to relieve large 
pressure swings caused by rapid cooling of warm air that has entered 
during door opening events, the pressure differential across the valve 
should be low enough that it remains closed during steady state 
operation.
    In the January NOPR, DOE also proposed to reduce testing burden by 
allowing manufacturers to test the infiltration of a limited number of 
envelopes and then scale those results to all other envelopes 
manufactured. Interested parties agreed with DOE's approach to reduce 
the testing burden but suggested that it was necessary for DOE to 
provide detailed requirements of how the test units should be 
constructed. Craig, American Panel, and ThermalRite stated that DOE 
must specify the basic unit to be tested in terms of size and certain 
components, which would be standardized across all manufacturers. 
(Craig, No. 1.2.010 at pp. 102-103; American Panel, No. 1.3.024 at p. 
2; ThermalRite, No. 1.3.031 at p. 1)
    DOE agrees with this approach and proposes that with respect to the 
steady-state infiltration test, the techniques, materials, and final 
assembly must be identical to units that are shipped to customers. The 
unit must be assembled following the instruction manual supplied by the 
manufacturer. Details may be found in section 4.2 of Appendix A.
    DOE seeks comment on the modifications to the steady-state 
infiltration testing.
10. Door Steady-State Infiltration Test
    In the January NOPR, DOE proposed testing steady-state infiltration 
on fully assembled envelopes using the gas tracer method described in 
ASTM E741-06, ``Standard Test Method for Determining Air Change in a 
Single Zone by Means of a Tracer Gas Dilution.'' The NOPR proposed an 
additional series of tests, using ASTM E741-06, under certain 
conditions, and would have required testing of all possible 
combinations of panels and doors.
    Interested parties recommended several alternatives for DOE to 
consider. The Joint Utilities recommended the NFRC rating method for 
determining infiltration related to doors, in part because this method, 
in their collective view, provides a means to test and sample products 
that would assure that the sold product matches the quality of the 
tested sample. (Joint Utilities, No. 1.3.019 at p. 12-13) Hired Hand 
recommended ASTM E330-97, ``Standard Test Method for Structural 
Performance of Exterior Windows, Doors, Skylights and Curtain Walls by 
Uniform Static Air Pressure Difference,'' or ASTM E283-92, ``Standard 
Test Method for Determining Rate of Air Leakage Through Exterior 
Windows, Curtain Walls, and Doors Under Specified Pressure Differences 
Across the Specimen.'' (Hired Hand, No. 1.3.033 at p. 5)
    In this SNOPR, DOE is proposing measuring steady-state infiltration 
through panels and doors using separate tests for each rather than 
using a single test for both as proposed in the January NOPR. DOE is 
considering this modification to reduce testing burden; the January 
NOPR proposed to require a new test for each unique panel and door 
configuration, which could be overly burdensome to test because of the 
many possible configurations. For all doors, DOE is considering NFRC 
400-2010-E0A1, ``Procedure Determining Fenestration Product Air 
Leakage.'' NFRC 400-2010-E0A1 is based on ASTM E283-04, the most recent 
version of ASTM E283-92, one of the test methods recommended by Hired 
Hand. This test method is appropriate for this

[[Page 55085]]

application because it was specifically designed to measure the air 
leakage through doors and fenestration products. DOE adapted NFRC 400-
2010-E0A1 for use with doors on walk-in envelopes by establishing 
standard assumptions for the pressure differences, in Pascals (Pa), 
across cooler and freezer doors and requiring the infiltration at these 
pressures to be determined using a pressure-infiltration relationship 
determined through testing. Section 4.4.2 of proposed Appendix A 
contains the assumptions and the method for finding the pressure-
infiltration relationship. DOE does not intend to incorporate ASTM 
E330-97, ``Standard Test Method for Structural Performance of Exterior 
Windows, Doors, Skylights and Curtain Walls by Uniform Static Air 
Pressure Difference,'' as suggested by Hired Hand because this 
procedure measures structural performance, which does not impact 
efficiency; but DOE invites Hired Hand to submit further justification 
in support of this standard. DOE seeks comment on the proposal to test 
steady-state infiltration through doors separately from steady-state 
infiltration through panels and using NFRC 400-2010-E0A1 for both 
tests. DOE seeks comment on the proposed assumptions for the pressure 
differential across cooler doors (1.5 Pa) and freezer doors (3.5 Pa). 
DOE seeks comment on the proposal to determine infiltration across 
cooler and freezer doors using tests of infiltration and exfiltration 
at 10 Pa to 60 Pa to establish a pressure-infiltration relationship 
with which to extrapolate the infiltration occurring across cooler and 
freezer doors.
11. Door Opening Infiltration Assumptions
    In the January NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate several 
assumptions from the ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals 2009 related to 
door opening infiltration that would be used to calculate the portion 
of time each doorway is open, Dt:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.036

Where:

P = number of doorway passages (i.e., number of doors opening 
events),
[thgr]p = door open-close time (seconds/P),
[thgr]o = time door stands open (minutes), and
[thgr]d = daily time period (h). 75 FR 197.

    For glass display doors and all other doors, DOE specified P = 72 
and 60, respectively. Required values for [thgr]p: (1) 
reach-in glass doors, [thgr]p = 8 seconds; (2) all other 
doors, [thgr]p = 15 seconds; and (3) if an automatic door 
opener/closer is used, [thgr]p = 10 seconds. DOE required 
glass display doors [thgr]o = 0 minutes and all other doors, 
[thgr]o= 15 minutes.
    Hired Hand proposed revised parameters for the number of door 
openings (P), steady-state time, and all other parameters in the 
equation for infiltration due to door openings both for doors with 
automatic door closures and manually closed larger doors, because, in 
its view, the proposed parameters are adequate for display cases and 
small walk-ins but insufficient for evaluating large retail supermarket 
applications (storage warehouse coolers and freezers where door entry 
width is greater than 4 feet and serviced by employees only). (Hired 
Hand, No. 1.3.033 at p. 3) Schott Gemtron stated that DOE needs to 
distinguish between glass display doors and service doors because 
service doors are not opened as often. (Schott Gemtron, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 314) Hired Hand also stated that DOE 
should clarify the coverage of doors because they believe the intent of 
EISA 2007 was targeted mainly at retail applications with doors smaller 
than 45 inches in width. (Hired Hand, No. 1.3.033 at p. 1)
    DOE agrees with Hired Hand and Schott Gemtron that additional 
refinement to assumptions can be made to differentiate between glass 
display, passage (or service), and freight doors. In addition, to 
reflect the benefit from the use of automated doors, DOE proposes to 
modify the value of [thgr]o when a sensor and automated 
open/close system is included. Therefore, DOE proposes to define 
``glass display door'' as a door designed for the movement and/or 
display of product rather than the passage of persons, ``passage door'' 
(or ``service door'') as an opaque door that is less than or equal to a 
45-inch width and designed for the passage of persons, and ``freight 
door'' as an opaque door that is greater than 45-inch width. DOE cannot 
specifically exclude doors wider than 45 inches if they are used on a 
walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer that is not excluded from coverage by 
EISA 2007, as suggested by Hired Hand.
    The new assumptions regarding doors are reflected in Table III.4.

                                                  Table III.4--Assumptions to Differentiate Door Types
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    [thgr]p,w                   [thgr]o,w/
              Door type                     P       [thgr]p sec    sensor sec    [thgr]o min    sensor min    [thgr]d hrs               Note
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glass Display........................           72            8              --            0              --           24  Proposed in NOPR.
    Passage..........................           60           15              10           15              --           24
    Freight..........................           60           15              10           15              --           24
Glass Display........................           72            8              --            0              --           24  SNOPR.
    Passage..........................           60           15              10           30              10           24
    Freight..........................          120           60              30           60              20           24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks comment on this alternative approach and modified 
assumptions.
12. Infiltration Reduction Device Effectiveness
    DOE discovered an error in Eq. 3-25 after the January NOPR was 
published. DOE notified stakeholders of the error and correction at the 
public meeting.
    DOE proposes to use the corrected Eq. 3-25 in the final rule.
    ThermalRite supported the infiltration reduction device (IRD) 
effectiveness test methodology, but stated that manufacturers of IRDs 
should perform the testing. (ThermalRite, No. 1.3.031 at p. 2) DOE 
acknowledges that it may be more appropriate for a third party to test 
an IRD by itself, whether that third party is the IRD manufacturer or a 
different entity, because IRD effectiveness is largely independent of 
other envelope characteristics. Therefore, DOE proposes several 
modifications to the IRD effectiveness test that it initially proposed. 
These modifications would permit testing to be done by the IRD 
manufacturer, the envelope manufacturer, or another entity. The 
modifications that DOE is considering as alternatives to its initially 
proposed approach may be found in section 4.3 of Appendix A.

[[Page 55086]]

    Hired Hand stated that DOE should include an assumed performance 
value for IRDs that are subject to degradation and do not perform 
consistently over time. (Hired Hand, No. 1.3.033 at p. 5 and Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 310) DOE believes it is 
reasonable to incorporate assumed performance values because an 
established body of research supports these values. While the 
assumptions do not reflect all real-world WICF door use scenarios or 
applications, it is necessary for DOE to assume values to ensure a 
uniform testing method to rate walk-ins. These assumptions are stated 
in section 4.3 of proposed Appendix A to this SNOPR.
    DOE seeks comment on this alternative approach.
13. Relative Humidity Assumptions
    In the January NOPR, DOE proposed the assumption of an internal 
walk-in relative humidity of 45 percent. This value was selected to 
match AHRI-1250 test dry-coil conditions. However, these conditions do 
not necessarily reflect general walk-in humidity conditions; rather, 
the conditions were chosen to test refrigeration systems when there is 
little or no frost load on the evaporator coil. DOE recognizes that, in 
practice, the relative humidity (RH) varies significantly depending on 
the product stored within a walk-in.
    In order to reflect higher RH values experienced in practice, DOE 
proposes a new assumption of 75 percent RH for both freezer and cooler 
internal conditions. This RH level is within the 65-85 percent range of 
humidity levels used in practice for products from canned beverages 
such as beer to packaged fruits and vegetables. DOE seeks comment on 
this assumption in addition to assumptions found in proposed Appendix 
A, section 2.1(e).

C. Refrigeration System

    As previously discussed, DOE is proposing for the purposes of this 
test procedure to draw a distinction between the envelope or structure 
of the walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer and the mechanical 
refrigeration system performing the physical work necessary to cool the 
interior space. The refrigeration system itself could be one of three 
types: (1) Single-package systems containing the condensing and 
evaporator units; (2) split systems with the condensing unit and unit 
cooler physically separated and connected via refrigerant piping; or 
(3) rack systems utilizing unit coolers, which receive refrigerant from 
a shared loop. The following section addresses issues raised by 
interested parties that prompted DOE to consider other options in 
addition to those proposed in the January NOPR.
1. Definition of Refrigeration System
    During the NOPR public meeting, DOE stated that it was considering 
the following changes to the definition of refrigeration system: 
substituting ``integrated single package refrigeration unit'' with ``a 
packaged system where the unit cooler and condensing unit are 
integrated into a single piece of equipment'' in order to clarify the 
term and substituting ``central rack system'' with ``multiplex 
condensing system'' because the latter is a more inclusive term and may 
be more technically accurate.
    Thermal-Rite and Nor-Lake expressed support for the revised 
definition of refrigeration system. (Thermal-Rite, No. 1.3.031 at p. 1; 
Nor-Lake, No. 1.3.029 at p. 2) ACEEE stated that the definition 
proposed in the January NOPR seemed appropriate and seems to recognize 
the varieties serving the marketplace. (ACEEE, No. 1.3.034 at p. 2) 
Master-Bilt, BASF, and Kason all stated that they agreed with the 
definition but did not specify which version they supported. (Master-
Bilt, No. 1.3.009 at p. 2; BASF, No. 1.3.003 at p. 5; Kason, No. 
1.3.037 at p. 4) On the other hand, Craig stated that the definition of 
refrigeration system should include a temperature limit and suggested 
45 [deg]F as the upper limit. (Craig, No. 1.3.036 at p. 84) A person 
affiliated with Gonzaga Law also viewed the proposed definition of 
refrigeration equipment as too inclusive but did not specify how DOE 
could improve it. (William Gray, Gonzaga Law, No. FDMS 0003 at p. 1) 
HeatCraft stated that DOE should have an exemption for refrigeration 
equipment that serves loads other than walk-ins. (HeatCraft, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 92)
    Regarding the above comments, DOE believes that adding a 
temperature limit to the definition of refrigeration system, as 
suggested by Craig, is unnecessary because DOE is already proposing to 
add a temperature limit to the definition of walk-ins that will cover 
both envelopes and refrigeration systems. To address HeatCraft's 
concern, DOE has included the term ``multiplex equipment'' in the 
definition to refer to refrigeration equipment serving loads other than 
walk-ins. DOE's revised definition includes unit coolers connected to 
multiplex systems, meaning that only the unit cooler is covered in any 
refrigeration system that incorporates a multiplex system. The 
multiplex systems themselves would not be covered.
    Consistent with its discussions at the public meeting, DOE is also 
proposing to revise its proposed definition of the term ``refrigeration 
system'' with respect to WICF equipment. DOE requests comment on the 
proposed alternative definition.
2. Version of AHRI 1250
    In the January NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate the industry 
standard AHRI 1250P-2009, ``Standard for Performance Rating of Walk-In 
Coolers and Freezers,'' into the test procedure. The January NOPR 
inadvertently referred to the preliminary version of this standard, 
while the final published version is AHRI 1250-2009, which was 
published in September 2009. DOE found no significant differences 
between the preliminary version and the final version; nevertheless, 
DOE proposes to incorporate the most recent version, AHRI 1250-2009, 
into the final test procedure.
3. Annual Walk-In Energy Factor
    DOE is required by EPCA to establish a test procedure to measure 
the energy use of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers. (42 U.S.C. 
6314(a)(9)(B)(i)) AHRI 1250-2009 determines the annual walk-in energy 
factor (AWEF) as its final metric, the ratio of the annual net heat 
removed from the box, which includes the internal heat gains from non-
refrigeration components but excludes the heat gains from the 
refrigeration components in the box to the annual energy consumption. 
Because AWEF is essentially a measure of efficiency, DOE proposed in 
the January NOPR to develop equations to derive energy consumption from 
AWEF. 75 FR 202-203. DOE also proposed to require manufacturers to 
report both AWEF and energy consumption and asked for comment on this 
approach. 75 FR 202-203.
    Nor-Lake agreed with the proposed method of measuring and 
calculating the energy use of refrigeration systems (Nor-Lake, No. 
1.3.005 at p. 4) but also cautioned that both the methodology for 
deriving annual energy consumption from AWEF and the reporting 
requirements should be consistent across all manufacturers. (Nor-Lake, 
No. 1.3.029 at p. 5) Manitowoc, on the other hand, stated that AWEF is 
a more useful metric than energy consumption because the calculated 
energy consumption may not be an accurate representation of actual 
energy consumption in the field as the load profile in the test 
procedure is arbitrary. Rather, AWEF can be used to easily estimate 
actual energy consumption if the actual load is known, and AWEF

[[Page 55087]]

also allows for comparisons between higher and lower efficiency 
systems. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 375) 
Arctic suggested that DOE could develop software to assist businesses 
with calculating energy consumption. (Arctic, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 392)
    Because EISA requires that the test procedure measure energy use, 
as explained above, DOE continues to propose that manufacturers measure 
and report both AWEF and the measure of energy use derived from AWEF as 
determined by the test procedure. The calculation methodology and 
reporting requirements will be consistent across manufacturers as 
suggested by Nor-Lake.
    DOE notes that in the course of performing the test procedure and 
determining AWEF, the annual energy use of a walk-in refrigeration 
system may be found as an intermediate result or easily derived from 
AWEF or other intermediate results. Thus, DOE proposes to simplify the 
method by which energy use is determined by introducing revised 
calculations in the rule language. DOE requests comment on the 
simplified calculations.
    DOE does not intend to develop software for calculating energy use, 
as suggested by Arctic, because this is outside the scope of the 
rulemaking. The proposed test procedure contains all the necessary 
calculations for determining AWEF and energy use, and manufacturers may 
develop or use their own software that assists them in performing these 
calculations if they choose.

IV. Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

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

B. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

    In this proposed rule, DOE proposes to adopt test procedures and 
related provisions for walk-in equipment. The test procedures would be 
used initially for considering the adoption of energy conservation 
standards for walk-ins, and DOE would require their use only if 
standards were subsequently adopted. The proposed test procedures will 
not affect the quality or distribution of energy and therefore will not 
result in environmental impacts. Therefore, DOE determined that this 
rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from 
review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. 
More specifically, today's proposed rule is covered by the categorical 
exclusion in paragraph A5 to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021. Accordingly, 
neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact 
statement is required.

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for 
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the 
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in 
Agency Rulemaking'', 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published 
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the 
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its 
procedures and policies available on the Office of General Counsel's 
Web site, http://www.gc.doe.gov.
    DOE reviewed the test procedures considered in today's supplemental 
notice of proposed rulemaking under the provisions of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 
19, 2003.
    As discussed in more detail below, DOE found that because the 
proposed test procedures have not previously been required of 
manufacturers, all manufacturers, including small manufacturers, could 
experience a financial burden associated with new testing requirements. 
While examining this issue, DOE determined that it could not certify 
that the proposed rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant 
effect on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, DOE 
prepared an IRFA for this rulemaking. The IRFA describes potential 
impacts on small businesses associated with walk-in cooler and freezer 
testing requirements. DOE has transmitted a copy of this IRFA to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) 
for review. This SNOPR includes changes made to the IRFA in light of 
comments from interested parties on the January NOPR, specifically 
regarding the number of small entities regulated and the potential 
testing burden. The revised IRFA also considers the burden of new tests 
that DOE is proposing in this SNOPR.
1. Reasons for the Proposed Rule
    The reasons for this proposed rule are discussed elsewhere in the 
preamble and not repeated here.
2. Objectives of and Legal Basis for the Proposed Rule
    The objectives of and legal basis for the proposed rule are 
discussed elsewhere in the preamble and not repeated here.
3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    DOE uses the SBA small business size standards published on January 
31, 1996, as amended, to determine whether any small entities would be 
required to comply with the rule. 61 FR 3286; see also 65 FR 30836, 
30850 (May 15, 2000), as amended. 65 FR 53533, 53545 (September 5, 
2000). The size standards are codified at 13 CFR part 121. The 
standards are listed by North American Industry Classification System 
(NAICS) code and industry description and are available at http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf.
    In the January NOPR, DOE classified walk-in cooler and freezer 
equipment manufacturing under NAICS 333415, ``Air-Conditioning and Warm 
Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration 
Equipment Manufacturing,'' which has a size standard of 750 employees. 
75 FR 204. After reviewing industry sources and publicly available 
data, DOE identified at least 37 small manufacturers of walk-in cooler 
and freezer envelopes and at least 5 small manufacturers of walk-in 
cooler and freezer refrigeration systems that met this criterion.
    In comments on the January NOPR, both American Panel and Kysor said 
that virtually all panel and walk-in manufacturers are small businesses 
under this standard. (American Panel, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
1.2.010 at p. 379; Kysor, No. 1.3.035 at p. 3) Craig said that it was a 
small business under this standard. (Craig, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 1.2.010 at p. 17) Schott Gemtron stated that over 90 percent of the 
membership of the trade association of North American Food Equipment 
Manufacturers (NAFEM)

[[Page 55088]]

was under $12 million in sales. (Schott Gemtron, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 389) Several commenters listed sources 
DOE could use to identify small businesses: Nor-Lake recommended the 
NSF Standard 7 listings, Arctic recommended the NAFEM database, and ICS 
recommended the central contractor registry. (Nor-Lake, No. 1.3.029 at 
p. 5; Arctic, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 388; and 
ICS, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at p. 390)
    In light of these comments and additional research conducted by 
DOE, the industry can be characterized by a few manufacturers that are 
subsidiaries of much larger companies (who would not be considered 
small businesses) and a large number of small companies as categorized 
by NAICS code 333415. Furthermore, more than half of small walk-in 
manufacturers have 100 or fewer employees. DOE acknowledges the sources 
provided by Nor-Lake, Arctic, and ICS and will consider these sources 
in its characterization of the industry in the final regulatory 
flexibility analysis (FRFA).
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
    In the NOPR, DOE described potential impacts of the proposed test 
procedures. DOE received comments from manufacturers regarding the 
estimated impacts. Arctic stated that potential impacts of the proposed 
test procedures on manufacturers, including small businesses, come from 
impacts associated with the cost of testing. (Arctic, No. 1.3.012 at p. 
1) ICS commented that burden would come both from testing cost and 
length of time required to perform the tests. (ICS, No. 1.3.027 at p. 
2) BASF commented on specific tests, stating that ASTM C1303-08 is more 
expensive than ASTM C518-04 and that ASTM E741-06 and AHRI 1250-2009 
were even more expensive. (BASF, No. 1.3.003 at p. 5) Master-Bilt, 
American Panel, and Hill Phoenix all commented that the test procedure 
would be particularly burdensome to small businesses. (Master-Bilt, No. 
1.3.009 at p. 3; American Panel, No. 1.3.024 at p. 4; Hill Phoenix, No. 
1.2.023 at p. 3) Craig asserted that the cost of testing could be up to 
$1 million and would be likely to put small companies out of business 
or force them to sell noncompliant products. (Craig, No. 1.3.017 at p. 
1; No. 1.3.036 at p. 4; and Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.010 at 
p. 18)
Envelope Manufacturer Testing Impacts
    In the January NOPR, DOE proposed to require envelope manufacturers 
to test their equipment in accordance with two industry test standards: 
ASTM C1303-08, ``Standard Test Method of Predicting Long Term Thermal 
Resistance of Closed-Cell Foam Insulation,'' and ASTM E741-06, 
``Standard Test Method for Determining Air Change in a Single Zone by 
Means of a Tracer Gas Dilution'' (ASTM C1303-08 has since been updated 
to ASTM C1303-10, but the updated version contains no substantive 
changes that would affect the testing cost). DOE spoke with industry 
experts to determine the approximate cost of each test and determined 
that a test using ASTM C1303-08 costs between approximately $5,000 and 
$10,000, and a test using ASTM E741-06 costs between $1,000 and $5,000. 
Therefore, in the January NOPR, DOE estimated that the cost of testing 
for one walk-in would range from $6,000 to $15,000. Also, DOE estimated 
that a typical manufacturer would have approximately 8 basic envelope 
configurations that would need to be tested, so the total cost of 
compliance due to testing would be approximately $84,000 (ranging from 
$48,000 to $120,000). This estimated total cost only includes the cost 
of one test on each basic configuration, and does not include 
additional testing on the same basic model that may be required as part 
of a sampling plan. DOE may consider development of a sampling plan in 
a future rulemaking.
    The revisions to the proposed test procedure that are proposed in 
this SNOPR for envelope manufacturers would require testing in 
accordance with the two tests mentioned above as well as an additional 
test: ASTM C1363-05, ``Standard Test Method for Thermal Performance of 
Building Materials and Envelope Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box 
Apparatus.'' The SNOPR would also require the measurement of heat gain 
through doors (with and without IRD and including glass doors) to be 
tested using NFRC procedures, rather than allowing for use of either 
the NFRC procedures or the Window 5.2 program. DOE determined that a 
test using ASTM C1363-05 costs between $1,000 and $3,000, and NFRC 
testing cost varies between $1,000 and $10,000 for all doors and IRDs 
depending on product lines. However, NFRC has reduced fees for small 
businesses, which it defines as companies with less than $1 million in 
sales.\1\ These reduced fees are 50 percent of members' annual fees and 
product line fees (33 percent of non-members' annual fees and product 
line fees), and a waiver of label fees. DOE realizes that this 
definition differs from the SBA size threshold set out for walk-in 
envelope manufacturers but believes that some entities that are small 
businesses pursuant to SBA's size threshold could also qualify for 
these reduced fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ http://www.nfrc.org/documents/ProgramCostsFactsheet.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address the comments from Arctic, ICS, BASF, Master-Bilt, 
American Panel, Hill Phoenix, and Craig regarding testing costs, DOE 
notes that provisions in the January NOPR and revisions to the proposed 
test procedure that are considered in this SNOPR allow manufacturers to 
test a limited number of models and model components and then calculate 
the performance of other models from the test results. Measurements 
incorporating these revisions include heat transfer through panels (see 
section III.B.1), steady state infiltration through the envelope (see 
section III.B.9), and door and IRD performance (see section III.B.12). 
DOE estimates that a typical envelope manufacturer could be required to 
perform ASTM C1303-10 on between 1 and 2 types of foam; ASTM C1363-05 
on 1 to 2 types of panel pairs; ASTM E741-06 on 1 to 2 envelopes; and 
NFRC testing on 1 to 3 types of doors and 1 to 3 types of IRD. The 
total cost of one test on each type of walk-in or component listed 
could range from $8,000 to $46,000. This estimated cost could vary 
significantly depending on the number of unique components incorporated 
into a particular manufacturer's walk-ins. Furthermore, the estimated 
total cost only includes the cost of one test on each item listed. DOE 
may consider developing a sampling plan in a future rulemaking to 
determine how many tests need to be performed on the same type of 
envelope or component, to ensure the test results are repeatable and 
statistically valid. Therefore, DOE welcomes comment on this estimate.
Refrigeration System Manufacturer Testing Impacts
    The proposed test procedure for refrigeration systems would require 
manufacturers to perform testing in accordance with a single industry 
test standard: AHRI Standard 1250-2009, ``2009 Standard for Performance 
Rating of Walk-In Coolers and Freezers.'' Because this test was 
recently developed by the industry and has not

[[Page 55089]]

yet been widely used to test refrigeration systems, DOE could not 
determine how much the test currently costs. However, DOE researched 
the cost of other, similar standards and estimated in the January NOPR 
that a test using AHRI Standard 1250-2009 would likely cost 
approximately $5,000. DOE has not received evidence to the contrary and 
thus maintains this estimate for the SNOPR for a single test. In the 
January NOPR, DOE estimated that the total testing cost for a typical 
refrigeration manufacturer could be approximately $250,000, based on an 
estimate of 50 basic models, but it could be higher for manufacturers 
of more customized equipment. For instance, a manufacturer with 200 
basic models would incur a testing cost of approximately $1 million. 
Master-Bilt stated that they sell over 160 models of condensing units 
and 130 models of evaporators, with over 1500 combinations. (Master-
Bilt, No. 1.3.009 at p. 3) (DOE notes that Master-Bilt is not 
considered a small business because it has more than 750 employees 
including its parent company.) In comments on the January NOPR, Craig 
stated that under DOE's estimated cost of $250,000, small manufacturers 
would be forced to discontinue assembling their own refrigeration 
systems and instead purchase units from large manufacturers, making 
them less competitive. (Craig, No. 1.3.017 at p. 2) DOE further notes 
that the estimated testing cost does not include cost of the tested 
equipment and asks whether manufacturers could sell equipment that had 
been tested, thus reducing this cost.
    To address these concerns, DOE is proposing burden-reducing 
measures for refrigeration system manufacturers similar to those for 
envelope manufacturers. The test procedure proposed in the January 
NOPR, AHRI 1250-2009, which DOE continues to propose in this SNOPR, 
allows for rating the condensing unit and the unit cooler separately 
and then calculating their combined efficiency; this would reduce 
testing burden by not requiring every combination to be tested. 
Allowing for the use of such a calculation would significantly decrease 
the number of tests.
    DOE recognizes the particular burden of the envelope and 
refrigeration tests on small manufacturers. Because the cost of running 
each test is the same for all manufacturers, both small and large, and 
because DOE has proposed measures to reduce burden on all such 
manufacturers, manufacturers would likely incur comparable absolute 
costs as a result of the proposed test procedures. However, Kason 
stated that the burden of testing will be greater on small 
manufacturers because they will sell fewer units per type of basic 
model. (Kason, No. 1.3.037 at p. 4) Indeed, DOE does not expect that 
small manufacturers would have fewer basic models than large 
manufacturers, because the equipment is highly customized throughout 
the industry. A small manufacturer could have the same total cost of 
testing as a large manufacturer, but this cost would be a higher 
percentage of a small manufacturer's annual revenues. Thus, the 
differential impact associated with walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer 
test procedures on small businesses may be significant even if the 
overall testing burden is reduced as described above. DOE requests 
comment on quantitative differential impacts and will consider 
presenting such impacts in the FRFA.
    To further address concerns about costs, DOE notes that for both 
envelopes and refrigeration systems, DOE may consider development of a 
sampling plan to determine how many units must be tested to establish 
compliance and enforcement requirements. In such a rulemaking, however, 
DOE could also consider additional methods to reduce the testing burden 
on manufacturers. For example, DOE could consider allowing 
manufacturers to rely on component suppliers for test results, and 
manufacturers could then use these values in their calculations of 
energy consumption of the walk-in. DOE could also allow manufacturers 
to group basic models into a ``family'' of models and only require the 
lowest-efficiency basic model in the family to be certified. DOE could 
also consider allowing manufacturers to use validated alternative 
efficiency determination methods, or AEDMs, which could consist of a 
calculation or computer program, to rate their equipment. DOE will 
consider the impacts to small businesses of future certification, 
compliance, and enforcement provisions for walk-in coolers and freezers 
in a later rulemaking.
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict with Other Rules and Regulations
    DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with the rule being considered today.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    DOE considered a number of alternatives to the proposed test 
procedure, including test procedures that incorporate industry test 
standards other than the three proposed standards, ASTM C1303-08, ASTM 
E741-06, and AHRI Standard 1250P-2009, described above. Instead of 
requiring ASTM C1303-08 for testing the long-term thermal properties of 
insulation, DOE could require only ASTM C518-04, ``Standard Test Method 
for Steady-State Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Heat 
Flow Meter Apparatus,'' which tests the thermal properties of 
insulation at a certain point in time (i.e., the point of manufacture). 
(Because ASTM C1303-08 incorporates ASTM C518-04, requiring ASTM C1303-
08 is consistent with the statutory requirement for basing measurement 
of the thermal conductivity of the insulation on ASTM C518-04.) (42 
U.S.C. 6314(a)(9)(A)) A test of ASTM C518-04 alone costs approximately 
$500 to $1,000. However, DOE is considering ASTM C1303 for other 
reasons; namely, the concern that ASTM C518-04 alone does not capture 
the performance characteristics of a walk-in over the period of its 
use, because it does not account for significant changes in the thermal 
properties of insulation over time.
    DOE also considered ASTM E1827-96(2007), ``Standard Test Methods 
for Determining Airtightness of Buildings Using an Orifice Blower 
Door,'' instead of ASTM E741-06, for testing infiltration. ASTM E1827-
96(2007) costs about $300-$ to 500 for a single test. However, DOE 
believes that ASTM E1827-96(2007) is not appropriate for walk-ins 
because it is conducted by placing test equipment in the door and thus 
does not account for infiltration through the door, which is a major 
component of infiltration in walk-ins. In addition, it is not intended 
for testing envelope systems, such as a walk-in, that have a large 
temperature difference between the internal and external air. 
Therefore, to complete a blower-door test, the walk-in could not be 
tested at or close to operational temperatures, resulting in a test 
that does not accurately reflect its performance.
    In the framework document, DOE considered adapting an existing test 
procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment, such as ARI Standard 
1200-2006, ``Performance Rating of Commercial Refrigerated Display 
Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets,'' as an alternative to AHRI 
Standard 1250-2009. The two tests are based on a similar methodology 
for rating refrigeration equipment in general, but ARI Standard 1200-
2006 requires testing at only one set of ambient conditions, whereas 
AHRI Standard 1250-2009 requires testing at three sets of ambient 
conditions for refrigeration systems with the condensing units located 
outdoors. The additional time required to test the system at three sets

[[Page 55090]]

of conditions would incur additional cost and could make AHRI Standard 
1250-2009 more burdensome than ARI Standard 1200-2006. However, DOE 
believes that AHRI Standard 1250-2009 is more appropriate for testing 
walk-ins than ARI Standard 1200-2006. A test procedure based on ARI 
Standard 1200-2006 would require the entire walk-in to be tested as a 
whole, but manufacturers might not have a large enough test facility to 
make the measurements necessary for the ARI 1200-2006 test procedure in 
a controlled environment. Also, the refrigeration system is often 
manufactured separately from the insulated envelope. In this case, 
whoever assembled the two components would bear the burden of 
conducting ARI 1200-2006; this party might not be the manufacturer of 
the refrigeration system. In contrast, AHRI 1250-2009 tests only the 
refrigeration system. It does not require a larger test chamber than 
other, similar tests and can be conducted by the manufacturer of the 
refrigeration system. Because AHRI 1250-2009 requires the system to be 
tested at three ambient temperatures, it captures energy savings from 
features (e.g., floating head pressure) that allow the system to use 
less energy at lower ambient temperatures.
    DOE requests comment on the impacts to small business manufacturers 
for these and any other possible alternatives to the proposed rule.

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    DOE recognizes that if it adopts standards for walk-in coolers and 
walk-in freezers, once the standards become operative, manufacturers 
would become subject to record-keeping requirements associated with 
compliance with the standards. Such record-keeping requirements would 
require OMB approval pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 
3501, et seq. DOE will comply with the requirements of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act if and when energy conservation standards are adopted.

E. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. With respect to a proposed regulatory action that may 
result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more 
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish estimates of the resulting costs, benefits, 
and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) UMRA 
also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to 
permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal 
governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate'' and 
requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely 
input before establishing any requirements that might significantly or 
uniquely potentially affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE 
published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental 
consultation under UMRA. 62 FR12820. (also available at http://www.gc.doe.gov). The proposed rule published today does not provide for 
any Federal mandate likely to result in an aggregate expenditure of 
$100 million or more. Therefore, the UMRA does not require a cost 
benefit analysis of today's proposal.

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

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

G. Review Under Executive Order 13132

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

H. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform'', 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Federal 
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) 
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to 
minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote 
simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable 
effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the 
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines 
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity 
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney 
General. Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive agencies to 
review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and 
section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to 
meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and 
determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed rule 
meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.

I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 
U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations 
of information to the public under guidelines established by each 
agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. Both OMB's and 
DOE's guidelines were published. 67 FR 8452 (February

[[Page 55091]]

22, 2002) and 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002), respectively. DOE has 
reviewed today's notice under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has 
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those 
guidelines.

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), OMB, a Statement 
of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A 
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency 
that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final 
rule, and that is (1) a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, 
or any successor order; and (2) likely to have a significant adverse 
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) 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 regulatory action is not a significant regulatory 
action under E.O. 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The 
Administrator of OIRA also did not designate today's action as a 
significant energy action. Therefore, it is not a significant energy 
action, and DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

K. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions 
and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights'', 53 
FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposed rule would not result in 
any takings which might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment 
to the U.S. Constitution.

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

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy 
Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy 
Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788) Section 32 
provides in part that where a proposed rule contains or involves use of 
commercial standards, the rulemaking must inform the public of the use 
and background of such standards. The rule proposed in this notice 
incorporates testing methods contained in the following commercial 
standards: ASTM C1303-08, ``Standard Test Method of Predicting Long 
Term Thermal Resistance of Closed-Cell Foam Insulation;'' ASTM E741-06, 
``Standard Test Method for Determining Air Change in a Single Zone by 
Means of a Tracer Gas Dilution;'' and AHRI Standard 1250P, ``2009 
Standard for Performance Rating of Walk in Coolers and Freezers.'' DOE 
has evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude whether they 
fully comply with the requirements of section 32(b) of the Federal 
Energy Administration Act, i.e., whether they were developed in a 
manner that fully provides for public participation, comment, and 
review. As required by section 32(c) of the Federal Energy 
Administration Act of 1974, as amended, DOE will consult with the 
Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission 
before prescribing a final rule concerning the impact on competition of 
requiring manufacturers to use the methods contained in these standards 
to test walk-in equipment.

V. Public Participation

A. Submitting Public Comment

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding the 
supplement to the proposed rule no later than the date provided at the 
beginning of this notice. Comments, data, and information submitted to 
DOE's e-mail address for this rulemaking should be provided in 
WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format. 
Interested parties should avoid the use of special characters or any 
form of encryption, and wherever possible, comments should include the 
electronic signature of the author. Comments, data, and information 
submitted to DOE via mail or hand delivery/courier should include one 
signed original paper copy. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
    According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that 
he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public 
disclosure should submit two copies: One copy of the document including 
all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the 
document with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE 
will make its own determination as to the confidential status of the 
information and treat it according to its determination.
    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat 
submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the 
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as 
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is 
generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the 
information has previously been made available to others without 
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the 
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from 
public disclosure; (6) a date upon which such information might lose 
its confidential nature due to the passage of time; and (7) why 
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

    DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments on the 
following issues:
1. Upper Limit of Walk-In Cooler
    EPCA defines walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer as ``an enclosed 
storage space refrigerated to temperatures, respectively, above, and at 
or below 32 degrees Fahrenheit that can be walked into, and has a total 
chilled storage area of less than 3,000 square feet.'' (42 U.S.C. 
6311(20)(A)) DOE proposes clarifying the term ``refrigerated'' within 
the definition of walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer to distinguish 
walk-ins from conditioned storage spaces. DOE proposes an upper limit 
of 55 [deg]F because this is a generally accepted boundary between 
``refrigerated space'' and ``conditioned space.'' DOE requests comment 
on this proposal. For details, see section III.A.1.
2. Basic Model of Envelope
    Although often manufactured according to the same basic design, 
walk-in envelopes are so highly customized that each walk-in a 
manufacturer builds may be unique. To address this possibility, DOE 
proposed the following in the January NOPR: (1) Grouping walk-in 
envelopes with essentially identical construction methods, materials, 
and components into a single basic model; and (2) adopting a 
calculation methodology for determining the energy consumption of units 
within the basic model. 75 FR 189.
    Upon further consideration, DOE proposes in this SNOPR that a basic 
model of walk-in envelope should include equipment with the same design 
features, components, manufacturing method, etc., such that

[[Page 55092]]

units within the basic model are the same with respect to the 
normalized energy consumption as determined by the test procedure 
(i.e., the energy consumption divided by square feet of surface area.) 
DOE believes that this definition of basic model will ensure that all 
equipment is accurately rated and complies with the standard.
    DOE recognizes this revised definition of ``basic model'' is 
narrower than the definition proposed in the January NOPR. However, the 
increase in test burden resulting from the narrower definition could be 
offset by the burden-reducing measures proposed elsewhere in the test 
procedure. Additionally, this definition would be consistent with the 
definition of basic model elsewhere in the appliance standards program. 
The proposed definition would provide a way of distinguishing walk-ins 
that differ in energy consumption from walk-ins that differ only in 
cosmetic or non-energy-related features. DOE requests comment on the 
proposed definition. For details, see section III.A.3.
3. Basic Model of Refrigeration
    Interested parties commented that the definition proposed in the 
January NOPR was ambiguous; thus, DOE proposes to clarify the 
definition.
    As with envelopes, DOE must ensure that all refrigeration systems 
are accurately rated and comply with the standard. Therefore, DOE 
proposes a definition for basic model of walk-in refrigeration such 
that units within the basic model must be the same with respect to 
energy consumption as determined by the test procedure. To relieve 
potential testing burden of many combinations of equipment, the 
proposed test procedure provides for rating a refrigeration system's 
condenser and evaporator separately and then calculating the system 
energy consumption. DOE requests comment on the revised approach and 
definition of basic model of refrigeration. For details, see section 
III.A.4.
4. Updates to Standards
    After the NOPR was published, DOE learned that two of the standards 
incorporated by reference had been updated. DOE proposes to incorporate 
the updated versions in the final rule. For details, see sections 
III.B.4 and III.C.2.
5. Heat Conduction Through Structural Members
    Interested parties commented that DOE's proposed test procedure did 
not account for heat conduction through structural members of the 
envelope such as a wood frame. Therefore, in this SNOPR, DOE proposes 
that panels (walls, ceilings, and floors) made with foam insulation are 
tested using ASTM C1363-05, ``Standard Test Method for Thermal 
Performance of Building Materials and Envelope Assemblies by Means of a 
Hot Box Apparatus,'' for measuring the overall U-factor of fully-
assembled panels. The resulting composite panel U-factor found by ASTM 
C1363-05 will then be corrected using the LTTR results from ASTM C1303-
10. DOE believes that using the results from ASTM C1363-05 modified by 
ASTM C1303-10 best captures the impact of structural members and long-
term R-value of foam products. DOE requests comment on this approach. 
For details, see section III.B.1.
6. Alternatives to ASTM C1303-10
    DOE proposes the use of alternative test methods found in Annex C 
of EN 13165:2009-02 and EN 13164:2009-02 for determining the long term 
thermal resistance (LTTR) of walk-in panels made using foam insulation. 
For details, see section III.B.3.
7. Improvements to ASTM C1303 Methodology
    DOE proposes several modifications to the ASTM C1303 methodology to 
address sample preparation and applicability to certain types of foam 
used in walk-ins and requests comment on these modifications. For 
details, see section III.B.5.
8. Conduction Through Floors
    In the January NOPR, DOE proposed an equation to calculate the heat 
transfer through the floor of both insulated and uninsulated WICF, and 
proposed assumptions for subfloor temperature and floor R-value (where 
the floor is provided separately from the panels). Between the 
publication of the January NOPR and the public meeting, DOE completed 
additional finite element model (FEM) computer simulations of floorless 
coolers. Based on FEM simulation results, DOE described a new equation 
during the public meeting for calculating heat transfer through 
floorless coolers. In light of this modeling and additional comments 
from interested parties, DOE is proposing a new method for calculating 
the heat transfer through certain floors. See section III.B.6 for more 
details.
9. ``Hybrid'' Walk-ins
    In the January NOPR, the calculation procedure provided a means of 
rating all walk-ins including the scenario when a freezer is sited 
inside a cooler or a cooler and freezer share a wall. Modifications 
described in this SNOPR ensure that the rating of these walk-in cooler/
freezer hybrids is properly captured. DOE seeks comment on these 
modifications and the accuracy of the new equations. See section 
III.B.7 for details.
10. U-Factor of Doors and Windows
    DOE proposes to base the calculation of U-factor of doors and glass 
windows on NFRC 100-2010-E0A1, ``Procedure for Determining Fenestration 
Product U-Factors'' and requests comment on this proposal. For details, 
see section III.B.7.
11. Envelope Infiltration
    DOE proposes modifications to its calculations and methodology for 
determining steady state infiltration rate through panel-to-panel and 
door-to-panel interfaces. DOE also modified its proposed assumptions 
for door opening infiltration and effectiveness of infiltration 
reduction devices. DOE requests comment on its approach and assumptions 
related to infiltration. For details, see sections III.B.9, III.B.10, 
III.B.11, and III.B.12.
12. Relative Humidity Assumptions
    In the January NOPR, DOE proposed the assumption of an internal 
walk-in relative humidity of 45 percent to be consistent with dry-coil 
conditions in the proposed refrigeration system test. DOE recognizes 
that in practice the relative humidity (RH) varies significantly 
depending on the product stored within a walk-in. Therefore, in order 
to reflect higher RH values experienced in practice, DOE proposes a new 
assumption of 75 percent RH for both freezer and cooler internal 
conditions. DOE seeks comment on this assumption. See section III.B.7 
for details.
13. Definition of Refrigeration System
    In the January NOPR, DOE proposed a definition of refrigeration 
system and then presented a revised definition at the NOPR public 
meeting. In light of comments from interested parties, DOE is proposing 
to incorporate its revised definition with some modification. DOE 
requests comment on the revised definition and whether any previously 
proposed versions of the definition are preferable. See section III.C.1 
for details.
14. Annual Walk-In Energy Factor
    DOE is required by EPCA to establish a test procedure to measure 
the energy use of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers. (42 U.S.C. 
6314(a)(9)(B)(i)) AHRI 1250-2009 determines the annual walk-in energy 
factor (AWEF) as its final metric, which is the ratio of the annual

[[Page 55093]]

net heat removed from the box, which includes the internal heat gains 
from non-refrigeration components but excludes the heat gains from the 
refrigeration components in the box, to the annual energy consumption. 
In the course of performing the test procedure and determining AWEF, 
the annual energy use of a walk-in refrigeration system may be found as 
an intermediate result or easily derived from AWEF or other 
intermediate results. Thus, DOE proposes to simplify the method by 
which energy use is determined and require manufacturers to determine 
both energy use and AWEF. DOE requests comment on the simplified 
calculations in the rule language. For details, see section III.C.3.
15. Impacts on Small Businesses
    In the January NOPR, DOE prepared an initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis (IRFA) as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.) because it could not certify that the rule, if 
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. DOE received comment from 
interested parties on the number of small entities and the expected 
economic impact of the proposed test procedure on small entities and 
has revised the IRFA accordingly. DOE continues to request comment on 
impacts to small business manufacturers, particularly differential 
impacts to small and large businesses. More information, along with 
revisions to the IRFA, can be found in section IV.C.

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this supplement 
to the proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Incorporation by reference, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 23, 2010.
Cathy Zoi,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE proposes to revise part 
431 of chapter II of title 10, of the Code of Federal Regulations, to 
read as set forth below.

PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND 
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

    1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.

    2. Section 431.302 is amended by adding the definitions for ``Basic 
Model,'' ``Envelope,'' ``Refrigerated,'' ``Refrigeration system,'' and 
``Walk-in equipment'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  431.302  Definitions concerning walk-in coolers and walk-in 
freezers.

    Basic model means--
    (1) With respect to envelopes, all units manufactured by a single 
entity, which do not have any differing features or characteristics 
that affect normalized energy consumption.
    (2) With respect to refrigeration systems, all units manufactured 
by a single entity, which do not have any differing electrical, 
physical, or functional characteristics that affect energy consumption.
    Envelope means--
    (1) The portion of a walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer that 
isolates the interior, refrigerated environment from the ambient, 
external environment; and
    (2) All energy-consuming components of the walk-in cooler or walk-
in freezer that are not part of its refrigeration system.
    Refrigerated means held at a temperature at or below 55 degrees 
Fahrenheit using a refrigeration system.
    Refrigeration system means the mechanism (including all controls 
and other components integral to the system's operation) used to create 
the refrigerated environment in the interior of a walk-in cooler or 
freezer, consisting of:
    (1) A packaged system where the unit cooler and condensing unit are 
integrated into a single piece of equipment,
    (2) A split system with separate unit cooler and condensing unit 
sections, or
    (3) A unit cooler that is connected to a multiplex condensing 
system.
* * * * *
    Walk-in equipment means either the envelope or the refrigeration 
system of a walk-in cooler or freezer.
    3. In Sec.  431.303, add new paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), 
(b)(5), (c), (d), and (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  431.303  Materials incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) ASTM C1303-10, Standard Test Method of Predicting Long Term 
Thermal Resistance of Closed-Cell Foam Insulation, approved 2010, IBR 
approved for Sec.  431.304.
    (3) ASTM C1363-05, Standard Test Method for Thermal Performance of 
Building Materials and Envelope Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box 
Apparatus, approved 2005, IBR approved for Sec.  431.304.
    (4) ASTM E283-04, Standard Test Method for Determining Rate of Air 
Leakage Through Exterior Windows, Curtain Walls, and Doors Under 
Specified Pressure Differences Across the Specimen, approved 2004, IBR 
approved for Sec.  431.304.
    (5) ASTM E741-06 Standard Test Method for Determining Air Change in 
a Single Zone by Means of a Tracer Gas Dilution, approved October 1, 
2006, IBR approved for Sec. 431.304.
    (c) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, 
2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 600-0366, 
or http://www.ahrinet.org.
    (1) AHRI Standard 1250-2009, 2009 Standard for Performance Rating 
of Walk-In Coolers and Freezers, approved September 2009, IBR approved 
for Sec.  431.304.
    (2) [Reserved].
    (d) CEN. European Committee for Standardization (French: Norme or 
German: Norm), Avenue Marnix 17, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium, Tel: + 32 2 
550 08 11, Fax: + 32 2 550 08 19 or http://www.cen.eu/.
    (1) EN 13164:2009-02, Thermal insulation products for buildings--
Factory made products of extruded polystyrene foam (XPS)--
Specification, approved February 2009, IBR approved for Sec.  431.304.
    (2) EN 13165:2009-02, Thermal insulation products for buildings--
Factory made rigid polyurehane foam (PUR) products--Specification, 
approved February 2009, IBR approved for Sec.  431.304.
    (e) NFRC. National Fenestration Rating Council, 6305 Ivy Lane, Ste. 
140, Greenbelt, MD 20770, (301) 589-1776, or http://www.nfrc.org.
    (1) NFRC 100-2010-E0A1, Procedure for Determining Fenestration 
Product U-factors, approved June 2010, IBR approved for Sec.  431.304.
    (2) NFRC 400-2010-E0A1, Procedure for Determining Fenestration 
Product Air Leakage, approved June 2010, IBR approved for Sec.  
431.304.
    4. Section 431.304 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  431.304  Uniform test method for the measurement of energy 
consumption of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers.

    (a) Scope. This section provides test procedures for measuring, 
pursuant to

[[Page 55094]]

EPCA, the energy consumption of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers.
    (b) Testing and Calculations
    (1) Determine the energy consumption of walk-in cooler and walk-in 
freezer envelopes by conducting the test procedure specified in 
Appendix A to this subpart.
    (i) Determine the Annual Walk-in Energy Factor of walk-in cooler 
and walk-in freezer refrigeration systems by conducting the test 
procedure set forth in AHRI Standard 1250-2009 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.303).
    (ii) Determine the annual energy consumption of walk-in cooler and 
walk-in freezer refrigeration systems:
    (A) For systems consisting of an integrated single-package 
refrigeration unit or a split system with separate unit cooler and 
condensing unit sections, where the condensing unit is located 
outdoors, by conducting the test procedure set forth in AHRI Standard 
1250-2009 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.303) and recording 
the annual energy consumption term in the equation for annual walk-in 
energy factor in section 7:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.037

where tj and n represent the outdoor temperature at each 
bin j and the number of hours in each bin j, respectively, for the 
temperature bins listed in Table D1 of AHRI Standard 1250-2009 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.303).

    (B) For systems consisting of an integrated single-package 
refrigeration unit or a split system with separate unit cooler and 
condensing unit sections, where the condensing unit is located in a 
conditioned space, by performing the following calculation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.038

where BLH and BLL for refrigerator and freezer systems are defined 
in section 6.2.1 and 6.2.2, respectively, of AHRI Standard 1250-2009 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.303) and the annual walk-
in energy factor is calculated from the results of the test 
procedures set forth in AHRI Standard 1250-2009 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.303).

    (C) For systems consisting of a unit cooler connected to a rack 
system, by performing the following calculation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.039

where BLH and BLL refrigerator and freezer systems are defined in 
section 7.9.2.2 and 7.9.2.3, respectively, of AHRI Standard 1250-
2009 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.303) and the annual 
walk-in energy factor is calculated from the results of the test 
procedures set forth in AHRI Standard 1250-2009 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.303).

    5. Appendix A is added to subpart R of part 431 to read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart R of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for the 
Measurement of Energy Consumption of the Envelopes of Walk-In Coolers 
and Walk-In Freezers

1.0 SCOPE

    This appendix covers the test requirements used to measure the 
energy consumption of the envelopes of walk-in coolers and walk-in 
freezers.

2.0 DEFINITIONS

    The definitions contained in Sec.  431.302 are applicable to 
this appendix.

2.1 Additional Definitions

    (a) Steady-state: The condition where the average internal 
temperature changes less than 1[deg]C (2 [deg]F) from one hour 
period to the next.
    (b) Door: An assembly installed in or on an interior or exterior 
wall; that is movable in a sliding, pivoting, hinged, or revolving 
manner of movement; and that is used to produce or close off an 
opening in the walk-in. For walk-ins, a door includes the door 
panel, glass, framing materials, door plug, mullion, and any other 
elements that form the door or part of its connection to the wall.
    (1) Passage door: A door designed for human passage or movement 
of product through the walk-in. A passage door may accommodate a 
hand cart or equivalent.
    (2) Freight door: A door designed for human passage or movement 
of product through the walk-in. A freight door may accommodate a 
forklift or equivalent.
    (3) Display door: A door designed for the movement and/or 
display of product rather than the passage of persons
    (4) Glass door: A door comprised of 50 percent or more glass, 
irrespective of intended use.
    (c) Surface area: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the 
surface area for all measurements is the area as measured on the 
external surface of the walk-in.
    (d) Automatic door opener/closer: A device or control system 
that ``automatically'' opens and closes doors without direct user 
contact (e.g., a motion sensor that senses when a forklift is 
approaching the entrance to a door, opens, and then closes after the 
forklift has passed).
    (e) Rating conditions: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all 
calculations and test procedure measurements shall use the 
temperature and relative humidity data shown in Table A.VI.1. For 
installations where two or more walk-in envelopes share any 
surface(s), the ``external conditions'' of the shared surface(s) 
should reflect the internal conditions of the neighboring walk-in.

       Table A.VI.1--Temperature and Relative Humidity Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Value    Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Internal Conditions (cooled space within envelope)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooler:
  Dry Bulb Temperature................................       35   [deg]F
  Relative Humidity...................................       75        %
Freezer:
  Dry Bulb Temperature................................      -10   [deg]F
  Relative Humidity...................................       75        %
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          External Conditions (space external to the envelope)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freezer and Cooler:
  Dry Bulb Temperature................................       75   [deg]F
  Relative Humidity...................................       52        %
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Subfloor Temperature
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Freezers & Coolers:
  Temperature.........................................       55   [deg]F
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 55095]]

3.0 TEST APPARATUS AND GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

3.1 Conduction Heat Gain

3.1.1 Glass Area

    (a) All dimensional measurements for glass doors include the 
door frame and glass.
    (b) Calculate the individual and total glass door surface area, 
Aglass door, as follows, ft\2\:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.041

Where:

i = index for each type of unique glass door used in cooler or 
freezer being tested;
ni = number of identical glass doors of type i;
Wglass door,i = width of glass door (including door 
frame), ft; and
Hglass door,i= height of glass door (including door 
frame), ft.

    (c) Calculate the glass wall individual and total glass surface 
area, Aglass,wall, as follows, ft\2\:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.043

Where:

i = index for each type of unique glass wall used in cooler or 
freezer being tested;
ni = number of identical glass walls of type i;
Wglass,wall,i = width of glass wall (including glass 
framing), ft; and
Hglass,wall,i= height of glass wall (including glass 
framing), ft.

    (d) Calculate the total combined glass door and glass wall area, 
Aglass,tot, as follows, ft\2\:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.044

Where:

Aglass door, tot= total glass door area, ft\2\; and
Aglass wall, tot= total glass wall area, ft\2\.

3.1.2 Temperature Difference Across Glass Areas

    (a) Calculate the temperature differential(s) 
[Delta]Tglass door,j for each unique glass door as 
follows, [deg]F:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.045

Where:

j= index for each type of unique glass door temperature differential 
used--for example if a freezer glass door opens into a cooler 
internal conditioned temperature and a freezer glass door opens into 
external temperature, j=2;
TDB,int,glass door,j = dry-bulb air temperature inside 
the cooler or freezer where the door is located, [deg]F;
TDB,ext,glass door,j = dry-bulb air temperature external 
to the door of type j, [deg]F.

(b) Calculate the temperature differential(s) 
[Delta]Tglass,wall,j for each unique glass wall, as 
follows ([deg]F):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.046

Where:

j = index for each type of unique glass wall temperature 
differential used;
TDB,int,glass,wall,j = dry-bulb air temperature inside 
the cooler or freezer, [deg]F; and
TDB,ext,glass,wall,j = dry-bulb air temperature external 
to cooler or freezer, [deg]F.

3.1.3 Non-Glass Area

    Calculate the individual and total surface area of the walk-in 
non-glass envelope components Anon-floor panel edge,i, 
Anon-floor panel edge,tot, 
Anon-floor panel core,i, 
Anon-floor panel core,tot, 
Afloor panel edge,i, Afloor panel edge,tot, 
Afloor panel core,i, Afloor panel core,tot, 
Anon-glass door,i, and Anon-glass door,tot, as 
follows (ft\2\):

[[Page 55096]]

    (a) Anon-floor panel edge,i, ft\2\, (see 
Figure 2 to help visualize the area calculations)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.047

Where:

i = index for each type of unique non-floor panel--for example, if a 
walk-in is constructed of non-floor panels that are of two different 
thicknesses or manufactured using two different foam insulation 
products but panel dimensions are all identical, i=2 or, if a walk-
in is constructed of non-floor panels that are all of identical 
thicknesses and identical materials but of non-floor panels of 15 
different dimensions, i=15;
ni = number of identical panels of type i;
Xedge test region = Panel Edge Test Region width, as 
shown in Figure 3, ft;
Wnon-floor panel,i = non-floor panel width, of thickness 
and underlying materials of type i, ft; and
Lnon-floor panel,i = non-floor panel length, of thickness 
and underlying materials of type i, ft;

    (b) Anon-floor panel edge,tot, ft\2\
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.048
    
Where:

i = index for each type of unique non-floor panel; and
Anon-floor panel edge, i= non-floor panel edge area, of 
thickness and underlying materials of type i, ft\2\.

    (c) Anon-floor panel core,i, ft\2\
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.049
    
Where:

i = index for each type of unique non-floor panel;
ni = number of identical panels, of thickness and 
underlying materials of type i;
Anon-floor panel edge,i= panel non-floor edge area, of 
thickness and underlying materials of type i, ft\2\;
Wnon-floor panel,i = non-floor panel width, of thickness 
and underlying materials of type i, ft; and
Lnon-floor panel,i = non-floor panel length, of thickness 
and underlying materials of type i, ft;

    (d) Anon-floor panel core,tot, ft\2\

[[Page 55097]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.050

Where:

i = index for each type of unique non-floor panel; and
Anon-floor panel core, i= non-floor panel core area, of 
thickness and underlying materials of type i, ft\2\;

    (e) Afloor panel edge,i, ft\2\
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.051
    
Where:

i = index for each type of unique floor panel;
ni = number of identical panels, of thickness and 
underlying materials of type i;
Xedge test region = Panel Edge Test Region width, as 
shown in Figure 3, ft;
Wfloor panel,i = floor panel width, of thickness and 
underlying materials of type i, ft; and
Lfloor panel,i = floor panel length, of thickness and 
underlying materials of type i, ft;

    (f) Afloor panel edge,tot, ft\2\;
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.052
    
Where:

i = index for each type of unique floor panel; and
Afloor panel edge, i= floor panel edge area, of thickness 
and underlying materials of type i, ft\2\.
    (g) Afloor panel core,i, ft\2\
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.053
    
Where:

i = index for each type of unique floor panel;
ni = number of identical panels, of thickness and 
underlying materials of type i;
Afloor panel edge,i= floor panel edge area, of thickness 
and underlying materials of type i, ft\2\;
Wnon-floor panel,i = floor panel width, of thickness and 
underlying materials of type i, ft; and
Lnon-floor panel,i = floor panel length, of thickness and 
underlying materials of type i, ft;

    (h) Afloor panel core,tot, ft\2\
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.054
    
Where:

    i = index for each type of unique floor panel; and
Afloor panel core, i= floor panel core area, of thickness 
and underlying materials of type i, ft\2\.
(i) Anon-glass door,i, ft\2\
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.055

Where:

i = index for each type of unique non-glass door;
ni = number of identical glass doors, of thickness and 
underlying materials of type i;
Wnon-glass door,i = non-glass door width, of thickness 
and underlying materials of type i, ft; and
Hnon-glass door,i = non-glass door height, of thickness 
and underlying materials of type i, ft.

    (j) Anon-glass door,tot, ft\2\

[[Page 55098]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.056

Where:

i = index for each type of unique non-glass door; and
Anon-glass door,i= non-glass door area, of thickness and 
underlying materials of type i, ft\2\.

    (k) Anon-glass tot, ft\2\
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.057
    
Where:

Anon-floor panel edge, tot= non-floor panel edge total 
area, ft\2\;
Anon-floor panel core, tot= non-floor panel core total 
area, ft\2\;
Afloor panel edge, tot= floor panel edge total area, 
ft\2\;
Afloor panel core, tot= floor panel core total area, 
ft\2\; and
Anon-glass door,tot= non-glass door total area, ft\2\.

3.1.4 Temperature Difference Across Non-Glass Areas

    Calculate the temperature differential(s) 
[Delta]Tnon-floor panel,j, 
[Delta]Tfloor panel,j, and 
[Delta]Tnon-glass door,j, [deg]F, as follows:
    (a) [xutri]Tnon-floor panel, j, [deg]F
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.058
    
Where:

j = index for each type of non-floor panel temperature differential;
TDB,int, non-floor panel,j = dry-bulb air internal 
temperature, [deg]F. If the panel spans both cooler and freezer 
temperatures, the freezer temperature must be used; and
TDB, ext, non-floor panel, j = dry-bulb air external 
temperature, [deg]F.

    (b) [xutri]Tfloor, j, [deg]F
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.059
    
Where:

j = index for each type of floor panel temperature differential;
TDB, int, floor panel, j = dry-bulb air internal 
temperature, [deg]F. If the panel spans both cooler and freezer 
temperatures, the freezer temperature must be used; and
TDB, ext, floor panel, j = 55[deg] F, as defined in Table 
A.VI.1.

    (c) [xutri]Tnon-glass door, j, [deg]F
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.060
    
Where:

j = index for each type of non-glass door temperature differential;
TDB, int, non-glass door, j = dry-bulb air internal 
temperature, [deg]F. If the panel spans both cooler and freezer 
temperatures, the freezer temperature must be used; and
TDB, ext, non-glass door, j = dry-bulb air external 
temperature, [deg]F.

3.1.5 Conduction Heat Load Across Glass Areas

(a) Calculate the conduction load through the glass doors, 
Qcond-glass, door, as follows btu/h:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.061

Where:

i = index for each type of unique glass door;
j = index for each type of glass door temperature differential;
ni, j = number of identical glass doors of type i with 
temperature differential j;
Uglass door, i = thermal transmittance, U-factor of the 
door, of type i, as rated by NFRC see section 4.4.1, Btu/h-ft\2\-
[deg]F;
Aglass door, i = total surface area of all walk-in glass 
doors of type i, ft\2\; and
[xutri]Tglass door, j = temperature 
differential between refrigerated and adjacent zones of type j, 
[deg]F.

(b) Calculate the conduction load through the glass walls, 
(Qcond-glass, wall), btu/h, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.062

Where:

i = index for each type of unique glass wall;
j = index for each type of glass wall temperature differential;

[[Page 55099]]

ni, j = number of identical glass walls of type i with 
temperature differential j;
Uglass, wall, i = thermal transmittance, U-factor of the 
glass wall, of type i, as rated by NFRC see section 4.4.1 Btu/h-
ft\2\-[deg]F;
Aglass, wall, i = total surface area of all walk-in glass 
walls of type i, ft\2\; and
[xutri]Tglass, wall, j= temperature differential between 
refrigerated and adjacent zones of type j, [deg]F.

3.1.6 Panel Long Term Thermal Transmittance

    (a) Calculate the foam degradation factor, (DFi), 
unitless, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.063

Where:

i= index each type of unique foam used in the walk-in envelope--for 
example if a walk-in uses one foam type for non-floor panels and 
another foam type for floor panels, i=2;
RLTTR, i = the R-value, from ASTM C1303-10, per 4.1.2 of 
foam type i, h-ft\2\-[deg]F/Btu; and
R0, i = the R-value of foam used for determining EPCA 
compliance of foam type i, h-ft\2\-[deg]F/Btu.

    (b) Calculate the long term thermal transmittance, 
(ULT, non-floor panel core, i), Btu/h-ft\2\-[deg]F, as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.064

Where:

i= index each type of unique foam used in the walk-in envelope;
Unon-floor panel core, i = the U-factor, per 4.1.1 of 
foam type i, Btu/h-ft\2\-[deg]F; and
DFi = the degradation of foam type i, unitless.

    (c) Calculate the long term thermal transmittance, 
(ULT, floor panel core, i), Btu/h-ft\2\-[deg]F, as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.065

Where:

i= index each type of unique foam used in the walk-in envelope;
Ufloor panel core, i = the U-factor, per 4.1.1 of foam 
type i, Btu/h-ft\2\-[deg]F; and
DFi = the degradation of foam type i, unitless.

3.1.7 Conduction Heat Load Across Non-Glass Areas

    Calculate the conduction heat load through all non-glass 
components: Qcond-non-floor panel, 
Qcond-floor panel, Qcond-non-glass door and 
Qcond-non-glass, as follows btu/h:

    (a) Qcond-non-floor panel, btu/h,
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.066
    
Where:

i = index for each type of unique component of type i;
j = index for each unique temperature differential of type j;
ni,j = number of identical non-floor panels of type i 
with temperature differential;
[Delta]Tnon-floor panel,j = temperature differential 
across the non-floor panels of type i, [deg]F;
Unon-floor panel edge,i = U-factor for panel edge area 
type i, per 4.1.1, Btu/h-ft\2\-[deg]F;
ULT,non-floor panel core,i = Long term thermal 
transmittance of foam type i, per section 4.1.1, Btu/h-ft\2\-[deg]F;
Anon-floor panel edge,i = area of non-floor panel edge of 
type i, ft\2\; and
Anon-floor panel core,i = area of non-floor panel core of 
type i, ft\2\.

    (b) Qcond-floor panel, btu/h,
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.067
    
Where:

i = index for each type of unique component of type i;
j = index for each unique temperature differential of type j;
ni,j = number of identical floor panels of type i with 
temperature differential j;
[Delta]Tnon-floor panel,j = temperature differential 
across the floor panels of type i, [deg]F;
Ufloor panel edge,i = U-factor for panel edge area type 
i, per 4.1.1, Btu/h-ft\2\-[deg]F;
ULT,floor panel core,i = Long term thermal transmittance 
of foam type i, per 4.1.1, Btu/h-ft\2\-[deg]F;
Afloor panel edge,i = area of floor panel edge of type i, 
ft\2\; and
Afloor panel core,i = area of floor panel core of type i, 
ft\2\.

    (1) Exception to Qcond-floor panel: If the walk-in is 
at cooler temperature and has an uninsulated floor, then 
Qcond-floor panel, btu/h, is as follows:
    (i) If Afloor <= 750 ft\2\, then
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.068
    
    (ii) If Afloor > 750 ft\2\, then

[[Page 55100]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.069

Where:

Afloor = total area of the floor, as measured from the 
walk-in architectural drawing, ft\2\.

    (2) Exception to Qcond-floor panel: If the walk-in is 
at freezer temperature and an insulated floor has not being shipped 
with the walk-in, then Qcond-floor panel, is as follows 
btu/h:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.070

Where:

Afloor = total area of the floor, as measured from the 
walk-in architectural drawing, ft\2\.
[Delta]Tfloor = temperature differential across the 
freezer floor as defined in 3.1.4(b), [deg]F
Rfreezer floor = 28 ft\2\-[deg]F-h/Btu, as required by 
EPCA.

    (c) Qcond-non-glass door, btu/h,
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.071
    
Where:

i = index for each type of unique component of type i;
j = index for each unique temperature differential of type j;
ni,j = number of identical non-glass doors of type i with 
temperature differential j;
[Delta]Tnon-non glass door,j = temperature differential 
across the floor panels of type i, [deg]F;
Unon-glass door,i = U-factor for panel edge area type i, 
per 4.4.1, Btu/h-ft\2\-[deg]F; and
Anon-glass door,i = area of floor panel edge of type i, 
ft\2\.

    (d) Total conduction load for non-glass areas, 
Qcond-non-glass, as follows btu/h:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.072

Where:

Qcond-non-floor panel = conduction through non-floor 
panels, btu/h;
Qcond-floor panel = conduction through floor panels, btu/
h; and
Qcond-non-glass door = conduction through non-glass 
doors, btu/h.

    (1) Exception: If calculating Qcond-non-glass for an 
uninsulated cooler or for a freezer where an insulated floor is not 
part of walk-in, calculate as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.073

Where:

Qcond-non-floor panel = conduction through non-floor 
panels, btu/h;
Qcond-floor panel = conduction through floor, as found in 
3.1.7(b)(1) or (2) btu/h; and
Qcond-non-glass door = conduction through non-glass 
doors, btu/h.

3.1.8 Total Conduction Load

    (a) Calculate total conduction load, Qcond, as 
follows btu/h:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.074

Where:

Qcond-non-glass = total conduction load through non-glass components 
of walk-in, Btu/h;
Qcond-glass,wall = total conduction load through walk-in glass 
walls, Btu/h; and
Qcond-glass,door = total conduction load through walk-in glass 
doors, Btu/h.

3.2 Infiltration Heat Gain

3.2.1 Steady State Infiltration Calculations

    (a) Convert dry-bulb internal and external air temperatures from 
[deg]F to Rankine ([deg]R), as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.075

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.076

Where:

TDB-int,R = the dry-bulb temperature of internal walk-in air, 
[deg]R; and
TDB-ext,R = the average dry-bulb temperature of air surrounding the 
walk-in, [deg]R.

    (b) Calculate the water vapor saturation pressure for the 
external air and the internal refrigerated air, as follows:
    (1) If TDB,R < 491.67 [deg]R (32 [deg]F), use the 
following equation to calculate water vapor saturation pressure 
(Pws in psia):

[[Page 55101]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.077

Where:

TDB,R = dry-bulb temperature in Rankine (for the internal or 
external air),
C1 = -1.0214165 E+04,
C2 = -4.8932428 E+00,
C3 = -5.3765794 E-03,
C4 = 1.9202377 E-07,
C5 = 3.5575832 E-10,
C6 = -9.0344688 E-14, and
C7 = 4.1635019 E+00.

    (2) If TDB,R > 491.67 [deg]R (32 [deg]F), use the 
following equation to calculate water vapor saturation pressure, 
Pws, psia:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.078

Where:

TDB,R = dry-bulb temperature (for the internal and external air), 
[deg]R;
C8 = -1.0440397 E+04;
C9 = -1.1294650 E+01;
C10 = -2.7022355 E-02;
C11 = 1.2890360 E-05;
C12 = -2.4780681 E-09; and
C13 = 6.5459673 E+00.

    (c) Calculate the absolute humidity ratio, w, as follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.079
    
Where:

RH = relative humidity in (for the internal or external air), and
Pws = water vapor saturation pressure, psia.

    (d) Calculate air specific volume, v, (ft\3\/lb), as follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.080
    
Where:

TDB,R = dry-bulb temperature (for the internal or external air), 
[deg]R; and
v = specific volume of air, ft\3\/lb.

    (e) Calculate air density, air density, lb/ft\3\, as follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.081
    
Where:

v = specific volume of air, ft\3\/lb.

    (f) Calculate the enthalpy for the internal and external air, h, 
as follows btu/lb:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.082

Where:

TDB,F = dry-bulb temperature (for the internal or external air), 
[deg]F; and
w = absolute humidity ratio, unitless.

    (g) Calculate the total crack length, CL,(ft), using 
the architectural drawing of the walk-in,
    (h) Calculate the steady state infiltration rate of the walk-
in,Vj, ft\3\/h:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.083

Where:

j = index of type cooler or freezer;
VL = the normalized infiltration rate per section 4.2 of this 
document using the architectural drawing of the walk-in, ft\3\/h-ft; 
and
CL = total crack length, ft.

    (i) Calculate the total infiltration load due to steady-state 
infiltration, (Qinfilt panel), Btu/h, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.084

Where:

j = index of cooler or freezer temperature;
Vj = the infiltration rate measured at test temperature j, per 
section 4.2, ft\3\/h;
[rho]int,j = internal air density, lb/ft\3\;
[rho]ext,j = external air density, lb/ft\3\;
hint,j = internal air enthalpy, Btu/lb; and
hext,j = external air enthalpy, Btu/lb.

3.2.2 Door Steady-State Infiltration Calculations

    (a) Calculate the steady-state infiltration associated with 
doors as follows, Vdoor steady,i\3\/h:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.085

Where:

    i = index of each unique door geometry and temperature 
differential combination;
    ni = number of identical doors of type i, unitless; 
and
Vdoor1Q = door steady state infiltration as found 
following section 4.4.2, ft\3\/h.

    (b) Calculate the total infiltration load due to steady-state 
infiltration through doors, Qdoor steady, btu/h, as 
follows:

[[Page 55102]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.086

Where:

i = index of type cooler or freezer temperature;
Vdoor steady,i = total door steady-state infiltration, ft\3\/h;
[rho]int,i = internal air density, as found in 3.2.1 above, lb/
ft\3\;
[rho]ext,i = external air density, as found in 3.2.1 above, lb/
ft\3\;
hint,i = internal air enthalpy, as found in 3.2.1 above, Btu/lb; and
hext,i = external air enthalpy, as found in 3.2.1 above, Btu/lb.

3.2.3 Door Opening Infiltration Calculations

    (a) Calculate the portion of time each doorway is open, 
Dt, unitless, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.087

Where:

i = index for each unique door--for example a unique door must be of 
the same geometry, underlying materials, function, and have the same 
temperature difference across the door;
P = number of doorway passages (i.e., number of door opening 
events);
[thetas]p = door open-close time, seconds per opening P;
[thetas]u = time door stands open, minutes; and
[thetas]d = daily time period, h.

    (1) Number of doorway passages: For display glass doors, P = 72, 
for passage doors, P = 60 and for freight doors, P = 120.
    (2) Door open-close time: For display glass doors, 
[thetas]p = 8 seconds, for passage doors, 
[thetas]p = 15 and for freight doors, 
[thetas]p = 60.
    (3) Door open-close time if an automatic door opener/closer is 
used: For passage doors, [thetas]p = 10 and for freight 
doors, [thetas]p = 30.
    (4) Time door stands open: Display glass doors, 
[thetas]o = 0 minutes, for passage doors 
[thetas]o = 30 minutes and for freight doors 
[thetas]o = 60 minutes.
    (5) Time door stands open if an automatic door opener/closer is 
used: For passage doors [thetas]o = 10 minutes and for 
freight doors [thetas]o = 20 minutes.
    (6) Daily time period: All walk-ins, [thetas]d = 24 
hours
    (b) Calculate the density factor, Fm, for each door, 
as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.088

Where:

i = index for each unique door
[rho]int,i = internal air density, of door type i, lb/
ft\3\; and
[rho]ext,i = external air density, of door type i, lb/
ft\3\.

    (c) Calculate the infiltration load for fully established flow 
through each door, qi (Btu/h), as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.089

Where:
i = index for each unique door;
Ai = doorway area, of door type i, ft\2\;
hint,i = internal air enthalpy, of door type i, Btu/lb;
hext,i = external air enthalpy, of door type i, Btu/lb;
[rho]int,i = internal air density, of door type i, lb/
ft\3\;
[rho]ext,i = external air density, of door type i, lb/
ft\3\;
Hi = doorway height, of door type i, ft;
Fm,i = density factor, of door type i, and
g = acceleration of gravity, 32.174 ft/sec.\2\.

    (d) Calculate the doorway infiltration reduction device 
effectiveness, E (%), at the same test conditions as described in 
steady-state infiltration section, as follows:
    (1) Calculate the infiltration reduction effectiveness:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.090
    
Where:

i = index for each unique doorway size of type small, medium or 
large;
j = index for each unique infiltration reduction device (IRD) of 
type i;
Vrate,with-device i,j = air infiltration rate, with door open and 
reduction device active, 4.3, 1/h, if a device j is not used with 
the doorway i, Vrate,with-device i,j = Vrate,without-device i,j ; 
and
Vrate,without-device i,j = air infiltration rate, with door open and 
reduction device disabled or removed, using 4.3, 1/h.

(e) Calculate the total door opening infiltration load for all door-
IRD combinations, Qdoor open, (Btu/h), as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.091

Where:

    i = index for each unique combination of doorway size, 
temperature difference and Dt, of type i--for example, if 
the walk-in has a small, medium and large door, i = 3, or if the 
walk-in has ten identical dimensioned display doors and one passage 
door all with the same temperature differential, i = 2;
j = index for the effectiveness of IRD type j;
ni = number of doorways of type i being considered in the 
calculation;
qi = infiltration load for fully established flow, Btu/h;
Dt,i = doorway open-time factor as calculated for each unique door 
way, unitless;
Df = doorway flow factor, 0.8 for freezers and coolers (from ASHRAE 
Fundamentals), unitless;
Ei,j = effectiveness of doorway type i with IRD type j, as measured 
by gas tracer test, %.

3.3 Energy Consumption Due to Total Heat Gain

    (a) Calculate the total thermal load, Qtot, (Btu/h), 
as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.092


[[Page 55103]]


Where:

Qinfilt panel = total load due to steady-state infiltration, Btu/h;
Qcond = total load due to conduction, Btu/h;
Qdoor steady = total load due to door steady-state infiltration, 
Btu/h; and
Qdoor open = total load due to door opening infiltration, Btu/h.

    (b) Select Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER), as follows:
    (1) For coolers, use EER = 12.4 Btu/Wh.
    (2) For freezers, use EER = 6.3 Btu/Wh.
    (c) Calculate the total daily energy consumption due to thermal 
load, Qtot,EER, (kWh/day), as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.093

Where:

Qtot = total thermal load, Btu/h; and
EER= EER of walk-in (cooler or freezer), Btu/Wh.

3.4 Energy Consumption Related to Electrical Components

    Electrical components contained within a walk-in could include, 
but are not limited to: Heater wire (for anti-sweat or anti-freeze 
application); lights (including display door lighting systems); 
control system units; and sensors.

3.4.1 Direct Energy Consumption of Electrical Components

    (a) Select the required value for percent time off for each type 
of electricity consuming device, PTOt (%):
    (1) For lights without timers, control system or other demand-
based control, PTO=25 percent. For lighting with timers, control 
system or other demand-based control, PTO=50 percent.
    (2) For anti-sweat heaters on coolers (if required): Without 
timers, control system or other demand-based control, PTO=0 percent. 
With timers, control system or other demand-based control, PTO=75 
percent. For anti-sweat heaters on freezers (if required): Without 
timers, control system or other auto-shut-off systems, PTO=0 
percent. With timers, control system or other demand-based control, 
PTO=50 percent.
    (3) For active infiltration reduction devices: Without control 
by door open or closed position, PTO=25 percent. With control by 
door open or closed position for display doors, PTO=99.33 percent. 
With control by door open or closed position for other doors, 
PTO=99.17 percent.
    (4) For all other electricity consuming devices: Without timers, 
control system, or other auto-shut-off systems, PTO=0 percent. If it 
can be demonstrated that the device is controlled by preinstalled 
timers, control system or other auto-shut-off systems, PTO=25 
percent.
    (b) Calculate the power usage for each type of electricity 
consuming device, Pcomp,t, (kWh/day), as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.094

Where:

u = index for each type of electricity consuming device sited inside 
the walk-in envelope and/or sited external the walk-in envelope, 
inside, u=int, external, u=ext;
t = index for each type of electricity consuming device with 
identical rated power;
Prated,u,t = rated power of each component, of type t, 
kW;
PTOu,t = percent time off, for device of type t, %; and
nu,t = number of devices at the rated power of type t, 
unitless.

    (c) Calculate the total electrical energy consumption, 
Ptot, (kWh/day), as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.095

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.096

Where:

t = index for each type of electricity consuming device with 
identical rated power;
Pcomp,int, t = the energy usage for an electricity consuming device 
sited inside the walk-in envelope, of type t, kWh/day; and
Pcomp,ext, t = the energy usage for an electricity consuming device 
sited outside the walk-in envelope, of type t, kWh/day.

3.4.2 Total Indirect Electricity Consumption Due to Electrical Devices

    (a) Calculate the additional compressor load due to thermal 
output from electrical components sited inside the envelope, 
Cload, (kWh/day), as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.097

Where:

EER = EER of walk-in (cooler=12.4 or freezer=6.3), Btu/Wh; and
Ptot,int = The total electrical load due to components sited inside 
the walk-in envelope, kWh/day

3.5 Total Energy Consumption and Normalized Energy Consumption

3.5.1 Total Energy Consumption

    Calculate the total energy load of the walk-in envelope per unit 
of surface area and non-normalized total energy consumption, 
Etot,non-glass,norm, Etot,glass,norm, 
Etot,electrical,norm, and Etot,(kWh/ft\2\/
day), as follows:
    (a) Etot,non-glass,norm, kWh/ft\2\/day,
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.098
    
    (b) Etot,glass,norm, kWh/ft\2\/day,

[[Page 55104]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.099

    (c) Etot,electrical,norm, kWh/ft\2\/day,
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.100
    
    (d) Etot, kWh/day,
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.101
    
Where:

    Qtot,EER = the total thermal load, kWh/day;
    Ptot = the total electrical load, kWh/day;
    Anon-glass,tot = total surface area of the non-glass 
envelope, ft\2\;
    Aglass,tot = total surface area glass envelope, 
ft\2\; and
    Cload = additional compressor load due to thermal 
output from electrical components contained within the envelope, 
kWh/day.

4.0 TEST METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS

4.1 Conduction Performance Testing and Measurements

4.1.1 Measuring Panel and Floor U-factors using ASTM C1363-05

    (a) Test Sample Geometry Requirements
    (1) Two (2) panels, 8'  1'' long and 4' wide  1'' must be prepared.
    (2) The panel edges must be joined using a given manufacturer's 
panel interface joining system (i.e. camlocks).
    (3) Panel Edge Test Region must be cut from the joined panels 
such that X = 2'  0.25'' and Z = 7'  0.5''. 
(See Figure 3)
(i) Exception: Walk-in panels that utilize vacuum insulated panels 
(VIP) for insulation, X = 2' 2''. The wider tolerance is 
meant to allow the cutting line, when preparing the Panel Edge Test 
Region, to match the VIP junctions such that VIP will not lose 
vacuum by being pierced by the cutting device.

    (4) Panel Core Test Region must also be cut from one of the two 
panels such that Y = 2'  0.25'' and Z = 7'  
0.5''. (See Figure 3)

(i) Exception: As above, walk-in panels that use VIP for insulation, 
Y = 2' 2''.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.206

    (b) Testing Conditions
    (1) The air temperature on the ``hot side'' of the box should be 
maintained at 75 [deg]F  1 [deg]F.

(i) Exception: When testing floors, the air temperature should be 
maintained at 55 [deg]F  1 [deg]F.

    (2) The temperature in the ``cold side'' of the envelope should 
be maintained at 35 [deg]F  1 [deg]F for the panels used 
for walk-in coolers and -10 [deg]F  1 [deg]F for panels 
used for walk-in freezers.
    (3) The air velocity should be maintained as natural convection 
conditions as described in ASTM C1363-05 (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  431.303). The test must be completed using the masked 
method and with surround panel in place as described in ASTM C1363-
05.
    (c) Required Test Samples
    (1) Wall and Ceiling Panels

(i) Cooler conditions, Panel Edge Region U-factor: 
Unon-floor panel edge,cooler
(ii) Cooler conditions, Panel Core Region U-factor: 
Unon-floor panel core,cooler
(iii) Freezer conditions, Panel Edge Region U-factor: 
Unon-floor panel edge,freezer
(iv) Freezer conditions, Panel Core Region U-factor: 
Unon-floor panel core,freezer


[[Page 55105]]


    (2) Floor Panels

(i) Cooler conditions, Floor Panel Edge Region U-factor: 
Ufloor panel edge,cooler
(ii) Cooler conditions, Floor Panel Core Region U-factor: 
Unon-floor panel core,cooler
(iii) Freezer conditions, Floor Panel Edge Region U-factor: 
Ufloor panel edge,freezer
(iv) Freezer conditions, Floor Panel Core Region U-factor: 
Ufloor panel core,freezer

4.1.2 Measuring R-Value of Insulating Foam

    (a) Follow the test procedure in ASTM C1303-10 exactly, with 
these exceptions (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.303):
    (1) Mold/Sample Panel Geometry

(i) A panel must be prepared following typical manufacturer 
injection, curing and assembly methods. The width and length of the 
panel must be 48 inches  1 inch and 96 inches  1 inch, respectively.
(ii) The panel thickness shall be equal to the desired test 
thickness.

    (2) Materials

(i) The panel materials should exactly mimic a commercially viable 
panel; that is, the panel should be exactly identical to panels sold 
by the manufacturer, with one key exception: The inner surfaces must 
be lined with a material, such as 4 to 6 mil polyethylene film, to 
prevent the foam from adhering to the panel internal surfaces. (This 
ensures that when the panel metal skin is removed for testing, the 
underlying foam is not damaged).

    (3) Sample Preparation

(i) After the foam has cured and the panel is ready to be tested, 
the facing and framing materials must be carefully removed to ensure 
that the underlying foam is not damaged or altered.
(ii) A 12-inch x 12-inch square (x desired thickness) cut from the 
exact geometric center of the panel must be used as the sample for 
completing ASTM C1303-10.

    (4) Section 6.6.2, where several types of hot plate methods are 
recommended, use ASTM C518-04 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.303), for measuring the R-value. In section 6.6.2.1 of ASTM 
C1303-10, in reference to ASTM C518-04, the mean test temperature of 
the foam during R-value measurement must be 20 +/- 4 [deg]F (-6.7 +/
- 2 [deg]C) with a temperature difference of 40 +/- 4 [deg]F (22 +/- 
2 [deg]C) for freezers and 55 +/- 4 [deg]F (12.8 +/- 2 [deg]C) with 
a temperature difference of 40 +/- 4 [deg]F (22 +/- 2 [deg]C) for 
coolers.
    (5) Section 6.6.2.1, in reference to ASTM C518-04, the mean test 
temperature of the foam during R-value measurement must be:

(i) For freezers: -6.7 +/- 2 [deg]C (20 +/- 4 [deg]F) with a 
temperature difference of 22 +/- 2 [deg]C (40 +/- 4 [deg]F)
(ii) For coolers: 12.8 +/- 2 [deg]C (55 +/- 4 [deg]F) with a 
temperature difference of 22 +/- 2 [deg]C (40 +/- 4 [deg]F)

    (b) At least one sample set must be prepared, comprised of three 
stacks, while adhering to all preparation methods and uniformity 
specifications described in ASTM C1303-10 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.303).
    (c) The value resulting LTTR for the foam shall be reported as 
Rfoam, but for the purposes of calculations in this test 
procedure calculations it will be converted to RLTTR, as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.102

Where:
Rfoam = R-value of foam as measured by ASTM C1303-10, h-
ft\2\-[deg]F/Btu.

4.1.3 U-Factor of Doors

    (a) All doors must be tested using NFRC 100-2010-E0A1.
    (b) Internal conditions:
    (1) Air temperature of 35 [deg]F (1.7 [deg]C) for cooler doors 
and -10 [deg]F (-23.3 [deg]C) for freezer doors.
    (2) Mean inside radiant temperature same as shown in (b)(1) 
above.
    (c) External conditions
    (1) Air temperature of 75 [deg]F (23.9 [deg]C).
    (2) Mean outside radiant temperature same as shown in (c)(1) 
above.
    (d) Direct solar irradiance = 0 W/m2 (0 Btu/h-ft2).
    (e) The average convective heat transfer coefficient on both 
interior and exterior surfaces of the door should be based on 
``natural convection'' as described in section 4.3 of NFRC 100-2010-
E0A1 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.303).

4.2 Steady State Infiltration Testing

    (a) Follow the test procedure in ASTM E741-06 exactly, except 
for these changes and exceptions to the procedure. (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.303):
    (1) Concentration decay method: The ``concentration decay 
method'' must be used instead of other available options described 
in ASTM E741-06.
    (2) Gas Tracer: CO2 or SF6 must be used as 
the gas tracer for all testing.
    (3) Air change rate: Measure the air change rate in 1/h, rather 
than the air change flow described in ASTM E741-06 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.303).
    (4) Spatial measurements: Spatial measurements must be taken in 
a minimum of six locations or one location/20 ft\2\ of floor area 
(whichever results in a greater number of measurements) at a height 
of 3 ft +/- 0.5 ft, at a minimum distance of 2 ft +/- 0.5 ft from 
the walk-in walls or doors.
    (b) The internal air temperature for freezers and for coolers 
shall be +/- 4 [deg]F (2 [deg]C) of the values shown in Table 
A.VI.1.
    (c) The external air temperature must be 75 [deg]F (24 [deg]C) 
+/- 5 [deg]F (2.5 [deg]C) surrounding the walk-in.
    (d) The test must be completed with the walk-in door closed.
    (e) Number of tests:
    (1) One unit must be tested at freezer conditions with an 
insulated floor in place.
    (2) One unit must be tested at cooler conditions.
    (f) Geometry of standard walk-in test unit:
    (1) External dimensions:

(i) Width = 12 ft  6''
(ii) Length = 18 ft  6''
(iii) Height = 8 ft  6''

    (2) Rectangular Shape (see Figure 4)

[[Page 55106]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.207

    (g) Equipment Specifications
    (1) One Passage Door (see Figure 4)

(i) Width = 36 inches  2 inches
(ii) Height = 78 inches  4 inches

    (2) At freezer temperature, a pressure relief valve must be in-
place and operational during testing.

(i) Valve flow rate > 8 cubic ft per minute @ 1 inch of 
H2O (250 Pa))

    (3) Prescribed wall and ceiling panel geometry

(i) Wall panels
1. Width < 4 ft  1 inch
2. Height < 8 ft  1 inch
(ii) Ceiling panels
1. Width < 4 ft  1 inch

    (h) Test Procedure Requirements
    (1) The unit must be assemble following instructions provided in 
the standard panel manufacturer installation instructions that are 
normally provided with a shipped walk-in.
    (2) The unit may be tested only after it has reached a steady-
state condition, normally greater than 24 hours after the 
refrigeration system has been activated.
    (3) The infiltration measurement period must be over a duration 
greater than one hour
    (4) The standard unit internal volume must be empty and 
unoccupied except for items necessary for testing or for cooling the 
test unit (such as test equipment or evaporator fans).
    (i) Test Results
    (1) At cooler conditions, the result following ASTM E741-06, is:

(i) First, correct the result to standard test conditions per ASTM E 
283.
(ii) The final and corrected infiltration rate, 
Vrate,cooler, (1/h)

    (2) At freezer conditions,

(i) First, correct the result to standard test conditions per ASTM E 
283.
(ii) The final and corrected infiltration rate, 
Vrate,freezer, (1/h)

    (j) Calculations
    (1) Convert Vrate,freezer and Vrate,cooler to 
Vfreezer and, Vcooler, (ft\3\/h), as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.103

    and
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.104
    
Where:

Vref-space = the total enclosed volume of the walk-in, of the test 
unit shown in Figure 4, ft\3\; and
Vrate,cooler= the infiltration rate from the cooler test, 
1/h
Vrate,freezer= the infiltration rate from the cooler 
test, 1/h

    (2) Using the architectural drawing of the test unit, calculate 
total effective crack length, CL,wall, 
CL,door-wall, CL,ceiling-floor and 
CL,(ft), as follows:

(i) CL,wall, ft:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.105

Where:

i = index for walls from 1 to 3, i = 1: wall of length 18' and 
height 8', i = 2: other wall of length 18' and height 8' and i = 3: 
wall opposite of the door of width 12' and height 8';
H = height of the walk-in unit per Figure 4, ft; and
Npanels,i = number of panels used to build wall of type i.

(ii) CL,door-wall, ft:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.106

Where:

H = height of the walk-in unit per Figure 4, ft; and
Npanels,door-wall = number of panels used to build the door wall

(iii) CL,ceiling-floor, ft:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.107


[[Page 55107]]


Where:

W = width of the walk-in unit per Figure 4, ft;
Npanels,ceiling = number of panels used to build the door wall, ft;
Pfloor = external perimeter of the floor, ft; and
L = length of the walk-in unit per Figure 4, ft.

(iv) CL, ft:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.108

Where:

CL,wall = the total crack length of the non-door walls, 
ft;
CL,door-wall = the total crack length of the door wall, 
ft; and
CL,ceiling-floor = the total crack length of the ceiling 
and floor, ft;

    (3) Calculate the infiltration per unit crack length for the 
freezer, Vfreezer-ft and cooler, Vcooler-ft, 
tests, (ft\3\/h-ft), respectively as follows:

(i) Vfreezer-ft, ft\3\/h-ft:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.109

Where:

CL = the total crack length of the test unit as shown in 
Figure 4, ft; and
Vfreezer-ft = infiltration rate from the freezer test, 
ft\3\/h.

(ii) Vcooler-ft, ft\3\/h-ft:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.110

Where:

CL = the total crack length of the test unit as shown in 
Figure 4, ft; and
Vcooler = infiltration rate from the cooler test, ft\3\/
h.

4.3 IRD Effectiveness Testing

4.3.1 IRD Test Alternatives

    (a) The following IRD effectiveness assumptions may be used:
    (1) Strip Curtains Effectiveness: E = 0.5
    (2) Air Curtains Effectiveness: E = 0.3
    (b) If an IRD is tested and found to have a higher performing 
effectiveness than the default values proposed above, that value may 
be used in the energy calculations.
    (c) All non-strip curtain and non-air curtain IRD's must be 
tested following the test procedure below.

4.3.2 Doorway Testing Geometry

    (a) IRD effectiveness tests must use the following door sizes:
    (1) The testing must be completed for each device at the correct 
representative size for small, medium and/or large doorways.
    (2) For doors with width <= 48 inches and height <= 84 inches, 
the small door test opening size may be used (``small test''): width 
= 48 inches  0.5 inch and height = 84 inches  0.5 inch
    (3) For doors with width <= 96 inches and height <= 144 inches, 
the medium door test opening size may be used (``medium test''): 
width = 96 inches  0.5 inch and height = 144 inches 
 0.5 inch
    (4) For doors of any width or height, the large door test 
opening size may be used (``large test''): Width = 144 inches  0.5 inch and height = 180 inches  0.5 inch.
    (5) For the small door test, a test volume of dimension and 
construction and door location shown in Figure 4 must be used.
    (6) For all medium and large door tests, the width and height of 
the test unit must be increased in size, directly proportional to 
the increased door size over the small door test. For example since 
the medium doorway width is twice the size of the small door, the 
test unit must be twice as wide as shown in Figure 4.

4.3.3 IRD Test Procedure Requirements

    (a) Use ASTM E741-06 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.303), with the following exceptions to the procedure:
    (1) Within 3 minutes +/- 30 seconds of achieving gas 
concentration uniformity, with the infiltration reduction device in 
place, a hinged door should be opened at an angle greater than or 
equal to 90 degrees.
    (2) The elapsed time, from zero degrees position (closed) to 
greater than or equal to 90 degrees (open) must be no longer than 5 
seconds.
    (3) The door must then be held at an angle greater than or equal 
to 90 degrees for 5 min +/- 5 seconds and then closed over a period 
no longer than 5 seconds. For non-hinged doors, the door must reach 
its maximum opened position, be held open, and reach a fully closed 
position in the same elapsed time as described above for hinge-type 
doors.
    (4) The gas concentration must be sampled again after the door 
has been closed. Samples should continue being taken until the gas 
concentration is once again uniform spatially within the walk-in.
    (5) A gas concentration sample set must be taken once the tracer 
gas has uniformly dispersed in the internal space using the 
methodology described in 4.2.

(i) Following ASTM E741-06, the calculated result is Vrate,with-
device i,j

    (6) The test should be repeated exactly as described with the 
infiltration reduction device (IRD) removed or deactivated.

(i) Following ASTM E741-06, the calculated result is Vrate,without-
device i,j

4.4 NFRC Door Testing

4.4.1 Door Conduction Testing

    (a) All doors, as defined in section 2.1(b), must be tested 
using NFRC 100-2010-E0A1 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.303).
    (1) Internal conditions:

(i) Air temperature of 35 [deg]F (1.7 [deg]C) for cooler doors and -
10 [deg]F (-23.3 [deg]C) for freezer doors.
(ii) Mean inside radiant temperature same as shown in (1)(i) above.

    (2) External conditions.

(i) Air temperature of 75 [deg]F (23.9 [deg]C).
(ii) Mean outside radiant temperature same as shown in (2)(i) above.
(iii) Direct solar irradiance = 0 Btu/h-ft\2\ (0 W/m\2\).
(iv) The average convective heat transfer coefficient on both 
interior and exterior surfaces of the door should be based on 
``natural convection'' as described in section 4.3 of NFRC 100-2010-
E0A1.

4.4.2 Door Infiltration Testing

    (a) All doors must be tested using NFRC 400-2010-E0A1 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.303).
    (b) Number of tests:
    (1) One door system of representative sizes of ``small,'' 
``medium,'' and ``large'' as defined in 4.3.2(a), that have 
identical construction (i.e. only differ in dimensional size) may be 
used for extrapolating the infiltration of other doors that only 
differ in size as described in 4.3.2(a).
    (c) Testing must be completed at six pressure differentials for 
both positive and negative pressure (exfiltration and infiltration):
    (1) 0.0401 in-H2O (10 Pa).
    (2) 0.0803 in-H2O (20 Pa).
    (3) 0.1204 in-H2O (30 Pa).
    (4) 0.1606 in-H2O (40 Pa).
    (5) 0.2007 in-H2O (50 Pa).
    (6) 0.2409 in-H2O (60 Pa).
    (d) At each of the six pressure differentials described above, 
the airflow rate must be measured.
    (e) Using the six pressure differentials and measured flow rates 
(in both directions) the values for Ci and ni, 
must be found using log-linear regression equation below:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.111

Where:

i = index corresponding to the exfiltration or infiltration test;
VdoorQ = the airflow rate, ft\3\/h (m\3\/s);
[Delta]P = the differential pressure, in-H2O (Pa);
Ci = coefficient determined based on goodness of fit to 
test data of type i; and
ni = exponent determined based on goodness of fit to test 
data of type i.

    (f) Find the average C and n:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.112
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.113
    
Where:

Cinfiltration = coefficient determined using log-linear 
regression of infiltration test;
Cexfiltration = coefficient determined using log-linear 
regression of exfiltration test;

[[Page 55108]]

ninfiltration = exponent determined using log-linear 
regression of infiltration test; and
nexfiltration = exponent determined using log-linear 
regression of exfiltration test.

    (g) If n is found to be less than 0.5 or greater than 1.0 the 
test is considered invalid and the infiltration and exfiltration 
tests must be repeated until valid value for n is determined.
    (h) Using the valid n, corresponding C and the equation below, 
determine,VdoorQ, the infiltration for the corresponding 
pressure differentials (m\3\/s) for both cooler and freezer 
application:
    (1) Coolers: 0.006 in-H2O (1.5 Pa).
    (2) Freezers: 0.014 in-H2O (3.5 Pa).
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.114
    
Where:

VdoorQ = the airflow rate, ft\3\/h (m\3\/s);
[Delta]P = the differential pressure, in-H2O (Pa);
C = coefficient determined based on goodness of fit; and
n = exponent determined based on goodness of fit.

    (i) Using the resulting VdoorQ for coolers and 
freezers, calculate the normalized infiltration rate per length of 
``operable crack perimeter,'' Vdoor normQ, as defined in 
ASTM E-283-04 (ASTM E-283-04 section 12.3.1) (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.303) must be calculated.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE10.115

Where:

VdoorQ = the airflow rate, ft\3\/h (m\3\/s); and
Pdoor crack = door operable crack perimeter, ft.

    (j) Vdoor normQ, for the corresponding representative 
door test size, may be used for calculating the infiltration rate of 
doors with differing operable crack perimeter.
    (k) If a testing entity desires such, VdoorQ may be 
found for all doors instead of calculating an infiltration rate 
based on Vdoor normQ.

[FR Doc. 2010-21364 Filed 9-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P